PRIMARY NIGHT IN AMERICA
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
'Birther Queen' Orly Taitz Goes Mainstream
California Republicans Worry About 'Birther Queen'
Candidacy, Orly Taitz Goes Mainstream
Birther queen Orly Taitz's claim to fame might not have seemed like an ideal launching pad for a Republican campaign for California Secretary of State, but now her momentum has the GOP quaking in their boots.
Taitz is facing a rather weak primary challenge from former Jacksonville Jaguar Damon Dunn on Tuesday, and Republican officials are worried that the controversial conspiracy theorist could go all the way.
As Politico reported Monday, the GOP would see a Taitz victory as a lost opportunity:
"It'd be a disaster for the Republican party," says James Lacy, a conservative GOP operative in the state. "Can you imagine if [gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman and [candidate for Lt. Gov.] Abel Maldonado -- both of whom might have a chance to win in November -- had to run with Orly Taitz as secretary of state, who would make her cockamamie issues about Obama's birth certificate problems at the forefront of her activities?"
"There is no Republican candidate for statewide office that would be willing to have her campaign with them," says Adam Probolsky, a spokesman for the Orange County Republican Party.
But while the GOP continues to bemoan the relatively powerful campaign that the birther queen has launched from the fringe, Taitz may be taking steps -- however small -- toward the mainstream.
Talking Points Memo reports Tuesday that Taitz, who is originally from Israel, attended the Republican Jewish Coalition "annual summer bash" on Sunday as a "special guest."
Other high-profile Republicans at the event included former Bush adviser Karl Rove, former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, and California Senate candidates Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.
UPDATE:
The Washington Post's Dave Weigel draws up a blueprint for an Orly Taitz victory:
Republican voters, brought out in sizable numbers by the contested primaries for governor and U.S. senator, fill out the rest of their ballot with progressively less information about their candidates. They know Taitz's name from... somewhere. And she's listed first on the ballot, thanks to the state's randomized ranking system. (Some of these voters, of course, will know and avidly support her.) She's identified on the ballot as an attorney, while Dunn is a real estate agent. They check off her name, and she wins.
Orly Taitz, Head Of Birther Movement,To Run For CA Secretary Of State
Orly Taitz, Orange County based dentist/lawyer and leader of the of
the birther movement, is planning to run for California Secretary of
State. The SF Gate reports:
Taitz made a name for herself last summer at the height of the "let's all forge up some birth certificates" craze.
Orange County
Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said Wednesday that Orly Taitz, a leader
of the so-called birther movement, has qualified as a candidate.
She plans to challenge fellow Republican Damon Dunn, a former NFL
player living in Irvine, for her party's nomination.
Ethics Office Investigates C Street Residence
By Paul Singer
Roll Call Staff
The Office of Congressional Ethics is apparently investigating whether Members of Congress sharing a residence run by a religious organization have received an improper gift in the form of below-market rent in the building. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who lives in the residence known as the “C Street house,” told Roll Call on Tuesday that he has not been contacted by ethics investigators seeking information about the residence but added, “I know some House Members have been asked for it. This is not the ethics committee. It’s the other one,” Coburn said, referring to the OCE, which was created by the House in 2007 to vet complaints and refer cases to the ethics committee.
The C Street Southeast house is owned by a Christian organization known as the Fellowship, or the Family, which runs the annual National Prayer Breakfast. A handful of Members of Congress have lived there over the past several years, and there also are regular prayer meetings there for Members who do not live in the house.
The residence became the focus of attention last summer when Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) acknowledged having an affair with the wife of his chief of staff and said his housemates at C Street attempted to intervene to end the affair.
Shortly thereafter, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), in a rambling press conference about his own extramarital affair, mentioned that he had gone to C Street for counseling.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints in April with the OCE and the Senate Ethics Committee, arguing that the Members’ living arrangements at C Street appeared to be an improper gift.
The CREW complaint cited news articles indicating that Members paid $950 a month to live at the C Street residence and argued that is far below market value for a living situation that more closely resembles a hotel than a private apartment. Citing news reports, CREW said the residents at C Street received maid and laundry service and occupied furnished rooms.
CREW asked the OCE to investigate Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). The group asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Coburn, Ensign and Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), all of whom had been reported to live at the C Street house at various times since 2003.
Coburn said the allegations are nonsense and he had not been contacted by the Senate Ethics Committee. Ensign is under a separate investigation into allegations that he helped his aide start a lobbying business as a kind of payoff for the aide’s silence about the affair.
It is not clear how far the OCE has gone in investigating the matter on the House side. A spokesman for Doyle said he was not aware of any contact from the OCE, and a spokeswoman for Stupak said the same. Inquiries to the offices of Wamp, Moran and Shuler were not returned.
Moran, who is running to replace Brownback in the Senate, has recently downplayed the amenities at C Street.
At an April campaign event with Coburn in Wichita, Kan., Moran was asked about the CREW complaint. He described the C Street house as a place where Members gather for Bible study, and he said, “It became a residence of mine several years ago. I rent a room there with other colleagues and moved my bed in and share a bathroom with other folks.”
Moran added, “I’ve never even showered at C Street.”
Moran has said he believes the complaint is groundless, and he said at the Wichita event: “I do believe that there are those people that want to make certain that one’s religious faith is not something that is mingled with their public service. ... My public service is clearly related to my beliefs as a Christian.”
Ethics lawyer C. Simon Davidson, who is a contributing writer for Roll Call, said “the fundamental issue is, ‘Did they receive a gift?’ In order to determine whether they received a gift, you would need to determine whether they received disproportionately more than what they paid for.” In short, did the Members pay a fair price for their lodging?
But Davidson pointed out, “The difficulty is that it is not clear that there is really a fair market value for this type of thing. It is such an unusual living arrangement,” more akin to a rooming house than a normal hotel or apartment building.
When the OCE opens an investigation, the office may review a matter for up to three months. After that, the OCE must refer to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a recommendation for further review or dismissal.
But if the OCE abandons an investigation after the first 30 days of an inquiry, it is not required to issue a report to the ethics panel, and the probe is not released to the public.
Conlin Wins in Iowa—Is Grassley Vulnerable?
One poll shows the GOP vet barely fending off the ex-US atty's challenge.
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 9:57 PM PDT
Roxanne Conlin, a former Iowa Attorney General, won the Democrats' Senate nomination there Tuesday night and will face incumbent Republican Chuck Grassley in the fall. Logic holds that Grassley should be vulnerable. Iowa has been trending blue, and is perfectly capable of sending Democrats to Washington—Tom Harkin, the Dem half of the state's senate pair, is pretty liberal and a big supporter of organized labor. Grassley has definitely been feeling some pressure from his state's increasingly blue hue—he flirted with negotiating on health care reform, for example. Most important, Conlin's a serious candidate with the ability to raise real money. The Democratic National Committee is certainly excited about her chances. DNC chair Tim Kaine released this statement Tuesday night:
As we look toward November, the contrast for Iowa voters could not be more clear. Voters will choose between Roxanne Conlin, a Democrat who will fight for middle-class Americans, or Republican Chuck Grassley, a senator who has repeatedly put special interests and the insurance companies ahead of the people of Iowa. At every turn Senator Grassley and his Republican colleagues in Congress have opposed President Obama—from the Recovery Act, to the Affordable Care Act, to relief for out of work Americans. Senator Grassley had the opportunity to do right by the American people by standing with the President on health reform, but decided instead to stand with insurance companies. We know where Chuck Grassley stands, and it is not with the people of Iowa. This November Iowans will have the opportunity to elect Roxanne Conlin, a candidate who will work hard every day for the people of Iowa.I'm not sure Grassley is as vulnerable as Kaine hopes. Sure, one poll had Conlin within 10 points of Grassley earlier this year. But that result hasn't been replicated since. We can tell one thing from the statement, though: in Iowa, at least, the Dems are perfectly confident about running on their record. If this turns out to be an anti-incumbent, rather than simply an anti-Dem, year, look for Conlin to at least give Grassley a scare.
Reining in the Debt Machine
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 10:15 AM PDT
The conference committee on financial reform gets down to business this week, and one of the subjects on the table is Susan Collins's provision to increase capital requirements for banks. Wall Street is dead set against this, of course, but Pat Garofalo dismisses their objections: [1]Throughout the financial reform debate, the banks have claimed that every proposed regulation would hinder credit and decrease the availability of loans. The same threat, used over and over, begins to ring a bit hollow.I sort of wonder about the advisability of this approach. Because let's face it: the banks are right. Other things equal, anything that raises capital requirements or reduces leverage does limit the size of a bank's asset base. That's the whole point. And since the vast bulk of most bank assets consists of loans in one form or another, higher capital requirements will indeed lead to them reducing the availability of loans.
Now, it's possible that the effect will be less than Wall Street says. Maybe banks will shift their portfolios in ways that keeps credit to the real economy flowing. Maybe other parts of the financial industry will take up some of the slack. Maybe. But the housing bubble of the aughts was really a credit bubble, and one of the whole points of financial reform is to put rules in place that rein in the kind of unsustainable increases in debt we saw over the past decade. It might or might not work (the financial industry is pretty good at figuring out ways around prudential regulation, and global capital flow imbalances are going to continue driving debt upward unless we get them under control), but putting a modest damper on loan availability is a feature of financial reform, not a bug.
Whether it's wise to say this very loudly I'm not sure of. But I'm not sure it's wise to deny it too loudly either.
The Strange Musings of Lindsey Graham
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 12:48 PM PDT
After taking a month-long pause from trying to scrutinize the utterances [1] of Lindsey Graham (R-SC), I was forced to revisit the issue today when he made an appearance at a press conference on a measure to block Environmental Protection Agency regulation of carbon dioxide. I'll have more on that measure soon, but perhaps you, dear readers, will have better luck making out what Graham is trying to say here:
Graham was the lone Republican [2] working with John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on climate legislation for months, but walked away from the effort [3] in mid-April, citing disagreements with Democratic leadership about legislative priorities. He's been one of the few Republicans who, for quite a while, has acknowledged that greenhouse gases are bad for the planet [4], even as he faced sharp criticism for that belief.
But ever since announcing his support for climate legislation in an op-ed with Kerry [5], he's been slowly stepping backwards from the idea that global warming is at the heart [6] of the issue. He insisted that the climate bill was about energy independence–none of that environmental crap.
So what to make of today's latest statement? I have no idea. He also added this tidbit on the oil spill, which was at least the right sentiment, though it misinterprets the fundamental reason that fossil-fuel emissions are a threat to human health:
Graham suggested that the senators he was working with up until a few weeks ago should "start over and scale down your ambitions."
I'm in the wing of the Republican Party that has no problem with trying to find ways to clean up our air. We can have a debate about global warming, and I'm not in the camp that believes man-made emissions are contributing overwhelmingly to global climate change, but I do believe the planet is heating up. But I am in the camp of believing that clean air is a noble purpose for every Republican to pursue. The key is to make it business friendly.So, he now says he doesn't think that man-made emissions are causing the planet to warm—but that the planet is warming. And that emissions are bad for us, just not bad in the way that most people who care about emissions think they're bad. Right? I give up.
Graham was the lone Republican [2] working with John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on climate legislation for months, but walked away from the effort [3] in mid-April, citing disagreements with Democratic leadership about legislative priorities. He's been one of the few Republicans who, for quite a while, has acknowledged that greenhouse gases are bad for the planet [4], even as he faced sharp criticism for that belief.
But ever since announcing his support for climate legislation in an op-ed with Kerry [5], he's been slowly stepping backwards from the idea that global warming is at the heart [6] of the issue. He insisted that the climate bill was about energy independence–none of that environmental crap.
So what to make of today's latest statement? I have no idea. He also added this tidbit on the oil spill, which was at least the right sentiment, though it misinterprets the fundamental reason that fossil-fuel emissions are a threat to human health:
Would you let your kids go swimming in the Gulf now? Why do you think burning that stuff and breathing it is good for you?UPDATE: The plot thickens: Now Graham tells Congress Daily that he would actually vote against [7] the bill he helped write because he doesn't like the way it handles offshore drilling [8] (which, of course, has become a very important issue in the past weeks). "What I have withdrawn from is a bill that basically restricts drilling in a way that is never going to happen in the future," Graham said. "I wanted it to safely occur in the future; I don't want to take it off the table."
Graham suggested that the senators he was working with up until a few weeks ago should "start over and scale down your ambitions."
Is the Climate Bill Going to Pass?
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 3:44 PM PDT
[1]People are constantly asking me, "Is the climate bill going to pass?" The answer is: I don't know. No one knows. Confident predictions either way are mostly posing. The situation, like so much in politics right now, is incredibly fluid.There are five things to watch in coming months that will give us a better sense of how the bill might fare.
1. The Murkowski resolution
On Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will introduce a "resolution of disapproval" that would short-circuit EPA's ability to regulate carbon pollution. By the mysterious alchemy of Beltway media, the vote has become a bellwether for the climate bill's chances.
Murkowski's resolution is filed under the authority of the Congressional Review Act [2], a rarely used law that allows Congress to overturn the actions of an executive branch agency. (It's only been used successfully once, to overturn some Clinton-era ergonomics regulations in 2001.) It would reverse EPA's "endangerment finding," the key legal document that establishes the agency's obligation to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Whatever Murkowski says—and her rhetoric behind this has been an exercise is grotesque bad faith—the resolution is entirely nihilistic [3]. All the endangerment finding says is that climate change is a danger to public health. To protest that finding is to protest climate change science.
If passed, the resolution would wreak havoc on the vehicle fuel-economy standards worked out between the EPA, California, and auto companies (and the standards under discussion for 2017 forward). It would also disrupt the very legislative efforts Murkowski claims to support. The cap-and-trade system in the climate bill is run by the EPA, as a title under the Clean Air Act; how can that be legally kosher if the EPA is forbidden from judging greenhouse gases a danger?
But of course it won't pass; nobody, Murkowski included, thinks it has a chance. If it got through the Senate, it wouldn't get through the House; if it got through the House, Obama would veto it. It's an act of pure grandstanding on Murkowski's part.
But pundits have decided that the vote is an indicator of support for the climate change bill. The resolution needs 51 votes, to pass. If it breaks 45 votes, it's trouble. If it breaks 50, it's doom.
2. Committee chairs
Last Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) notified Senate committee chairs [4] that he plans on moving a comprehensive energy bill in July. He asked them to prepare ideas, specifically ideas to address the BP Gulf oil disaster. Receiving letters were Max Baucus (Finance), Jeff Bingaman (Energy), Barbara Boxer (Environment), Chris Dodd (Banking), Patrick Leahy (Judiciary), Joe Lieberman (Homeland Security), Blanche Lincoln (Agriculture), and John Rockefeller (Intelligence). (Weirdly, at least according to Politico, Kerry himself, chair of Foreign Relations, didn't receive one.)
Reid pointedly did not say whether he planned to model his legislation on the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act [5] or whether it would contain a carbon cap or carbon-pricing system at all. He's trying to get the lay of the land so he can put together a bill that can pass. Much will depend on what the chairfolk tell him. In particular, what he hears from Bingaman (who has been stumping for an energy-only bill) and Baucus (who has been conspicuously quiet on the subject) will have an outsized effect. They are pivotal Movers of Moderates.
3. Lugar's bill
Today, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) will introduce his own energy legislation [6], which does not contain a cap-and-trade system. If it becomes clear that carbon pricing doesn't have the votes this year, it could serve as a "bipartisan" model for Reid to fall back on.
While it's clear a carbon cap is crucial [7] to the long-term success of a climate-change mitigation program, Lugar's bill [8] is actually a fairly decent fallback—as good or better than the energy bill that came out of Bingaman's committee last year. To quote myself [9]:
4. Oil spill
BP seems to have had some modest success [10] in getting a cap in place, siphoning off about 10,000 barrels a day of the 20,000 (or so—nobody knows for sure) gushing into the Gulf. But that's probably the last good news until at least August, when BP thinks it can have the relief wells drilled.
Until then the spill will be in the news, yielding more and more pictures of oil-choked wildlife [11]. Oil's going to be coming up on more and more beaches, including in Florida, and in the background hovers the unthinkable prospect of a hurricane [12] that could carry crude oil miles into the fragile Gulf coastal marshes and wetlands.
How will this drip-drip horror affect the public's appetite for comprehensive climate and energy legislation? On one hand, it seems inevitable that support for offshore drilling will continue to decline. In a Friday CBS poll [13], a majority opposed expanded offshore drilling for the first time. Time will tell how much that anger translates into ambition to escape oil, but clearly the anger is rising.
On the other hand, every day the spill goes on Obama looks more and more helpless and the federal government looks more and more hapless. If the public is disgusted by the feds' performance, will it be keen to let the feds pass a massive, far-reaching piece of legislation?
5. Obama
What will Obama do in the face of public anger over the spill? His attempt at keeping his distance and muting talk of energy policy obviously hasn't worked. He's figured out he needs some kind of positive, muscular response, and since he can't pilot a Federal Super Submarine down into the Gulf and fire lasers at the spill, legislation is about the best option on the table. In his speech last week [14], he came out far more strongly behind the climate/energy bill than he has previously, saying "I intend to find" the votes and "we will get it done."
Will he follow up on that promise with the same kind of full-court press he put behind the health-care reform bill? A senior administration official told Politico [15], "It's the next big thing." We'll see.
This post [16] was produced by Grist [17] as part of the Climate Desk [1] collaboration.
But of course it won't pass; nobody, Murkowski included, thinks it has a chance. If it got through the Senate, it wouldn't get through the House; if it got through the House, Obama would veto it. It's an act of pure grandstanding on Murkowski's part.
But pundits have decided that the vote is an indicator of support for the climate change bill. The resolution needs 51 votes, to pass. If it breaks 45 votes, it's trouble. If it breaks 50, it's doom.
2. Committee chairs
Last Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) notified Senate committee chairs [4] that he plans on moving a comprehensive energy bill in July. He asked them to prepare ideas, specifically ideas to address the BP Gulf oil disaster. Receiving letters were Max Baucus (Finance), Jeff Bingaman (Energy), Barbara Boxer (Environment), Chris Dodd (Banking), Patrick Leahy (Judiciary), Joe Lieberman (Homeland Security), Blanche Lincoln (Agriculture), and John Rockefeller (Intelligence). (Weirdly, at least according to Politico, Kerry himself, chair of Foreign Relations, didn't receive one.)
Reid pointedly did not say whether he planned to model his legislation on the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act [5] or whether it would contain a carbon cap or carbon-pricing system at all. He's trying to get the lay of the land so he can put together a bill that can pass. Much will depend on what the chairfolk tell him. In particular, what he hears from Bingaman (who has been stumping for an energy-only bill) and Baucus (who has been conspicuously quiet on the subject) will have an outsized effect. They are pivotal Movers of Moderates.
3. Lugar's bill
Today, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) will introduce his own energy legislation [6], which does not contain a cap-and-trade system. If it becomes clear that carbon pricing doesn't have the votes this year, it could serve as a "bipartisan" model for Reid to fall back on.
While it's clear a carbon cap is crucial [7] to the long-term success of a climate-change mitigation program, Lugar's bill [8] is actually a fairly decent fallback—as good or better than the energy bill that came out of Bingaman's committee last year. To quote myself [9]:
[Lugar's] plan is admirable for its simplicity and the clarity of its goals: capturing energy efficiency, diversifying and cleaning up the electricity sector, and reducing foreign oil dependence. Each of those goals is served by a range of policy instruments, from building efficiency standards to loan guarantees for clean energy generators to higher CAFE standards.We'll see what reaction, if any, the bill gets upon its official debut.
4. Oil spill
BP seems to have had some modest success [10] in getting a cap in place, siphoning off about 10,000 barrels a day of the 20,000 (or so—nobody knows for sure) gushing into the Gulf. But that's probably the last good news until at least August, when BP thinks it can have the relief wells drilled.
Until then the spill will be in the news, yielding more and more pictures of oil-choked wildlife [11]. Oil's going to be coming up on more and more beaches, including in Florida, and in the background hovers the unthinkable prospect of a hurricane [12] that could carry crude oil miles into the fragile Gulf coastal marshes and wetlands.
How will this drip-drip horror affect the public's appetite for comprehensive climate and energy legislation? On one hand, it seems inevitable that support for offshore drilling will continue to decline. In a Friday CBS poll [13], a majority opposed expanded offshore drilling for the first time. Time will tell how much that anger translates into ambition to escape oil, but clearly the anger is rising.
On the other hand, every day the spill goes on Obama looks more and more helpless and the federal government looks more and more hapless. If the public is disgusted by the feds' performance, will it be keen to let the feds pass a massive, far-reaching piece of legislation?
5. Obama
What will Obama do in the face of public anger over the spill? His attempt at keeping his distance and muting talk of energy policy obviously hasn't worked. He's figured out he needs some kind of positive, muscular response, and since he can't pilot a Federal Super Submarine down into the Gulf and fire lasers at the spill, legislation is about the best option on the table. In his speech last week [14], he came out far more strongly behind the climate/energy bill than he has previously, saying "I intend to find" the votes and "we will get it done."
Will he follow up on that promise with the same kind of full-court press he put behind the health-care reform bill? A senior administration official told Politico [15], "It's the next big thing." We'll see.
This post [16] was produced by Grist [17] as part of the Climate Desk [1] collaboration.
Grand Isle Bird Rescue June 4
JEFFERSON PARISH, La. – Jeff Phillips, Environmental Contaminants Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, rescues a Brown Pelican from the Barataria Bay in Grand Isle, La., June 4, 2010. State and federal wildlife services pulled approximately 60 Brown Pelicans, in the last two days, covered in oil from the Barataria Bay area. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ann Marie Gorden.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Responders to Hold Plaquemines Parish Community Expos
HOUMA, La. – Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency and other state and partner agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, will host two open house Expos Tuesday and Thursday in Plaquemines Parish at 6 p.m. CDT.
The open house expos will offer Plaquemines residents the opportunity to engage one-on-one with experts about the techniques, strategies and materials being used in the spill response.
“We want to keep the local communities informed with the most accurate and timely information we have,” said Coast Guard Capt. Roger Leferriere, Coast Guard unified commander at the Incident Command Post in Houma, La. “We want to communicate with the public and provide them with first-hand information on the topics that concern them most.”
The expos will feature experts and representatives from responding agencies who will answer questions and provide visual information on the various tools, equipment and strategies that are being used in the response, including booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Agencies will be available to address concerns about environmental quality, wildlife, safety and resources available to residents. Information will also be available on the Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and volunteer and employment efforts.
Claims representatives will be available for any questions or concerns residents might have on the claims process.
Plaquemines Parish (West)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 6 p.m. CDT -- Belle Chasse Auditorium, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Plaquemines Parish (East)
Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6 p.m. CDT -- Phoenix High School, 13073 Highway 15, Braithwaite, LA 70040
The open house expos will offer Plaquemines residents the opportunity to engage one-on-one with experts about the techniques, strategies and materials being used in the spill response.
“We want to keep the local communities informed with the most accurate and timely information we have,” said Coast Guard Capt. Roger Leferriere, Coast Guard unified commander at the Incident Command Post in Houma, La. “We want to communicate with the public and provide them with first-hand information on the topics that concern them most.”
The expos will feature experts and representatives from responding agencies who will answer questions and provide visual information on the various tools, equipment and strategies that are being used in the response, including booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Agencies will be available to address concerns about environmental quality, wildlife, safety and resources available to residents. Information will also be available on the Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and volunteer and employment efforts.
Claims representatives will be available for any questions or concerns residents might have on the claims process.
Plaquemines Parish (West)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 6 p.m. CDT -- Belle Chasse Auditorium, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Plaquemines Parish (East)
Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6 p.m. CDT -- Phoenix High School, 13073 Highway 15, Braithwaite, LA 70040
BP Announces First Payment on Barrier Islands Project for State of Louisiana
HOUSTON -- As part of the previously announced commitment to fund the entire $360 million cost of six berms in the Louisiana barrier islands project, BP today announced that it will make an immediate payment of $60 million to the State of Louisiana. In a letter to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and as previously announced, BP detailed its plans to make payments in stages based on the project’s completion milestones.
The initial $60 million payment is intended to permit the State to begin work on the project immediately. BP will then make five additional $60 million payments when the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, which is chaired by Garret Graves, certifies that the project has satisfied 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and then 100% completion milestones. The entire $360 million will be funded by the completion of the project. Under the arrangement announced today, BP plans to make payments directly to the State of Louisiana rather than establishing an escrow fund for this project.
“We are committed to doing everything we can to protect the coastline and reduce the impact of the oil and gas spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We understand that the United States Coast Guard and the State of Louisiana want this project to proceed with urgency, so we want to ensure that funding is immediately available to begin construction of the berms,” said Bob Dudley, Managing Director.
BP already has provided $170 million to Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to help with those state’s response costs and to help promote their tourism industries. The company also has paid approximately $51 million in compensation to people and companies affected by the spill.
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill
Prepared by the Joint Information Center
UPDATED June 7, 2010 7 PM
* For a full timeline of the Administration-wide response, visit the White House Blog.
PAST 24 HOURS
President Meets with Cabinet Members and Other Top Officials at White House
President Obama met with members of his cabinet and other top U.S. government officials involved in the ongoing administration-wide response to the BP oil spill in the Cabinet Room at the White House.
Following the meeting, the President again reiterated the federal government’s commitment to ensuring that BP fulfills every claim obligation. “We are going to insist that money flows quickly—in a timely basis—so that you don’t have a shrimp processor or a fisherman who’s going out of business before BP finally makes up its mind as to whether or not it’s going to pay out,” the President said. “That’s going to be one of our top priorities, because we know that no matter how successful we are over the next few weeks in some of the containment efforts, the damages are going to be there.” A transcript is available here.
Admiral Allen and Press Secretary Gibbs Provide Operational Update
National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs provided a briefing to inform the American public and answer questions on the progress of the administration-wide response to the BP oil spill from the White House press briefing room. A transcript is available here.
Admiral Allen included a slide in his briefing that presents a three-dimensional view of the response and the four different areas of operations: in the subsea area near the well; on the surface above the well; within 50 miles of the coast; and on the shoreline. “We’re no longer dealing with a large, monolithic spill,” Allen said. “We’re dealing with an aggregation of hundreds or thousands of patches of oil that are going a lot of different directions. And we’ve had to adapt and we need to adapt to be able to meet that threat.”
BP Continues to Capture Some Oil and Gas Using Containment Device
BP continues to capture some oil and burn some gas at the surface using its containment dome technique, which is being executed under the federal government’s direction. After cutting off a portion of the riser, BP placed a containment device over it in order to capture oil at its source.
EPA Continues to Monitor Air, Water and Sediment Quality in the Gulf Coast
According to the most recent data, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that air quality levels for ozone and particulates are normal on the Gulf coastline for this time of year. Likewise, water and sediment samples along the Gulf Coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.
EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with petroleum products in the air along the coastline at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. People may be able to smell some of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems. Anyone experiencing these and other symptoms should call the Medical Support Line at 1-888-623-0287.
Fishing Restrictions Decrease by One Percent; 68 Percent Remains Open
Today, NOAA opened 430 square miles of previously closed fishing area off the Florida panhandle – the northern boundary now ends at the Florida federal-state water line on the east side of Choctawhatchee Bay. This area was initially closed on June 5 as a precaution because oil was projected to be within the area over the next 48 hours. However, the review of satellite imagery, radar and aerial data indicated that oil had not moved into the area.
The closed area now represents 78,264 square miles, which is approximately 32 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters—the closed area does not apply to any state waters. This leaves approximately 68 percent of Gulf federal waters available for fishing. Closing fishing in these areas is a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood from the Gulf will remain safe for consumers. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
Administration Continues to Oversee BP’s Claims Process
The administration will continue to hold the responsible parties accountable for repairing the damage, and repaying Americans who’ve suffered a financial loss as a result of the BP oil spill. BP reports that 38,052 claims have been opened, from which more than $48.6 million have been disbursed. No claims have been denied to date. There are 514 claims adjusters on the ground. To file a claim, visit www.bp.com/claims or call BP’s helpline at 1-800-440-0858. Those who have already pursued the BP claims process and are not satisfied with BP’s resolution can call the Coast Guard at (800) 280-7118.
SBA Economic Injury Assistance Loans Approved for Louisiana
SBA has approved 43 economic injury assistance loans to date, totaling $1,8 million for small businesses in Louisiana impacted by the BP oil spill. Additionally, the agency has granted deferments on 301 existing SBA disaster loans in the Gulf Coast region, totaling $1,253,800 per month in payments. For information on assistance loans for affected businesses, visit the SBA’s Web site at www.sba.gov/services/
Successful Controlled Burn
Favorable weather conditions allowed responders to conduct a successful controlled burn operation. As part of a coordinated response that combines tactics deployed above water, below water, offshore, and close to coastal areas, controlled burns efficiently remove oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.
By the Numbers to Date:
- The administration has authorized 17,500 National Guard troops from Gulf Coast states to participate in the response to the BP oil spill.
- More than 22,000 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife and cleanup vital coastlines.
- More than 3,100 vessels are responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts—in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.
- Approximately 2.19 million feet of containment boom and 2.46 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill—and approximately 702,000 feet of containment boom and 2.5 million feet of sorbent boom are available.
- Approximately 15.5 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
- Approximately 1.09 million gallons of total dispersant have been deployed—779,000 on the surface and 317,000 subsea. More than 469,000 gallons are available.
- More than 125 controlled burns have been conducted, efficiently removing a total of more than 3.2 million gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.
- 17 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.
- For information about the response effort, visit www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.
com.
- For specific information about the federal-wide response, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/
deepwater-bp-oil-spill.
- To contact the Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, call (985) 902-5231.
- To volunteer, or to report oiled shoreline, call (866) 448-5816. Volunteer opportunities can also be found here.
- To submit your vessel as a vessel of opportunity skimming system, or to submit alternative response technology, services, or products, call (281) 366-5511.
- To report oiled wildlife, call (866) 557-1401. Messages will be checked hourly.
- For information about validated environmental air and water sampling results, visit www.epa.gov/bpspill.
- For National Park Service updates about potential park closures, resources at risk, and NPS actions to protect vital park space and wildlife, visit http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/
oil-spill-response.htm.
- For Fish and Wildlife Service updates about response along the Gulf Coast and the status of national wildlife refuges, visit http://www.fws.gov/home/
dhoilspill/.
- For daily updates on fishing closures, visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.
- For information on assistance loans for affected businesses, visit the SBA’s Web site at www.sba.gov/services/
disasterassistance, call (800) 659-2955 (800) 877-8339 for the hearing impaired), or email disastercustomerservice@sba. gov.
- To file a claim with BP, visit www.bp.com/claims or call BP’s helpline at (800) 440-0858. A BP fact sheet with additional information is available here. Those who have already pursued the BP claims process and are not satisfied with BP’s resolution, can call the Coast Guard at (800) 280-7118. More information about what types of damages are eligible for compensation under the Oil Pollution Act as well as guidance on procedures to seek that compensation can be found here.
- In addition, www.disasterassistance.gov has been enhanced to provide a one-stop shop for information on how to file a claim with BP and access additional assistance—available in English and Spanish.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Deploys Additional High Powered Research Aircraft to Gulf to Help Monitor Air Quality
WASHINGTON -- A second National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration WP-3D Orion aircraft was deployed to the Gulf today to build on current air quality monitoring efforts near the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The NOAA plane conducted two flights over and around the spill site to detect pollutants and their reaction products released into the atmosphere by the oil, as well as the pollutants and smoke from controlled burns. The flights will enable researchers to better understand the spill’s atmospheric effects.
As part of the federal government's ongoing response to the BP spill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues its extensive air quality monitoring along the Gulf Coast. In this case, NOAA and EPA are working collaboratively to take advantage of NOAA’s highly specialized atmospheric research capabilities, which can detect concentrations of compounds in the atmosphere with greater sensitivity than standard operational monitoring flights. The P-3 is currently involved in a major climate and air quality study in California, called Calnex, which is why it is already properly outfitted for this emergency gulf mission. Another NOAA P-3 is also in the Gulf and has done multiple flights to help monitor the location of the loop current.
“We’re taking every step we can to ensure the health and safety of Gulf Coast residents and oil spill responders,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The data we gather through this next step in our partnership with NOAA will enhance efforts to monitor the air we breathe and better prepare us to address the long-term impacts of the BP oil spill.”
"Ensuring the health and safety of Gulf Coast families is a priority for NOAA,” said Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "We want to make certain that the air is safe for coastal residents as well as workers on the water. We are pleased to partner with EPA in this effort and to provide state-of-the-science air quality instruments in our flying laboratory aboard the P-3 aircraft."
Both NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson were in the Gulf region last week overseeing the ongoing federal response operations.
Operated by NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, the NOAA WP-3 Orion “hurricane hunter” plane is currently configured as a high-tech flying chemistry laboratory that can collect and provide near real-time air-quality data to scientists on the aircraft and on the ground. Scientists onboard will also collect air samples that will be sent to the laboratory to be analyzed for additional compounds.
Much of the sampling will be conducted below 1,000 feet, in what is called the marine boundary layer, where scientists expect most of the pollutants to be trapped. They will collect data from as close to the sea surface as allowed by safe aircraft operation, with plans to go as low as 200 feet, to monitor for pollutants near the surface and up to 1,000 feet or more to track how the pollutants move through the air. The many measurements gathered from the flights will enable scientists to distinguish emissions associated with the leaking oil well from other sources, such as ships and aircraft operating in the area.
Both NOAA and EPA will combine their measurements with model simulations to provide a broader overall picture of air quality impacts from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
As part of the federal government's ongoing response to the BP spill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues its extensive air quality monitoring along the Gulf Coast. In this case, NOAA and EPA are working collaboratively to take advantage of NOAA’s highly specialized atmospheric research capabilities, which can detect concentrations of compounds in the atmosphere with greater sensitivity than standard operational monitoring flights. The P-3 is currently involved in a major climate and air quality study in California, called Calnex, which is why it is already properly outfitted for this emergency gulf mission. Another NOAA P-3 is also in the Gulf and has done multiple flights to help monitor the location of the loop current.
“We’re taking every step we can to ensure the health and safety of Gulf Coast residents and oil spill responders,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The data we gather through this next step in our partnership with NOAA will enhance efforts to monitor the air we breathe and better prepare us to address the long-term impacts of the BP oil spill.”
"Ensuring the health and safety of Gulf Coast families is a priority for NOAA,” said Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "We want to make certain that the air is safe for coastal residents as well as workers on the water. We are pleased to partner with EPA in this effort and to provide state-of-the-science air quality instruments in our flying laboratory aboard the P-3 aircraft."
Both NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson were in the Gulf region last week overseeing the ongoing federal response operations.
Operated by NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, the NOAA WP-3 Orion “hurricane hunter” plane is currently configured as a high-tech flying chemistry laboratory that can collect and provide near real-time air-quality data to scientists on the aircraft and on the ground. Scientists onboard will also collect air samples that will be sent to the laboratory to be analyzed for additional compounds.
Much of the sampling will be conducted below 1,000 feet, in what is called the marine boundary layer, where scientists expect most of the pollutants to be trapped. They will collect data from as close to the sea surface as allowed by safe aircraft operation, with plans to go as low as 200 feet, to monitor for pollutants near the surface and up to 1,000 feet or more to track how the pollutants move through the air. The many measurements gathered from the flights will enable scientists to distinguish emissions associated with the leaking oil well from other sources, such as ships and aircraft operating in the area.
Both NOAA and EPA will combine their measurements with model simulations to provide a broader overall picture of air quality impacts from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
Obama trumpets benefits of healthcare
- 06/08/10 01:22 PM ET
President Barack Obama on Tuesday sought to shift the nation's attention to a sunnier topic: the coming benefits from the Democrats’ recently-passed healthcare reforms.Surrounded by a sea of seniors in Wheaton, Md., Obama defended the legislation from GOP attacks and trumpeted the arrival of one of earliest benefits of the new law: a $250 rebate to tens of thousands of seniors caught in the coverage gap of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit — a gap known unendearingly as the “doughnut hole.” The government will begin mailing out those checks on Thursday.
“Frankly, we shouldn’t have had a doughnut hole to begin with,” Obama said in a thinly veiled shot at the Republicans who created the coverage gap.
Tuesday’s televised town hall is an early sign that Democrats continue to see their health reform law as a political winner in the lead-up to November’s midterm elections. It’s also an indication that, as each new benefit in the law arrives, Democrats don’t intend to let it go unnoticed among a public that remains skeptical of the sweeping reforms.
The town hall came just a day after the administration launched the first phase of a five-year, $250 million program designed to bolster insurance rate review procedures. The voluntary initiative — also a provision of the new health reform law — will provide $1 million grants in 2010 for states to improve their oversight of insurance rate hikes.
Still, Republican leaders, who were unanimous in their opposition to the health reforms earlier in the year, remain unconvinced of the law’s merits. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that other provisions of the bill will hike drug costs for a majority of the nation’s seniors.
“Behind every $250 check are more than three seniors who will be paying more as a result of this bill,” McConnell said on the Senate floor prior to Obama’s remarks.
“Americans never wanted this bill,” he added, “and they’re reminded everyday why they opposed it.”
Obama also announced the launch of a new initiative designed to eliminate fraud in the healthcare system. The program — a partnership between the Health and Human Services and Justice departments — aims to establish better cooperation between state and federal regulators, while installing stiffer penalties for criminal offenders. The White House says it will cut Medicare fraud in half by 2012.
“It’s appalling,” Obama said of the fraud, “and we’re going to put a stop to it.”
Sen. Sanders predicts Fed audit amendment will survive conference
By Jordan Fabian - 06/08/10 12:44 PM ET The author of the Senate's amendment to audit the Federal Reserve expressed confidence on Tuesday that the amendment will remain in Wall Street reform legislation once the House and Senate merge their two bills.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Vermont Public Radio that the measure has the support of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
"I think it will," he said when asked if his amendment will be in the final bill. "I am going to do everything I can to make sure it is in there."During debate over the legislation in April, the self-described democratic socialist modified the controversial measure over concerns that it would strip
the Fed of its independence in the area of monetary policy.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported the effort to open up the Fed to greater scrutiny, citing its role in the 2008 financial bailouts.
The Sanders amendment requires a "one-time" audit of the central bank concerning loans it made to large financial firms since 2007.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the author of the more stringent House version, said that Sanders "sold out" on his amendment immediately following his decision.
But Sanders said his amendment will survive conference.
"I think the American people, whether they are conservative — a lot of cons want to see [us] audit the Fed, a lot of progressives want to see audit the Fed," he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Vermont Public Radio that the measure has the support of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
"I think it will," he said when asked if his amendment will be in the final bill. "I am going to do everything I can to make sure it is in there."During debate over the legislation in April, the self-described democratic socialist modified the controversial measure over concerns that it would strip
the Fed of its independence in the area of monetary policy.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported the effort to open up the Fed to greater scrutiny, citing its role in the 2008 financial bailouts.
The Sanders amendment requires a "one-time" audit of the central bank concerning loans it made to large financial firms since 2007.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the author of the more stringent House version, said that Sanders "sold out" on his amendment immediately following his decision.
But Sanders said his amendment will survive conference.
"I think the American people, whether they are conservative — a lot of cons want to see [us] audit the Fed, a lot of progressives want to see audit the Fed," he said.
Obama inks health care talking points
He tries to market the overhaul to voters as midterms approach.
President Obama put the spotlight back on health care Tuesday when he held a town hall with senior citizens about a rebate check under the recently passed overhaul.
After talking about the Gulf Coast oil spill and financial regulation for weeks, the president used the opportunity to get in some pre-election jabs at Republicans.
"They still think that none of this should have happened, they don't think you should be getting these rebates," he said at a senior center in greater D.C. as seniors across the nation phoned in to listen.
Obama's appearance was part of an ongoing effort by the White House to highlight favorable aspects of the law.
Senior citizens will get a $250 check to offset the Medicare Part D donut hole left by prescription drug costs. The president addressed concerns about potential fraud and cautioned seniors to be wary of such scams.
But Obama wasn't there just to discuss the rebate, as the Washington Post reports:
For the president, the public relations event is an effort to move past the year of hearings, speeches and protests. But on Capitol Hill, the two parties -- and particularly the Republicans -- are still arguing about health care.Republicans are still talking about repealing the law.
"The administration and congressional Democrats think the debate over health-care reform is in the rear-view mirror, but they couldn't be more wrong," Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence told the Post. "House Republicans will not rest until we repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel."
Conservative John Goodman previewed what that could look like in a column in Health Care News .
"Although it's too early to tell, next year we may have a very different Congress in Washington," he began, listing a series of steps conservatives could take to reduce the impact of the health law.
Goodman advised that Republican lawmakers repeal state-specific benefits in the health plan, such as the Medicaid funding promised to Massachusetts and Vermont. Next up in his plan is to get rid of employer mandates and small business fees.
Some states continue to fight the health law, too.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli argued that Congress went beyond its jurisdiction by passing the bill in a court filing Monday, the Virginian-Pilot reports.
A state law bans imposing health care mandates on Virginians, but the federal law would overrule that unless a judge intervenes.
"If the government prevails... then Congress will have been granted virtually unlimited power to order you to buy anything," Cuccinnelli said in a statement.
Other states are sampling new approaches touted in the overhaul.
Pennsylvania has spent millions of dollars on "patient-centered medical homes" that are supposed to help streamline efforts among providers.
The pilot program basically assigns a primary-care doctor to oversee treatment for complicated or long-term illnesses. The provider works with colleagues and an oversight group to ensure that there is no doubling of efforts or wasted resources.
Instead, the creation of a statewide clearinghouse for medical homes has increased costs as well as personnel needed to treat patients, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The article notes that there are cost benefits in the long term when doctors coordinate what they do and eliminate redundancies or inefficiencies. The medical home approach can also make it cheaper and easier to control long-term illnesses like diabetes.
There are more hiccups when it comes to updating health technology.
Democrats got a head start on updating dated hospital equipment and digitizing patient records by included money for that in the 2009 stimulus package.
But the program's eligibility criteria has proven too strict for even the most tech-savvy of health providers, the New York Times reports.
Health information technology experts at premier institutions like Kaiser Permanente and Mayo Clinic have complained to the White House that the plan sets unrealistic goals and unachievable deadlines.
Some told the Times that "the issue offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when good intentions meet the reality of America’s fragmented health care system."
Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.
Banks Pay Colleges for Students' Names, Addresses
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 11:43 AM PDT
Through inconspicuous collegiate-corporate relationships known as "affinity agreements," schools and their alumni associations not only profit from selling students' personal information, they also earn royalties for each student who keeps a university-sponsored credit card open for more than 90 days. Schools can earn up to three times more—about $3 per cardholder—when students carry a balance on these cards, and some colleges earn bonuses when students incur debt.
The Huffington Post obtained 17 contracts detailing affinity agreements between universities and banks, but it's unclear just how many of the nation's 2,700 four-year colleges are involved. At Brown, Bank of America agreed in 2006 to pay $2.3 million over seven years for students' names and addresses. At Michigan in 2003, the bank agreed to pay $35.5 million over 11 years for its student information. In total, BOA has affinity contracts with some 700 schools, and more than 100 schools are believed to have affinity agreements with other financial institutions, according to the Huffington Post.
Bank of America claims it's not taking advantage of students; rather, it's amassing a new base of loyal customers. But consumer advocates beg to differ, questioning whether colleges with affinity agreements are doing enough to safeguard young people from financial ruin. "Universities should place the welfare of their students as their highest priority," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups. "[They] shouldn't sell them off for profit."
Rage: Why Obama won't and can't give you what you want
I pose this question because over the last two weeks, I have watched and listened with increasing frustration to the criticism that President Obama hasn't shown enough emotion, enough rage over the ceaseless flow of BP oil choking the Gulf Coast. Sure, I, too, have asked the president to connect more with the American people over this disaster. To show a little emotion. But I have never and would never advise Obama to do what movie director Spike Lee advised last week on CNN: "One time, go off!"
We all know one of the reasons why Obama won't "go off."' He's just not wired that way. Despite the feisty interview he did with NBC News's Matt Lauer that aired this morning, overt expressions of rage (or any overheated emotion) are not in his personality. That's why Maureen Dowd has consistently dubbed him President Spock. And Obama's cool, "say what I mean and mean what I say" demeanor is exacerbated by his reliance on the TelePrompTer.
But he can't "go off." And I want to talk about why.
Doug Graham, a Facebook friend from Birmingham, Mich., sent me a note after my post on Obama's third trip to Louisiana last Friday. His words gave voice to my frustration and anticipated this piece.
What the media does not comprehend about Obama and his response on the Gulf Crisis is that he is responding in anger the best that he can!
Black men, especially educated black men, grew up with images of non-violent protests in the face of aggressive policemen, consequences of actually "displaying anger" like the Rodney King situation and are conditioned not to "act out" in crisis situations. Even in sports, you see "fits of rage" with black athletes, but even that is more controlled than, say, hockey, where if black athletes were to display that level of rage -- it would be called a riot!
If Obama were to display anger he runs the risk of Angry Black Man syndrome, becoming too scary or threatening to the public, immediately non-presidential!Ah, the Angry Black Man. That boogeyman who haunts many African American men, particularly professionals, whether they acknowledge it or not. Who scares us into zen-like tranquility when fury is warranted, whether we are prone to it or not. "You always have to be at your best behavior, because if you're not you never know what's going to go wrong. You never know who's perceiving you differently," said Andy Shallal, the owner of Busboys and Poets, in a video for "Being a Black Man," The Post's 2007 Peabody Award-winning series.
The 2009 arrest of renowned Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in his own home after he mouthed off to cops investigating reports of a break-in there is a prime example of what could go wrong.
Americans expect their presidents to be cool, calm and collected in a crisis. But we have to recognize that Obama already has this manner (or skill) mastered because it attaches to any black professional, especially those in positions of authority.
"Blacks at that level have to operate like that," Rev. Al Sharpton told me, "Whether you're Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas or Dick Parsons." That was an intriguing slate to ponder. Powell, Thomas and Parsons are three very different men. And yet the way they operate in their respective professions is very similar. "You grew up in the time when Sidney Poitier was the prototype of how you operate in a white world," Sharpton said, "cool and smooth."
"You and I are held to a somewhat different standard in the way we comport ourselves in professional environments," a black Democratic strategist with close ties to the business community said. "We are oftentimes held hostage to the myth of the 'angry black man' in ways that constrain us."
"As a black man, as a big black man, I know there are certain ways I can behave," an African American executive told me last week. "We don't have the luxury of making certain kinds of mistakes that would have us viewed as unintelligent.... You're carrying this burden of not having the luxury of messing up."
"You can't show anger, otherwise you are judged a certain way," said one prominent friend who would only speak about this on background. "It's already a societal thing where people find black men dangerous. So you can't be angry.... You learn early on there are certain lines you do not cross." Think about it. There's no African American version of, say, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff with a widely known and celebrated reputation for F-bombs and confrontation.
Of course, there isn't universal agreement on this. One prominent African American I spoke with was having none of it. "I don't think you can define [Obama] and his presidency in terms of his being a black man. I think you have to define his presidency in terms of his being president." When I asked him about the stated similarities in the operating styles of of Powell, Thomas, Parsons and Obama, he said, "That in and of itself distorts the notion of black."
Fear of unleashing the "angry black man" stereotype or not, none of the men I spoke with want Obama to emote just to please the media or anyone else. "I like being cool, and I like seeing him being cool," said one. "And he is what he is and we have to accept that. We cannot ask him to be what he wants to be for us and be in betrayal to...who he really is." The Democratic strategist said, "I don't need my president to feel my pain. I need my president to take on problems and solve them." This is where I, the men I talked with and the American people are all in agreement.
"The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen!"
A lawyer suing BP offers new evidence that Deepwater Horizon managers knew trouble was brewing.
| Mon Jun. 7, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
— US Coast Guard/ZUMApress.com
A prominent Houston attorney with a long record of winning settlements from oil companies says he has new evidence suggesting that the Deepwater Horizon's top managers knew of problems with the rig before it exploded last month, causing the worst oil spill in US history [1]. Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing 15 rig workers and dozens of shrimpers, seafood restaurants, and dock workers, says he has obtained a three-page signed statement from a crew member on the boat that rescued the burning rig's workers. The sailor, who Buzbee refuses to name for fear of costing him his job, was on the ship's bridge when Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell, a top employee of rig owner Transocean, was speaking with someone in Houston via satellite phone. Buzbee told Mother Jones that, according to this witness account, Harrell was screaming, "Are you fucking happy? Are you fucking happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."
Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. "I am fucking calm," he went on, according to Buzbee. "You realize the rig is burning?"
At that point, the boat's captain asked Harrell to leave the bridge. It wasn't clear whether Harrell had been talking to Transocean, BP [1], or someone else.
On Friday a spokesman for Transocean said he couldn't confirm or deny whether the conversation took place. He was unable to make Harrell available for an interview.
During hearings held late last month by the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service, Harrell denied any conflicts [2] with his BP or Transocean bosses. He said that he did not feel pressured to rush the completion of the well, even though the rig had fallen behind schedule.
Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. "I am fucking calm," he went on, according to Buzbee. "You realize the rig is burning?"
At that point, the boat's captain asked Harrell to leave the bridge. It wasn't clear whether Harrell had been talking to Transocean, BP [1], or someone else.
On Friday a spokesman for Transocean said he couldn't confirm or deny whether the conversation took place. He was unable to make Harrell available for an interview.
During hearings held late last month by the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service, Harrell denied any conflicts [2] with his BP or Transocean bosses. He said that he did not feel pressured to rush the completion of the well, even though the rig had fallen behind schedule.
Yet Buzbee's claims add weight to other statements that contradict Harrell's version of events. Testifying [3] before the Coast Guard and MMS panel last month, Douglas Brown, the chief mechanic on the Deepwater Horizon, said that on the morning of the day that the rig exploded Harrell had a "skirmish" over drilling procedures during a meeting with BP's "company man," well site leader Robert Kaluza. "I remember the company man saying this is how it's going to be," Brown told the panel. As Harrell was leaving the meeting, according to Brown, "He pretty much grumbled, 'I guess that's what we have those pincers for,'" referring to the blowout preventer on the sea floor that is supposed to be the last resort to prevent a leak in the event of an emergency. The blowout preventer failed following the explosion on the rig, causing the massive spill. (Transocean's chief electronics technician, Mike Williams, also recalled [4] the argument but named a different BP "company man," BP's top official on the rig, Donald Vidrine).
In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Transocean appeared to back the claims [5] that Harrell had feuded with BP: "The testimony certainly seems to suggest that [Harrell] disagreed with the operator's instructions, but what those were and why he disagreed are matters that will ultimately be determined during the course of investigations."
Other rig workers have also claimed that they were pressured by BP and their supervisors to cut corners. Transocean roustabout Truitt Crawford told the Coast Guard that he overheard senior management saying that BP was "taking shortcuts [6]" by replacing drilling mud in the well with saltwater, which would have provided less weight to contain the well's surging pressure. Transocean's Williams told [7] 60 Minutes that a supervisor had dismissed evidence that the well's blowout preventer had been damaged. And workers with Halliburton, the well's cementing contractor, had complained that BP's use of cement "was against our best practices [8]" and told the oil company that it would likely have "a SEVERE gas flow problem [9]" unless the well's casings were centered more carefully.
Buzbee told Mother Jones that the sailor's version of Harrell's phone conversation following the explosion was corroborated by a statement from a second crew member who says he also overheard the call. Both statements were taken in-person by Buzbee's investigator and safety consultant, who has interviewed some 60 people involved in the disaster, and signed by the witnesses, he said. Buzbee declined to make the full statements available to Mother Jones because, he said, "it is work product, meaning that it is something that I do not have to produce or disclose in litigation but that can be used at the right time in the litigation." He added that he intends to take a deposition from the crew members at a later time.
Buzbee's case against the operators of the Deepwater Horizon is hardly his first foray into suing major oil companies. After a BP refinery in Texas City exploded in 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring dozens more, he won $100 million in punitive damages from the company. In the wake of the 2002 shipwreck of the Prestige oil tanker, which devastated the coast of Galicia, he won a $70 million settlement from Spain's government on behalf of the country's Basque region. And he's also nabbed $15 million from Transocean and $6.2 million from Halliburton for injured offshore oil workers.
Yet Buzbee is convinced that the Gulf oil spill lawsuit will be his biggest ever. "It's the grandaddy of all cases," he said. "This is going to define BP and whether BP survives. This is going to be the biggest case in the history of the United States, no doubt about it."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Buzbee won a $70 million settlement from the American Bureau of Shipping for its role in the Prestige oil spill off the coast of Spain. The settlement came from Spain's government. Mother Jones regrets the error.
Links:
[1] http://motherjones.com/category/primary-tags/bp
[2] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/coast_guard_hea.html
[3] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/todays_louisian_2.html
[4] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/06/the_drilling_ri_1.html
[5] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268302434395796.html?KEYWORDS=jimmy harrell
[6] http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100526/NEWS08/100526062
[7] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06rig.html?hp
[9] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html
In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Transocean appeared to back the claims [5] that Harrell had feuded with BP: "The testimony certainly seems to suggest that [Harrell] disagreed with the operator's instructions, but what those were and why he disagreed are matters that will ultimately be determined during the course of investigations."
Other rig workers have also claimed that they were pressured by BP and their supervisors to cut corners. Transocean roustabout Truitt Crawford told the Coast Guard that he overheard senior management saying that BP was "taking shortcuts [6]" by replacing drilling mud in the well with saltwater, which would have provided less weight to contain the well's surging pressure. Transocean's Williams told [7] 60 Minutes that a supervisor had dismissed evidence that the well's blowout preventer had been damaged. And workers with Halliburton, the well's cementing contractor, had complained that BP's use of cement "was against our best practices [8]" and told the oil company that it would likely have "a SEVERE gas flow problem [9]" unless the well's casings were centered more carefully.
Buzbee told Mother Jones that the sailor's version of Harrell's phone conversation following the explosion was corroborated by a statement from a second crew member who says he also overheard the call. Both statements were taken in-person by Buzbee's investigator and safety consultant, who has interviewed some 60 people involved in the disaster, and signed by the witnesses, he said. Buzbee declined to make the full statements available to Mother Jones because, he said, "it is work product, meaning that it is something that I do not have to produce or disclose in litigation but that can be used at the right time in the litigation." He added that he intends to take a deposition from the crew members at a later time.
Buzbee's case against the operators of the Deepwater Horizon is hardly his first foray into suing major oil companies. After a BP refinery in Texas City exploded in 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring dozens more, he won $100 million in punitive damages from the company. In the wake of the 2002 shipwreck of the Prestige oil tanker, which devastated the coast of Galicia, he won a $70 million settlement from Spain's government on behalf of the country's Basque region. And he's also nabbed $15 million from Transocean and $6.2 million from Halliburton for injured offshore oil workers.
Yet Buzbee is convinced that the Gulf oil spill lawsuit will be his biggest ever. "It's the grandaddy of all cases," he said. "This is going to define BP and whether BP survives. This is going to be the biggest case in the history of the United States, no doubt about it."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Buzbee won a $70 million settlement from the American Bureau of Shipping for its role in the Prestige oil spill off the coast of Spain. The settlement came from Spain's government. Mother Jones regrets the error.
Links:
[1] http://motherjones.com/category/primary-tags/bp
[2] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/coast_guard_hea.html
[3] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/todays_louisian_2.html
[4] http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/06/the_drilling_ri_1.html
[5] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268302434395796.html?KEYWORDS=jimmy harrell
[6] http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100526/NEWS08/100526062
[7] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06rig.html?hp
[9] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html
Kicking Ass at the White House
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 11:34 AM PDT
Boo-yah! Obama's showin' some outrage! He's takin' it to the street! Bluster, baby, bluster!
Except, no. I was unhappy that Obama said this because I don't think he should give in to the yahoos who insist that he needs to be the emoter-in-chief, but I didn't bother commenting on it because something about the clip seemed slightly off. I wasn't sure what, but it didn't quite scan. Today, via Steve Benen, I know why. Here's the whole exchange:
That's hardly an unreasonable take. The president doesn't usually speak this way, and as Atrios explained, a "return to Bush-era fake bluster" would be annoying.
But it's probably worth noting the context of the exchange, because the president's choice of words was a direct reflection of the question. Here's the Q&A:
LAUER: Critics are now talking about your style, which is the first time I've heard that in a long time. They're saying here is a guy who likes to be known as cool and calm and collected, and this isn't the time for cool, calm and collected. This is not the time to meet with experts and advisers; this is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president -- but kick some butt. And I don't mean it to be funny.The "whose ass to kick" line wasn't just some scripted attempt to sound tough. Lauer pushed the notion that the president shouldn't meet with experts; he should "kick some butt." Obama responded that he meets with people who know what they're talking about so he'd know "whose ass to kick."
OBAMA: No, and I understand. And here's what -- I'm going to push back hard on this. Because I think that this is a -- just an idea that got in folks heads, and the media's run with it. I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.
In this context, the president really was just responding to the basis of the question, not trying to sound like an action hero with overwrought bravado.
"Every Child, Every Opportunity, Every Time"
The White House Blog
Posted by on June 07, 2010 at 08:09 PM EDT
Ed Note: Today, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Michigan. View an interactive map of commencement addresses delivered by the President, Vice President, First Lady, Second Lady and senior administration officials here.Do you remember your high school commencement speaker? The class of 2010 at Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Michigan will probably never forget theirs. Today, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Kalamazoo Central - the winner of the 2010 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge.
The Commencement Challenge asked high schools around the country to submit an application telling the President how their school is making significant strides on personal responsibility, academic excellence and college readiness, and how they are working toward the President’s national goal of having the most college graduates by 2020. After three rounds of competition, Kalamazoo Central High School was named the winner.
The President began his remarks by congratulating the students and the Kalamazoo community on their innovative approach to education:
Together as a community, you’ve embraced the motto of this school district: “Every child, every opportunity, every time,” because you believe, like I do, that every child – regardless of what they look like, where they come from, or how much money their parents have – every child who walks through your schoolhouse doors deserves a quality education.
President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address to the graduates of Kalamazoo Central High School at the University Arena at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) But meaningful achievement, lasting success – that doesn’t happen in an instant. It’s not just about the twist of fate, or the lucky break, or the sudden stroke of genius. Rather, it’s about the daily efforts, the choices large and small that add up over time. It’s about the skills you build, the knowledge you accumulate, the energy you invest in every task, no matter how trivial or menial it may seem at the time.In addition to working hard to achieve their dreams the President encouraged the class of 2010 to take personal responsibility for their successes as well as their failures:
The truth is, no matter how hard you work, you won’t necessarily ace every class or succeed in every job. There will be times when you screw up, when you hurt the people you love, when you stray from your most deeply held values.Finally, President Obama recognized the efforts of Kalamazoo students to give back to their community and encouraged them to continue to give back, even as their lives become busier:
And when that happens, it’s the easiest thing in the world to start looking around for someone to blame. Your professor was too hard; your boss was a jerk; the coach was playing favorites; your friend just didn’t understand. We see it every day out in Washington, with folks calling each other names and making all sorts of accusations on TV.
This community could have easily gone down that road. You could have made excuses – our kids have fewer advantages, our schools have fewer resources, so how can we compete? You could have spent years pointing fingers – blaming parents, blaming teachers, blaming the principal or the superintendent or the government.
But instead, you came together. You were honest with yourselves about where you were falling short. And you resolved to do better – to push your kids harder, to open their minds wider, to expose them to all kinds of ideas and people and experiences.
And once you start juggling those classes and activities and that campus job; and you get caught up in your own dramas and anxieties; you may feel like you’ve got enough on your plate just dealing with your own life. It might just be easier to turn the channel when the news disturbs you; to avert your eyes when you pass the homeless man on the street; to tell yourself that other people’s problems really aren’t your responsibility.To learn more about the Commencement Challenge, read the finalists’ essays, and watch the finalists’ videos, go to WhiteHouse.gov/Commencement.
But think for a minute about the consequences of that approach here in this community. What if those Kalamazoo Promise donors had said to themselves, “Well, I can pay for my kid to go to college, why should I pay for other people’s kids too?”
President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, left, congratulate a graduate during the commencement ceremony for Kalamazoo Central High School at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)