May 26, 2010, 7:00 a.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho
Salazar Has Got to Go!
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
All systems of government are capable of being bent and twisted beyond recognition, compared with their initial theoretical promise and potential -- democratic capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism.
The only limits on the pejoratives thrown by President Obama's opponents are the limits of human imagination. But one of their favorites is that he is a "socialist." That is so far off the mark as to be funnier than the best from Jon Stewart. Were that he were! To watch our democratic capitalism morph into democratic socialism -- a highly unlikely prospect at any time -- would cause me far less concern that what I see happening.
The real risk is that we have already allowed our democracy to morph into corporatism, rule by major corporations, unchecked by democratic institutions -- a form of fascism. (Although even fascism at least typically allows for a stronger role for government than what we seem to have today in a corporate-government ruling partnership.)
Consider this report from the New York Times: "In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records." Ian Urbina, "Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead," New York Times, May 24, 2010, p. A1.
The story gets worse, as I'll lay out in a moment; but for now just re-read that lead. This was not a call for a moratorium by the executive director of some environmental group. (There were those as well.) This was the President of the United States ordering a moratorium on drilling permits and environmental waivers.
Note that it was not even a order to stop pumping oil from offshore Gulf of Mexico wells -- as reasonable and understandable as such an order would be at this time. It was only a prohibition on more drilling in violation of the nation's environmental laws.
And how did his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, and his corrupt Minerals Management Service, respond? Did they, as Oliver North once characterized as the appropriate response, "salute smartly and charge up the hill," canceling all pending applications for additional drilling? No. They totally ignored it, and continued business as usual with their powerful buddies in the oil industry, risking additional pollution of the Gulf from others utilizing BP's approach.
So what are we left with? The pollution in the Minerals Management Service has continued to spread just as BP's continuing pollution of the Gulf increasingly destroys the human and animal life from the depths of the ocean to the nation's southern coast.
And who has President Obama -- who as late as April 2 of this year was still functioning as cheerleader for the offshore drilling gang -- decided can best clean up these messes? Ken Salazar -- who has presided over the MMS mess for over a year, and either knew, should have known, or actually made worse, what was going on there -- is the fox in charge of cleaning up that chicken coop. And who's in charge of cleaning up the ongoing pollution? Why BP, of course; the very folks who got the waivers from the MMS that permitted them to drill without an environmental plan in the first place.
Here are some excerpts from "the rest of the story":
[S]ince the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded . . ..
Asked about the permits and waivers, officials . . . pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reiterating that the agency had no intention of stopping all new oil and gas production in the gulf. . . .
[C]ritics say the moratorium has been violated or too narrowly defined to prevent another disaster. . . .
Since the explosion, federal regulators have been harshly criticized for giving BP’s Deepwater Horizon and hundreds of other drilling projects waivers from full environmental review and for failing to provide rigorous oversight of these projects. . . .
Mr. Obama announced on May 14 a moratorium on drilling new wells and the granting of environmental waivers.
“It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies,” Mr. Obama said. “That cannot and will not happen anymore.”
“We’re also closing the loophole that has allowed some oil companies to bypass some critical environmental reviews,” he added in reference to the environmental waivers.
But records indicated that regulators continued granting the environmental waivers and permits for types of work like that occurring on the Deepwater Horizon. . . .
At least six of the drilling projects that have been given waivers in the past four weeks are for waters that are deeper — and therefore more difficult and dangerous — than where Deepwater Horizon was operating. While that rig, which was drilling at a depth just shy of 5,000 feet, was classified as a deep-water operation, many of the wells in the six projects are classified as “ultra” deep water, including four new wells at over 9,100 feet. . . .
[O]one of the main justifications of the moratorium on new drilling was safety. . . .
And yet, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has classified some of the drilling types that have been allowed to continue as being . . . hazardous . . .. [T]here have been at least three major accidents involving spills, leaks or explosions on rigs in the gulf since 2002 caused by the drilling procedures still being permitted. . . .
Mr. Salazar, when pressed to explain why new drilling was being allowed, testified on May 18 that “there is no deep-water well in the O.C.S. that has been spudded — that means started — after April 20,” referring to the gulf’s outer continental shelf.
However, Newfield Exploration Company has confirmed that it began drilling a deep-water well in 2,095 feet of water after April 20. . . .
Among the types of drilling permits that the minerals agency is still granting are called bypass permits. These allow an operator to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole to the original target from the existing wellbore.
Five days before the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon requested and received a revised bypass permit, which was the last drilling permit the rig received from the minerals agency before the explosion. The bore was created and it was the faulty cementing or plugging of that hole that has been cited as one of the causes of the explosion. . . .
Even before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the use of environmental waivers was a source of concern. In September 2009, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the waivers were being illegally granted to onshore drilling projects.
This month, the Interior Department announced plans to restrict the use of the waivers onshore, though not offshore. . . .
The investigation, however, is likely to take months, and in the meantime the waivers are continuing to be issued. There is also a 60-day statute of limitations on contesting the waivers, which reduces the chances that they will be reversed if problems are found with the projects or the Obama administration’s review finds fault in the exemption process.
At least three lawsuits to strike down the waivers have been filed by environmental groups this month. The lawsuits argue that the waivers are overly broad and that they undermine the spirit of laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, which forbid drilling projects from moving forward unless they produce detailed environmental studies about minimizing potential risks.
Ian Urbina, "Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead," New York Times, May 24, 2010, p. A1.
Even the most inattentive, blind and hardhearted of institutional executives usually respond to massive bad publicity in the mainstream media. The major problems involve matters that do not receive such public attention, and thus can be ignored -- often to the profit of the institution, even if to the loss of its customers and employees.
In this instance, it's not even clear that the otherwise sophisticated Obama Administration has even responded as one would expect from a public relations disaster.
But as tragic as are the consequences of America's most serious ecological disaster in history, there is an even more serious problem.
What has President Obama done during the last year-plus with regard to other abuses of the public trust that may be going on in the federal government? What has he done proactively, preemptively, to avoid the corruption and agency capture by industry elsewhere than at the MMS? To what extent does he care; and how has that care been manifest -- beyond running through the playbook after the disasters occur?
I can't begin to list all the possible places to look, but here are a few: President Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" (the Defense Department-defense contractor revolving door; Congressional pressure for weapons systems the military don't want or need); the "cozy relationship" (to use Obama's characterization) between the industry that is supposed to be regulated and, say, the FAA, FDA, OSHA, MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration; think Massey Coal and 29 dead), SEC, agricultural and other subsidy and price support programs. The list is endless.
Has President Obama initiated any inquiries into general Washington "coziness"? Has he provided any, specific, instructions to his appointees on this score? Is he aware that he is the CEO of an organization with hundreds of otherwise-hidden agencies, any one of which is a potential political weapon of mass destruction?
I recall a companion once commenting as the driver of the car in front of him was seemingly unable to bring himself to proceed beyond a "Yield" sign: "Hey, it says 'yield,' not capitulate completely!"
I fear that we as a nation have also passed beyond merely yielding to corporate control to the place where we have capitulated completely. We're not even running a reputable fascist state anymore.
The first step on the road to reform is to get rid of Secretary Salazar. The second is to acknowledge that the problem is systemic and that the removal of one cabinet officer isn't going to clean up either corruption in government or oil pollution in the Gulf.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 24, 2010, 6:25 a.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
What's Scandal in London is SOP in Washington
Just Business -- As Usual
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sarah Ferguson has stepped in it again.
But is what she did any different from what goes on in Washington every day?
In case you missed the story, Sarah Ferguson married Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, the Duke of York, in 1986, making her a member of the Royal Family as the Duchess of York. They were divorced in 1996.
Her judgment has not always been the best. Indeed, as The Guardian puts it, "The duchess . . . has a long history of excruciating misjudgments and has been in financial difficulties for some time. Her most notorious escapade occurred when she was pictured on a yacht, while still married, having her toes sucked by her then financial adviser Johnny Bryant." Stephen Bates, "Sarah Ferguson offered access to Prince Andrew for cash, says tabloid; Duchess of York allegedly caught on film demanding £500,000 in order to 'open doors' for reporter posing as businessman," The Guardian, May 23, 2010.
So, what's she done now? As The Guardian story continues,
[S]he was exposed by a News of the World sting operation in which she promised to obtain access to her former husband in return for £500,000. [Photo Credit: News of the World.]
In probably her most personally damaging mistake throughout a somewhat gaffe-strewn career, the Duchess of York appears to have fallen for the Sunday newspaper's undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood, who specialises in exposés. . . .
In a taped interview . . . the duchess is seen telling the man she supposed was a foreign businessman that she could obtain access for him to the prince, who acts as a quasi-official British trade envoy promoting deals for UK firms around the world.
Demanding a payment of £500,000 . . . she told the reporter: 'That opens up everything you would ever wish for. I can open any door you want, and I will for you. Look after me and he'll look after you … you'll get it back tenfold.'"
Shocking! Scandalous! An embarrassment to the Royal Family, to the Duke and former Duchess of York, to all Brits who revel in the monarchy.
And then I got to thinking.
Why is it that we don't consider what is going on in Washington, even while you read this, equally shocking and scandalous?
What am I talking about?
Think about it. How do our elected officials justify their receipt of five-to-seven-figure cash contributions from those who stand to benefit (or lose) from those officials' votes and interventions in government decisions (e.g., softening safety standards for offshore drilling, coal mines, workplaces generally, multi-billion-dollar "bailouts")? Why is that not considered the buying of votes? Why do we not call it "bribery," and prosecute it as a criminal offense?
Because, say our officials (and those who collect the money for them), "No one can buy my vote with a 'campaign contribution.'"
So, then, we sometimes ask, "Why do your donors give you such large amounts of money, and spend equally large amounts on lobbyists?"
"Oh," say the officials, "all they want, and all they get, is 'access;' the ability to tell me their story directly."
Put aside your cynicism for a moment. Let us assume, even if it doesn't pass the laugh test, that campaign contributions don't sway votes as such; that all they purchase is the opportunity for "access."
Is that valuable? How much is "access" worth? Ask Sarah Ferguson. She runs in those circles. She has a pretty good sense of its market value. In this instance she thought it worth $700,000.
In Washington, some have paid more, some have paid less.
All have found it a worthwhile investment, even if all it got them was "access."
Because in the "pay to play" town that Washington has become, you're likely to find the committee chair, or senator, you need to talk to about your business is "too busy" to see you without your first coming up with what Sarah Ferguson was demanding.
In London, promises Ms. Ferguson, "you'll get it back tenfold." In Washington, the return on a campaign contribution "investment" runs closer to 1000-to-one. Give a million, get a billion. (See supporting data at Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2.
Yet in London a 10-to-one return is a scandal. And in Washington a 1000-to-one return is just "business -- as usual."
There are going to be some Senate seats open this year. If only she'd thought to come here and run for one of them. More money; no scandal. Oh, well. Maybe next time.
______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 21, 2010, 6:15 a.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
Can University of Iowa Follow University of Nebraska's Lead?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Last year this blog suggested that if there was anyone in Iowa City who was really serious about trying to reduce the adverse effects from the binge drinking of alcohol, there was a pretty good model of what we could do just a few miles to the west on Interstate 80. "UI's Alcohol Abuse: Look to Nebraska; 'What Works' to Reduce Students' Alcohol Abuse," December 28, 2009. (The earlier, "UI's Alcohol Problem: Many Solutions, Little Will; Alcohol Back in the News? No, Always in the News," December 16, 2009, provided an additional 30 links to more blog entries on the subject.)
Well, yesterday, instead of Iowa City residents having to go to Lincoln, the Partnership for Alcohol Safety brought Lincoln to Iowa City. B.A. Morelli, "UI looks at Neb. city's success; Despite no 21-only law, university's drinking rates down," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 21, 2010, p. A1; Diane Heldt, "Delegation details how Nebraska handles alcohol," The Gazette, May 21, 2010, p. A2.
Special thanks for yesterday's events go to Dr. Victoria Sharp, UI's special assistant to the provost for alcohol safety, and Sarah Hansen, director of assessment and strategic initiatives in the Division of Student Services.
Yesterday's Nebraska delegation included Linda Major, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs (who's played a major role in the creation and evolution of the effort since the beginning); Ian Newman, Ph.D., the Wesley C. Meierhenry Distinguished Professor in Educational Psychology at UNL and director of the Nebraska Prevention Center for Alcohol and other Drug Abuse; and Captain Joy Cita of the Lincoln Police Department.
Whatever the visit cost the University, it was worth it. Given my schedule, the only time I was able to spend with them was the media briefing over the noon hour. But from what I gathered, we worked them from dawn to dusk with separate meetings including University officials, faculty, staff, students, City Council members, downtown merchants, bar owners, media, and neighborhood association representatives. (There may have been other individuals and organizations as well.)
I have been critical in the past of the University's and City's lack of leadership on this issue. Nor have I been alone. Even former Mayor Ernie Lehman expressed a comparable frustration:
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
-- Former Iowa City Mayor, Ernie Lehman, "Council's Moral Character Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 26, 2009, p. A11
So it's a great pleasure to be able to spread a little praise over the community's leadership today.
Of course, it's a little premature to say Iowa City has now solved its alcohol problems. Clearly, being curious about, and willing to learn from, the successes of others is a big improvement over ignoring them. But it's a long way from implementation -- as the Nebraska delegation has been the first to acknowledge.
1. To be successful in actually doing anything about binge drinking (or anything else for that matter) -- as distinguished from talking about it -- it cannot merely be "one of my 325 highest priority projects." It needs to be, if not number one, at least one of the top three or four. There needs to be a community-wide agreement that (a) binge drinking is a really serious problem, along with (b) a commitment to actually sticking with it until there has been a measurable reduction in its adverse effects on students and community alike.
2. There needs to be both an involvement of, and a buy-in by, every relevant group of stakeholders: university administrators, faculty, staff and students; parents; downtown merchants; bar owners and liquor stores; the City's council members and staff; university and City police; the faith community; and other organizations.
3. There's no cookie cutter approach or master plan. Each community needs to put together the components that best work for it.
4. Don't expect overnight miracles. Lincoln hasn't eliminated binge drinking; it has cut it by one-third. The University of Iowa's binge drinking rates (and its serious consequences) are among the highest in the nation (as formerly were those at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln). If we could also bring our rates down to the national averages, as Lincoln did, that would be a significant improvement.
Could the Lincoln lessons work in Iowa City? It's too early to tell. For one thing, the bar owners in Lincoln were a very important part of the project's success. Among other things, they imposed 21-only limitations on themselves and used peer pressure to bring the deviants into line. How likely is it that Iowa City bar owners would be as cooperative?
But clearly it's worth a try. Yesterday's briefings from Lincoln is the first step. This blog will continue to monitor whether Iowa City's "journey of 1000 miles" either begins -- or both begins and ends -- with this single step.
Meanwhile, if you're sufficiently interested in this to want to learn more about the details of how others have done it, take a look at the experience in California and at Penn State, as well as University of Nebraska, in "UI's Alcohol Abuse: Look to Nebraska; "What Works" to Reduce Students' Alcohol Abuse," December 28, 2009.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 19, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
What's Take-Away from May 18 Primary Elections?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There were four elections yesterday, one each in Arkansas and Kentucky, and two in Pennsylvania. What do their outcomes tell us about November we didn't know before?
Very little.
What follows is just one, relatively uninformed, blogger's intuition; not the result of having worked in any of the campaigns, memorized the piles of polling data, or even having read a significant amount of others' commentary.
There are some things we at least thought we knew before the results were in.
"All politics is local." There are so many factors that help shape the outcome of a given congressional or senatorial primary, or general election, that drawing any national (or even local!) generalizations from their outcomes runs the risk of being wide of the mark.
Especially is this so in light of the fact that most outcomes are relatively close. When there are less than 10 points separating the candidates anything from cold or rainy weather to a last-minute news item could have made the difference. In such cases, for purposes of deriving meaning from an election, it's a little silly even to designate a "winner" and "loser," let alone to discard from consideration the "meaning" behind the votes of the 40 percent or more of the voters who supported the "loser."
An incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the Senate and House during off-year elections.
Aside from that, incumbents tend to get re-elected. No matter how angry the public is with "Congress" in general, voters tend to think their own Member of Congress is OK. The number of Members who want to be re-elected, and are, is generally well above 90 percent.
Most districts are solidly either Democrat or Republican. The real contests occur in the ones that are neither.
Perhaps the largest percentage of voters consider themselves "independent" or third party.
On the other hand, those who vote in party primaries are necessarily more partisan, more concerned about party loyalty, candidates having "paid their dues" to the party, and the impact of primary choices on general election outcomes.
Overall election results tend to reflect the economy. When the economy is trending down, or seems stuck there, voters want "change" -- often manifested in ousting incumbents. When the economy is booming, or clearly recovering, they're less likely to "throw the rascals out" -- or even bother to vote.
Lengthy incumbency cuts both ways. There is at least a lingering concern on the part of voters that "old age" and too many decades in Washington may make an elected official less, rather than more, effective on their behalf. (This is, of course, offset by the increased power, and ability to help the state or district, that comes with seniority.) But it is especially so if constituents detect (whether true or not) a growing disconnect between the Washington elite lifestyle of the elected official and that of the residents of the local area.
My thinking is that nothing happened yesterday to change any of that conventional wisdom.
But there are two conclusions that at least some commentators seem to be drawing from yesterday's returns with which I really disagree. One is that the results reflect a turn to the right, a resurgence of conservatism -- and hope for the Republicans in November. The other is that what we witnessed was an anti-incumbent movement. (E.g., Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse, "Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents," New York Times, May 19, 2010, p. A1.)
Sestak's Victory Over Senator Arlen Spector: An Example of "Anti-Establishment, Anti-Incumbency"?
Voters are not in a good mood -- whether discouraged, depressed, angry or violent. Admittedly, that did not cut in favor of Spector's re-election.
But there were so many other factors at play in Spector's case that I think it is woefully overly simplistic to put the results in the "anti-incumbency" column.
For starters, he got 47 percent of the vote. That's not exactly a rout.
Bear in mind, this was a Republican Senator running in a Democratic Party primary! He only recently switched parties, and acknowledged he did it because there was no way he was going to get the Republican Party nomination. The switch enabled the winner, Congressman Joe Sestak to utilize a very effective commercial that left few if any Democrats unaware of Sestak's assertion that Specter was just a Republican opportunist.
Moreover, he was a five-term, 30-year, 80-year-old Senator. The political meaning from the ouster of a one-term incumbent Senator is one thing. But when a Senator has served as long as Specter, and has reached 80 years of age, to be voted out of office involves much more than mere "anti-incumbency."
Admittedly, "'close' only counts in horseshoes," and it really hurts to lose an election. But for what it's worth, under the circumstances, and against all the odds, Specter should take some considerable personal solace and satisfaction from the 47 percent vote of confidence, admiration, and appreciation that he was able to win as an 80-year-old Republican running in a Democratic primary.
How About Senator Blance Lincoln in Arkansas?
The meaning of the outcome in the Democratic Primary in Arkansas is a little more clear cut than the one in Pennsylvania. But it's still not unambiguous -- especially with regard to the assertions that yesterday's four elections represent a "swing to the conservative right" on the part of voters.
For starters, Lincoln "won" in the sense that she got more votes than the runner-up, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter -- just not enough to prevent the need for a runoff, since she did not get 50 percent.
Second, the winner of the Republican Primary election, John Boozman, who defeated seven opponents, has been an Arkansas Representative in Congress since 2001. So that can scarcely be said to be the result of an "anti-establishment, anti-incumbent" vote.
Did Lincoln's failure to win outright illustrate the voters' move to the conservative right? No, the fact is that in her case it was exactly the opposite.
The SEIU and AFL-CIO weighed in heavily on the side of Halter precisely because she was perceived as being too conservative -- especially with her votes against healthcare reform, and her perceived support of the Wall Street banks. The voters wanted a more liberal candidate.
Republicans vs. Democrats in Congressman Jack Murtha's District
Following Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha's death, the only election yesterday pitting a Republican against a Democrat was in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.
If an overwhelming Republican victory anywhere could have been seen as a harbinger of a national tectonic shift to the conservative right and a Republican sweep of the House in November it would have been this one.
On the other hand, the same could be said for the Democrats were they to win. Even though the 12th had been a Democratic district with Murtha, it also happens to be a district that went for Senator McCain over Obama a mere 18 months ago.
However conservative the district may be said to be, the majority did not vote for the Republican. The Democrat, Mark Critz (a former Murtha aide), won over a Republican businessman, Tim Burns, by a substantial 53 to 45 percent.
Incumbency was not in issue in that contest. But the issue of a possible shift -- from the Democratic Party, to a pro-conservative, Republican Party -- certainly was. And the verdict on that race would have to be that it just wasn't there for the conservative Republicans..
Paul's Win is Republicans' Problem -- Not Nation's or Democrats'
Rand Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), scored a 24-point Republican Senate primary victory over Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- the favorite of the Republican establishment, up to and including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Thus, while it contributes nothing to an understanding of "anti-incumbency" (as neither held the Senate office), it certainly does say something about the division within the Republican Party between the Republican establishment and the anti-Establishment, Tea Party, wing of opposition.
Given that this was a Republican Primary it necessarily tells us little about the conservative, anti-Establishment leanings of Democrats and Independents. Indeed, there are those who believe that Paul will be much easier for the Democratic Party candidate to beat than Trey Grayson would have been. And Tea Party membership, to the extent it can be measured, seems to be disproportionately made up of those who would otherwise be (or still are) Republicans.
But we scarcely needed this Primary to know that there is a schism between the conservative, right wing, take no prisoners, anything to bring down Obama, just say no wing of the GOP, and the Establishment, moderate, reasonable, come let us reason together wing. Nor have we been unaware that the former seems to be gaining adherents over the latter.
In sum, they were an interesting four elections, but when Chris Matthews says, "Tell me something I don't know," I'm not sure what one can offer based on the results.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 18, 2010, 5:45 a.m.
[See the related "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
Whatever Happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Normally when a large and embarrassing institutional error is revealed by the media, the head of that institution, whether called chair, CEO, executive director -- or "President of the United States" -- steps forward to take responsibility.
President Harry Truman was associated with the constant reminder of that obligation he kept on his desk, the sign that read, "The Buck Stops Here" -- "buck" as in "passing the buck." [Photo credit: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.]
It was not inappropriate for President Obama to chastise the BP, Transocean and Halliburton CEOs' performance before Congress -- seemingly passing responsibility for the Gulf disaster between themselves faster than the basketball at a college team's ball handling practice.
Fortunately for Obama, he went on to acknowledge, almost as an afterthought, "there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it. That includes, by the way, the federal government."
Unfortunately for Obama, the national finger-pointer-in-chief stopped there, unable to move his arm and hand into a position where he could point at himself.
You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t.
I understand that there are legal and financial issues involved, and a full investigation will tell us exactly what happened. But it is pretty clear that the system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it.
That includes, by the way, the federal government. For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies.
"Remarks by the President on the Ongoing Oil Spill Response," WhiteHouse.gov, May 14, 2010; John M. Broder and Helene Cooper, "Obama Vows End to 'Cozy' Oversight of Oil Industry," New York Times, May 15, 2010, p. A13.
Top executives often take responsibility for their institution's failures in an almost formal, ritualistic, theoretical sense -- failures for which they played no direct role, failures of which they could not even have been expected to have had advance knowledge.
Alas, President Obama's responsibility for the BP oil pollution was not such a failure.
After all, it was not the CEO of the historically disaster-ridden BP, or the head of the ineffective and corrupt Minerals Management Service, who said that offshore drilling could be done in a way to "protect communities and protect coastlines," "protect America's natural resources -- tourism, the environment," and in ways that are today "technologically advanced" and "guided by scientific evidence," "environmentally sound and not risky" with a "low risk environmentally." It was neither of them who asserted that "oil rigs today don't cause spills."
Those cheerleading assertions sound as if they were written by a BP publicist. Hopefully, they were not -- but the result is just the same -- in fact, far more powerful and influential when delivered and carried worldwide from the "bully pulpit" of the President of the United States.
For they were all the words of President Obama, in his personal effort to boost the oil industry's profitable offshore drilling, days before the BP disaster.
So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.
"Remarks by The President on Energy Security at Andrews Air Force Base," WhiteHouse.gov, March 21, 2010.
[Photo credit: White House] [W]e’ve got to look at our traditional energy sources and figure out how can we use those most effectively and in the most environmentally sound way. . . .
The decision around drilling -- same approach. What we did was we said we’re not going to have drilling a mile off the North Carolina coast or two miles off. But 50 miles off, 100 miles off, where it is appropriate and environmentally sound and not risky, we should allow exploration to begin taking place to see if there’s certain reserves. . . .
But what we did was we tried to look at the scientific evidence and figure out where are areas where low risk environmentally and a high potential upside. . . .
I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.
"Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy," Charlotte, North Carolina, WhiteHouse.gov, April 2, 2010.
It was President Obama who encouraged the reversal of policy to permit offshore drilling. It was President Obama who nominated Ken Salazar as his Secretary of Interior. It was President Obama who, presumably aware of big oil's political influence, seemingly cared not at all about the "cozy relationship" between the industry and the Minerals Management Service -- until the oil hit the fan.
The finger pointing should not stop, the buck does not stop, at the MMS; it stops at President Obama's desk, just as it stopped at President Truman's.
President Obama is a bright, sophisticated, well-informed, student of government. Surely he is knowledgeable regarding the phenomenon called "agency capture," or "regulatory capture." That's when an agency created to regulate an industry "in the public interest" ultimately ends up becoming that industry's advocate, its cheerleader, and a partner in its public-be-damned, employee-safety-be-damned, race to ever-increasing profitability and stock prices.
How could it be that he only discovered what he called this "cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill" after the BP Gulf disaster?
Had he not connected the dots between the results of agency capture (the failure of the Mine Safety and Health Administration to close the mine) and the deaths of 29 coal miners in the Massey Upper Big Branch disaster on April 5, one month before his "cozy relationship" speech? Ian Urbina, "No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mine Disaster," New York Times, April 10, 2010, p. A1 ("The blast at Upper Big Branch comes four years after a pair of other West Virginia mine disasters — an explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine and a fire that killed two at the Aracoma Alma coal mine. . . . In 2008, the Aracoma Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey, agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal fines [for] several safety violations related to that fire. . . . This week’s blast comes after a year in which the Upper Big Branch mine had repeated problems with methane buildups [and had been] cited . . . eight times for 'substantial' violations . . ..")
Was he unaware of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill?
Did he totally miss the 2008 story all over the media that, "Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported yesterday." Derek Kravitz and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Report Says Oil Agency Ran Amok; Interior Dept. Inquiry Finds Sex, Corruption," Washington Post, September 11, 2008; and see. Noelle Straub, "GAO Audit: MMS Withheld Offshore Drilling Data, Hindered Risk Analyses in Alaska," New York Times/Greenwire, April 7, 2010 -- roughly three weeks before the current disaster.
Had he not heard, specifically with regard to BP, of "the 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas City" for which BP was fined "a record $87 million for neglecting to correct safety violations;" or that "only a year later, a leaky BP oil pipeline in Alaska" resulted in "$20 million in criminal penalties;" or that "last year, when the federal Minerals Management Service proposed a rule that would have required companies to have their safety and environmental management programs audited once every three years, BP and other companies objected"? Clifford Krauss, "Oil Spill’s Blow to BP’s Image May Eclipse Costs," New York Times, April 30, 2010; and see additional details and comparisons with other companies in Jad Mouawad, "BP Has a Record of Blasts and Oil Spills," New York Times, May 9, 2010, p. A22 ("BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics . . ..").
When I received my first presidential appointment (U.S. Maritime Administrator), I sat in the oval office with the president, one-on-one, while he provided me instructions in no uncertain terms as to what he wanted done with regard to the "agency capture" in the agency I was about to head. Indeed, I have always assumed that one of the reasons for my unlikely selection, for this job -- a job for which I had not applied, and for which I expressed disinterest to the President when it was offered -- was that I did not have any association with the shipping or ship building industries.
That's a part of what concerns me about the number of former Goldman Sachs employees brought into the Obama Administration, including Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner, and the wisdom of appointing Ken Salazar Secretary of Interior given his ties to the energy industries.
(Goldman Sachs alums have infiltrated the government, from the Fed to the Treasury to the White House itself, and also influence Congress. See, e.g., the summary in Alex Floum, "Goldman Sachs alumni hold many of the top government positions," Economic Policy Examiner, May 6, 2010; Albert R. Hunt, "Scarlet Letter for the Greed Generation," New York Times, April 25, 2010 ("Goldman’s political action committee gave $290,500 to congressional candidates last month as Congress weighed the financial-regulation overhaul. Mr. Obama shook the Goldman Sachs money tree for almost $1 million in his presidential campaign.").)
Surely he has appointed someone, to head an agency somewhere in Washington, who is a true consumer advocate, someone who is challenging corporate abuses. But offhand, I must confess, no name immediately comes to mind.
Does President Obama provide explicit directions to his appointees regarding agency capture, like those President Johnson provided me? Or, from his behavior, and the absence of any instructions to the contrary, do agency heads' sensitive antennae pick up the sense that corporate interests should be accommodated rather than challenged?
Public relations firms' libraries are full of playbooks for handling an institution's screw ups after they reach the media. The top guy should issue a statement saying his thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed (killed needlessly as a result of the institution's negligence and lack of management oversight). (E.g., "President Obama earlier on Friday [April 9] expressed his condolences to the families of those [29 coal miners] killed or injured in the [inadequately regulated Massey Upper Big Branch coal] mine explosion." Ian Urbina, "No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mine Disaster," New York Times, April 10, 2010, p. A1.)
A statement is issued reaffirming the institution's commitment to the highest standards of ethics and quality control. A commission is appointed to investigate the totally unpredictable disaster that occurred, "so that this will never happen again." We're all familiar with that process.
Indeed, many institutions leave one with the impression it is only the failures that make their way into the mainstream media that are of any concern at all. Employees' expressions of concern are at best ignored, and at worst lead to the complaining employee's dismissal. This seems to have been the case at the Minerals Management Service. Ian Urbina, "U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits," May 14, 2010, p. A1 ("The . . . M.M.S. . . . routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists.").
We need to judge the heads of major institutions -- including our presidents -- not on the basis of how they respond to the institutional public relations disasters after they reach the media and public, but how they hopefully prevent and respond to those that fall well below the media's radar.
When you choose foxes to protect the public's chickens you cannot fairly express surprise when the size of the flock begins to dwindle. Nor can you expect much from the report of a commission of foxes that does little to prevent future losses, and concludes that those losses are not the fault of the foxes. Nor does it solve the foxes' inherent conflicts of interest to ask the head fox to separate the single group of foxes into two groups of foxes -- or even to replace the head fox with a different fox. Juliet Eilperin, "Obama to create commission to investigate gulf oil spill," Washington Post, May 18, 2010; Juliet Eilperin, "Salazar to split MMS into two agencies," Washington Post, May 11, 2010 ("Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Tuesday he had commissioned an independent review of the BP oil spill and will split the Minerals Management Service into two parts"); Juliet Eilperin, "Interior Dept. official at MMS resigns," Washington Post, ("Chris Oynes, the top Interior Department official who oversees offshore oil and gas drilling for the Minerals Management Service, announced Monday that he will retire on May 31 . . ..").
I'm not suggesting that the Administration of President George Bush was better in terms of agency capture. If anything, it was probably worse. But the BP Gulf disaster can't be blamed on George Bush. Obama has been president for well over a year, and was planning his presidency at least since the election in November 2008.
We know he voted as a senator to grant immunity to the phone companies that had turned the private records of their customers over to the government in violation of law. We saw his early direction of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to banks and other businesses -- rather than genuine jobs creation programs like the CCC and WPA that worked for President Roosevelt and would have been the quickest and cheapest way to actually create jobs. We watched as he refused to even consider universal single-payer health care, and then took a public option off the table. We know he held secret closed door meetings at the White House with representatives of Big Pharma that undercut patients' rights to more pharmaceutical options at lower prices. We recently witnessed the consequences of his failure to reform federal oversight of coal mine safety.
And now we're looking at what has been characterized as the most devastating environmental disaster in the history of America as a result of the "cozy relationship" between his MMS and the oil industry.
Barack Obama was my candidate. He is my only U.S. President. There is still a great deal about him that I like and admire. I want him to succeed.
But I don't think it helps him to succeed for his supporters to turn a blind eye to his turning a blind eye to corporations turning a blind eye to the public interest.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 13, 2010, 8:40 a.m.
The IEDs Among Us: Copy Machines
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The latest assault on our privacy turns out to be that seemingly benign office copy machine.
At a warehouse in New Jersey, 6,000 used copy machines sit ready to be sold. CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports almost every one of them holds a secret.
Nearly every digital copier built since 2002 contains a hard drive - like the one on your personal computer - storing an image of every document copied, scanned, or emailed by the machine.
In the process, it's turned an office staple into a digital time-bomb packed with highly-personal or sensitive data.
If you're in the identity theft business it seems this would be a pot of gold.
"The type of information we see on these machines with the social security numbers, birth certificates, bank records, income tax forms," John Juntunen [of the Sacramento-based company Digital Copier Security] said, "that information would be very valuable."
Armen Keteyian, "Digital Photocopiers Loaded With Secrets; Your Office Copy Machine Might Digitally Store Thousands of Documents That Get Passed on at Resale," CBS Evening News, April 15, 2010 (the transcript and the video); Cecilia Kang, "Rep. Markey calls for FTC to investigate copy machines' retention of user data," Washington Post, April 29, 2010 ("The copy machine has a better memory than most may think. And that's got Rep. Edward J. Markey concerned. The Democratic congressman from Massachusetts asked the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday to investigate the retention of documents on hard drives of digital copy machines. . . . 'I am very concerned that these copy machines can be a treasure trove for identity thieves, allowing criminals to easily access highly sensitive personal information,' Markey said in a release.").
Desktop and laptop computers are, for the most part, recognizable as such -- notwithstanding Apple's creative efforts. But the other devices in our lives that function as computers, or are at least controlled in some measure by computer chips, are less so. They may look like automobiles, microwaves, refrigerators, cell phones -- or copy machines.
When it comes to our privacy, our ability to prevent identity theft, these "computers" are the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) buried along the digital road.
The Internet is a wondrous thing to which I am connected, or potentially so, during most of my waking hours. But the networking of computers that it represents is creating cyber challenges for most sectors of our society.
For the military it is cyber-warfare -- what others can do to us, and what we can do to them. It is between 250,000 and a million attempted hacks a day into DOD computers. And the threats are not limited to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the possibility of another nation, or more likely non-nation terrorists, closing down our electric grid, air traffic control, natural gas pipelines, communications satellites, and the financial networks that move trillions of dollars a day around the planet electronically -- and that's just for starters.
For law enforcement it is cyber-crime -- law breaking opportunities limited only by the human imagination.
For each of us individually it is the risk of identity theft. It is the sensation of being stripped naked electronically, as our every credit card purchase, the location and content of our every cell phone call, the content of our emails and text messages, the trail of our Web site hits, are being recorded -- along with the video tapes of our public movements. (Sylvia Hui, "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in London to view subway system CCTV network," Associated Press/Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 11, 2010: "Bloomberg wants to ramp up the security camera network in New York City's subways to mimic that in London's underground train system . . . one of the largest in the world.")
See generally, "Times Topics: Privacy," New York Times.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of government intrusion into our lives. The ease with which search warrants can be obtained (or searches conducted without them), the ability of NSA, CIA and FBI to track our electronic lives, and the willingness of phone companies, credit card companies, Internet service providers,banks and others to give them information about us -- sometimes in violation of law, for which Congress granted the phone companies immunity after the fact, so we couldn't sue them -- is relatively well known.
What's less well known, perhaps, and in many ways more invidious than government snooping, is the extent to which commercial firms are gathering and selling information about our every electronic move -- with neither our permission nor knowledge. Of course, in the workplace nothing is protected: phone calls, email and Web visits can be, and are, monitored.
The revelations about copy machines maintaining a full record of every document we run through the office copy machine is just the latest. And this affects us primarily not from the copies we make and can be traced back to us, but the copies that may be made within other institutions. These documents may contain personal information about us: medical and student records, Social Security numbers, address and phone, criminal records, and so forth, as the CBS investigation, above, lays out.
In fairness to those who are snooping on us, a good deal of what they know is what we have voluntarily and knowingly chosen to reveal. Most of us find the convenience of a driver's license, bank checking account, ATM and credit card, cell phone, airline miles and other reward systems well worth whatever loss of privacy is involved. They are considered by many to be useful, if not essential services in our time.
Passwords to our computers don't have to be hacked by some 14-year-old geek genius if we've left them on a post-it note on our computer screen. Credit card numbers don't need to be hacked out of the credit card company if we leave the carbon copies with the merchant, ultimately to be deposited in a dumpster.
And currently on everyone's radar are the privacy abuses by Facebook of its 400 million users. But this is different from credit cards and cell phones. Those companies may keep more data, for a longer period of time, than is necessary for our business relationship. But if a credit card company is going to bill us accurately there needs to be some record keeping, for our sake as well as theirs.
Facebook, by contrast, is neither a necessary service nor one that requires any particular information about us to function. Our decision to "join" is voluntary. If college students post pictures of themselves at their binge-drinking worst it's not really Facebook's fault when a future potential employer sees them and decides to hire someone else. If a Facebook user includes their birthday as a part of their public profile it's not Facebook's fault if a thief makes use of it when emptying that user's bank account.
Of course, it is Facebook's fault when it makes it nearly impossible for users to limit public access to their private data (it's "opt out" not "opt in," the manual is longer than the Constitution, and the FAQ explanations run 45,000 words), when it changes the rules without notice, or when it keeps, utilizes and sells this private data to others long after the user has come to their senses and "deleted" their information. These concerns, and others, are coming to be larger and clearer to the public. Nick Bilton, "Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking," New York Times, May 13, 2010, p. B8; "Facebook Privacy: A Bewildering Tangle of Options" (interactive), New York Times, May 12, 2010; Erica Naone, "The Changing Nature of Privacy on Facebook; Microsoft's Danah Boyd on social networking," MIT Technology Review, May 3, 2010.
The terms of the bargain people make with social networks — you swap personal information for convenient access to their sites — have been shifting, with the companies that operate the networks collecting ever more information about their users. That information can be sold to marketers. Some younger people are becoming more cautious about what they post. “When you give up that data, you’re giving it up forever,” [one of the Diaspora creators, Max] Salzberg said. “The value they give us is negligible in the scale of what they are doing, and what we are giving up is all of our privacy.”
Jim Dwyer, "Four Nerds and a Cry to Arms Against Facebook," New York Times, May 12, 2010, p. A19.
But copy machines spying on us, and employers disposing of the old machines without removing or cleaning the copy machines' hard drives?! That's a new one. That's the latest. Unfortunately, it won't be the last.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
May 10, 2010, 8:45 a.m.
[If you're looking for the 12 prior blog entries about the ICCSD superintendent search see, "The Beat Goes On, But Music's Out of Tune," May 1, 2010, and 11 items linked from "Superintendent Murley's Calm Seas, Smooth Sailing," April 29, 2010. If you're interested in the ICCSD redrawing school boundary lines fiasco see, "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010, with links to 23 related, prior blog entries and other writing.]
Connecting Those Slippery, Oily Dots
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Update: May 14: A couple of the most shocking stories yet (corporate-government silencing scientists, suppressing data): Justin Gillis, "Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say," New York Times, May 14, 2010, p. A1; Ian Urbina, "U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits," New York Times, May 14, 2010, p. A1 ("The [MMS] gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits . . . despite strong warnings . . . about the impact the drilling was likely to have . . . [and] routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns . . ..").
Update: May 12: Editorial, "The Oil Industry Doesn't Step Up," New York Times, May 12, 2010, p. A24; John M. Broder, "U.S. to Split Up Agency Policing the Oil Industry," New York Times, May 12, 2010, p. A1; Editorial, "Raise Liability Cap for Oil Companies," Des Moines Register, May 12, 2010; Matthew L. Wald, "Live-Blogging the Senate Hearing on Offshore Drilling," New York Times/Green, May 11, 2010.
Update, May 11: "MMS Approved 27 Gulf Drilling Operations After BP Disaster; 26 Were Exempted From Environmental Review, Including Two to BP; Salazar's "Moratorium" on New Drilling Permits Allows Continuation of the Same Flawed Environmental Exemption Process that Allowed the BP Catastrophe," Center for Biological Diversity, May 7, 2010 ("Even as the BP drilling explosion which killed eleven people continues to gush hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) has continued to exempt dangerous new drilling operations from environmental review. Twenty-seven new offshore drilling projects have been approved since April 20, 2010; twenty-six under the same environmental review exemption used to approve the disastrous BP drilling that is fouling the Gulf and its wildlife. “The MMS has learned absolutely nothing from this national catastrophe,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, “It is still illegally exempting dangerous offshore drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico from all environmental review. It is outrageous and unacceptable.”).
And see the recent, related, "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.
__________
The details of one of the most devastating environmental disasters in American history on fish, wildlife and beaches is not the most important story.
The details of the technology that permits drilling for oil a mile beneath the ocean's surface -- and that fails us when that drilling goes awry -- is not the most important story.
The tragic sacrifice of workers' lives -- 11 on the Deepwater Horizon (plus 29 in the Massey Coal mine) -- to the profits of their corporate employers with "cost savings" on inadequate and malfunctioning safety technology is not the most important story.
The response of suddenly get-tough-on-oil senators and members of Congress, and what the investigations may ultimately reveal (or conceal), is not the most important story.
The newspaper and television coverage of the oil disaster is not the most important story.
All of the above are mere diversions from the most important story.
The most important story? The extent to which America's officials -- and the public, let it be noted -- have permitted major corporations' campaign contributions, lobbying, public relations, advertising, and other influence to corrupt our nation's ability to formulate, and enforce, policies that would best serve "the national interest."
We're generally aware of the extent to which Goldman Sachs alums have infiltrated the government, from the Fed to the Treasury to the White House itself, and how they influence Congress. See, e.g., the summary in Alex Floum, "Goldman Sachs alumni hold many of the top government positions," Economic Policy Examiner, May 6, 2010; Albert R. Hunt, "Scarlet Letter for the Greed Generation," New York Times, April 25, 2010 ("Goldman’s political action committee gave $290,500 to congressional candidates last month as Congress weighed the financial-regulation overhaul. Mr. Obama shook the Goldman Sachs money tree for almost $1 million in his presidential campaign.").
We are perhaps less well informed and aware of the extent to which many industries exert similar influence over governmental decision making as well.
So let us consider the case study of BP.
From the West Coast to the Gulf Coast
This picture is so revealing. 
[Photo credit: UC Berkeley Media Relations] The caption reads, "Backstage before the announcement, UC President Robert Dynes (right) flashes 'thumbs up' to BP America chairman Robert Malone . . .."
"The announcement." "What announcement?" I hear you ask. The announcement that BP is going to give UC Berkeley (my first post-clerkship employer) $500 million.
Global energy firm BP announced today (Thursday, Feb. 1 [2007]) that it has selected the University of California, Berkeley, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) . . . to lead an unprecedented $500 million research effort to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment. . . .
"This partnership with BP will develop new, sustainable energy technologies that can transform the landscape," said Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, director of LBNL — a U.S. Department of Energy-funded lab — and UC Berkeley professor of physics and of molecular and cell biology.
Robert Sanders, "BP Selects UC Berkeley to Lead $500 Million Energy Research Consortium," UC Berkeley News, February 1, 2007.
Why is this story relevant? Well, for starters it is an illustration of the fact that the tentacles of a multi-billion-dollar corporation like BP extend into far more major American institutions than just the federal government -- especially the large, prestigious, research universities.
It also makes the point that when you're in a position to hand out money in $500 million bundles you tend to get a thumbs up from everyone you meet -- including presidents and members of Congress.
How can a company afford to make $500 million contributions? BP's first quarter profits were $5.6 billion; that's profits, not revenue, which is of course much greater; and not annual profits, but three months' worth of profits.
But there's more. Just as occasionally when you drill you strike oil, so occasionally when you pay $500 million for favorable public relations (BP was trying to sell the public on the idea that BP no longer stands for "British Petroleum," it now stands for "Beyond Petroleum") you strike another kind of oil.
And so it was with their beneficence spread upon Professor Chu. Do you know where he is now? That's right, President Obama decided he would make a great Secretary of Energy -- the guy who's supposed to be helping us overcome our oil addiction.
And what did he have to say recently about the BP oil spill disaster?
"U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday it was not a mistake for the administration to support more offshore drilling as part of comprehensive energy reform, despite the oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico that continues to threaten coastal areas." John Wihbey, "Energy Sec. Steven Chu: More Drilling Proposal 'Not a Mistake,'” "On Point with Tom Ashbrook"/WBUR/NPR, May 5, 2010.
Spreading Money Like Oil
But it's BP's generosity with members of Congress that may have even more to do with its disaster in the Gulf than its generosity with Energy Secretary Chu. After all, the pollution of the Gulf is primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior, not the Secretary of Energy.
Oil behemoth BP poured millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions over the past two decades, courting allies in Congress and the White House. . . . BP paid $6.2 million in campaign contributions since 1990, landing on the list of 107 "heavy hitters" compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The company's political action committee has helped the re-election efforts of many . . ..
And that's just part of BP's political spending.
Just in the past year, BP doled out nearly $16 million for influence efforts, using both its own lobbyists and those with eight other firms . . ..
Anne C. Mulkern, "Big Contributor BP Finds Itself Without a Friend on the Hill," New York Times/Greenwire, May 4, 2010; and see Bara Vaida, "K Street Paradox; Special Report: President Obama's fight against special interests boomerangs as lobbying firms just get richer," National Journal, March 13, 2010 (subscription service) ("President Obama continues to campaign against Washington's special interests, but to what effect? The more he tries to rein in lobbyists, the more K Street rakes in.").
OK, but what does that have to do with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar? Well, before he was a cabinet secretary it happens that he was a U.S. Senator -- a senator who served just shy of one term.
Having not yet been a senator for a full term, Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) [who] hasn't had much time to collect money from the industries that will take a special interest in him as Secretary of the Interior . . . . has collected a total of $321,800 from the energy and natural resources sector during his short time in the Senate . . ..
Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Interior Motives," Open Secrets, December 16, 2008.
And what was his record as a Senator? His Wikipedia entry reports that,
In 2005, Salazar voted against increasing fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE) for cars and trucks . . . [and] against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies. . . .
In 2006, Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.
In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the United States Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.
"Ken Salazar," Wikipedia.
So we shouldn't be surprised with Paul Krugman's reminder this morning that "environmentalists were bitterly disappointed when Mr. Obama chose Ken Salazar as secretary of the interior. They feared that he would be too friendly to mineral and agricultural interests, that his appointment meant that there wouldn’t be a sharp break with Bush-era policies — and in this one instance at least, they seem to have been right." Paul Krugman, "Sex and Drugs and the Spill," New York Times, May 10, 2010, p. A23.
Regulators Make Strange Bedfellows
And so what role did President Obama's Secretary of the Interior play in bringing on this Gulf disaster?
The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents . . . [as a result of] [t]he decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions . . ..
"I'm of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday. "That, in my opinion, is what happened." . . .
While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.
In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.
"They never did an analysis that took into account what turns out to be the very real possibility of a serious spill," said Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who has reviewed the documents.
The MMS mandates that companies drilling in some areas identify under NEPA what could reduce a project's environmental impact. But Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said the service grants between 250 and 400 waivers a year for Gulf of Mexico projects. He added that Interior has now established the "first ever" board to examine safety procedures for offshore drilling. It will report back within 30 days on BP's oil spill and will conduct "a broader review of safety issues," Lee-Ashley said.
BP's exploration plan for Lease 206 [Deepwater Horizon], which calls the prospect of an oil spill "unlikely," stated that "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."
[T]he plan . . . minimized the prospect of any serious damage associated with a spill, saying there would be only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine mammals, and "birds could become oiled. However it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."
Kierán Suckling, executive director of the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal waiver "put BP entirely in control" of the way it conducted its drilling.
Agency a 'rubber stamp'
"The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," Suckling said.
BP has lobbied the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- which provides NEPA guidance for all federal agencies -- to provide categorical exemptions more often. In an April 9 letter, BP America's senior federal affairs director, Margaret D. Laney, wrote to the council that such exemptions should be used in situations where environmental damage is likely to be "minimal or non-existent." An expansion in these waivers would help "avoid unnecessary paperwork and time delays," she added.
Juliet Eilperin, "U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study," Washington Post, May 5, 2010.
The disaster was predictable. Why predictable? Consider the record:
The 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas City, Tex., killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP a record $87 million for neglecting to correct safety violations.
Only a year later, a leaky BP oil pipeline in Alaska forced the shutdown of one of the nation’s biggest oil fields. BP was fined $20 million in criminal penalties after prosecutors said the company had neglected corroding pipelines. . . .
Last year, when the federal Minerals Management Service proposed a rule that would have required companies to have their safety and environmental management programs audited once every three years, BP and other companies objected. The agency is also investigating charges by a whistle-blower that the company discarded important records from its Atlantis Gulf platform.
Clifford Krauss, "Oil Spill’s Blow to BP’s Image May Eclipse Costs," New York Times, April 30, 2010; and see additional details and comparisons with other companies in Jad Mouawad, "BP Has a Record of Blasts and Oil Spills," New York Times, May 9, 2010, p. A22 ("BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics . . ..").
There are no simple answers to how an agency becomes "captured" by the industry it is supposed to regulate. But here are a couple of insights.
Regulators make strange bedfellows. You do recall the Minerals Management Service don't you? "Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported yesterday." Derek Kravitz and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Report Says Oil Agency Ran Amok; Interior Dept. Inquiry Finds Sex, Corruption," Washington Post, September 11, 2008. Noelle Straub, "GAO Audit: MMS Withheld Offshore Drilling Data, Hindered Risk Analyses in Alaska," New York Times/Greenwire, April 7, 2010 -- roughly three weeks before the current disaster.
So what? So, "The [Department of the Interior] inspector general said that these relationships have cost taxpayers $4.4 million in lapsed collection fees, but due to the sloppy administration at MMS, the real cost may go undiscovered. In a separate report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that MMS is plagued by inefficiency in collecting royalties, and that there is no way to backtrack and figure out how much has actually been lost. Currently, oil companies submit their own data and MMS simply takes them at their word, rather than independently confirming that the numbers are correct — what the inspector general has referred to in a letter to Secretary Dirk Kempthorne as a “Band-Aid approach to holding together one of the federal government's largest revenue producing operations.” A separate GAO report found that the United States is not collecting fair market price for royalties on public resources — which may be seriously limiting the amount of money taken in by MMS, and hence, the taxpayers." "Broken Government," Center for Public Integrity.
These consequences are reinforced as a result of what has come to be called the "revolving door."
In trying to understand why M.M.S. fails in its fiduciary and regulatory responsibilities to taxpayers, it’s impossible to ignore the revolving door between the agency and the industry that it oversees. Since leaving government service, Gale Norton, secretary of Interior under President Bush, became Shell’s general counsel, and J. Steven Griles, a deputy secretary of Interior, lobbied for numerous oil and gas industries — including BP — before he went to jail for obstructing a Senate investigation. Randall Luthi, the most recent director of M.M.S., is now president of the National Oceans Industries Association, whose mission is to secure a “favorable regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation’s valuable offshore energy resources.” . . .
Longstanding cozy ties with industry may help explain why M.M.S. failed to bolster safety requirements for equipment and processes used on the Deepwater Horizon rig — despite internal reports giving clear warnings about the risks of these devices and techniques.
At the end of the day, this spill should show Congress that there are real harms when government regulators consider the industry they oversee to be a partner or client (or future employer) rather than an entity that they should hold accountable.
Danielle Brian and Mandy Smithberger, "Our Government, Serving the Energy Business," in Editors, "Rules, Revolving Doors and the Oil Industry," New York Times, May 5, 2010.
Oil Seepage Into the White House
In fairness to the Obama Administration, it should be noted that this "self-regulation" of offshore drilling actually began during the Clinton Administration.
"We are not supportive of the extensive, prescriptive regulations as proposed in this rule," wrote Richard Morrison, BP's vice president for Gulf of Mexico production. "We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs implemented since the adoption of [voluntary standards] have been and continue to be very successful." . . . The voluntary approach was adopted in 1994 during the Clinton administration.
Mike Soraghan, "BP, Other Oil Companies Opposed Effort to Stiffen Environmental, Safety Rules for Offshore Drilling," Greenwire/New York Times, April 27, 2010.
Because ultimately this rot from within government, like an under-ocean oil spill, makes its way up to the White House and the President himself. President Obama is, from all indications, a bright guy, well informed, a quick study, not easily bamboozled. So when he starts mouthing oil industry propaganda it's hard to make excuses for him -- much as I'd like to believe he was simply relying too heavily on staff members, or industry spokespersons, he thought he could trust.
And yet, there he was on March 31, announcing from Andrews Air Force Base,
[A]s we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’ve still got to make some tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development in ways that protect communities and protect coastlines. . . .
[T]he bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.
So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.
"Remarks by The President on Energy Security at Andrews Air Force Base," March 21, 2010.
On April 2, 2010 -- 18 days before the BP disaster -- here is what the President had to say in Charlotte, North Carolina:
[Photo credit: White House] [W]e’ve got to look at our traditional energy sources and figure out how can we use those most effectively and in the most environmentally sound way. . . .
The decision around drilling -- same approach. What we did was we said we’re not going to have drilling a mile off the North Carolina coast or two miles off. But 50 miles off, 100 miles off, where it is appropriate and environmentally sound and not risky, we should allow exploration to begin taking place to see if there’s certain reserves. . . .
But what we did was we tried to look at the scientific evidence and figure out where are areas where low risk environmentally and a high potential upside. . . .
I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.
"Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy," Charlotte, North Carolina, April 2, 2010.
"Protect communities and protect coastlines"; "protect America's natural resources -- tourism, the environment -- guided by scientific evidence"; "environmentally sound and not risky"; "low risk environmentally"; "technologically advanced -- oil rigs today don't cause spills." It sounds as if it was written by a BP publicist. Hopefully, it was not -- but the result is just the same.
Wrapping Up With Democracy Now:
How is the Environmental Impact of Offshore Drilling Like a Forest Trail?
To wrap it up, here is the "Democracy Now" interview of Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity:
SECRETARY KEN SALAZAR: Minerals Management Service will not be issuing any permits for the construction of new offshore wells [after] May the 28th. . . . But today is not really the day to deal with those issues. . . .
[Democracy Now reporter] JUAN GONZALEZ: Secretary Salazar added that the existing offshore oil and natural gas drilling will continue, . . ..
[Democracy Now anchor] AMY GOODMAN: Salazar’s announcement comes on the heels of a Washington Post exposé revealing that the Minerals Management Service had approved BP’s drilling plan in the Gulf of Mexico without any environmental review. The article notes that the agency under Secretary Salazar had quote “categorically excluded” BP’s drilling as well as hundreds of other offshore drilling permits from environmental review. The agency was able to do this using a loophole in the National Environmental Policy Act created for minimally intrusive actions like building outhouses and hiking trails. Well, for more on this story, we’re joined now from Tucson, Arizona by Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. Welcome to DEMOCRACY NOW!, Kieran. Explain this loophole, how you found it, and what it means for the Gulf.
KIERAN SUCKLING: Well, when a federal government is going to approve a project, it has to go through an environmental review. But for projects that have very, very little impact like building an outhouse or a hiking trail, they can use something called a categorical exclusion and say there’s no impact here at all so we don’t need to spend energy or time doing a review. Well, we looked at the oil drilling permits being issued by the Minerals Management Service in the Gulf, and we were shocked to find out that they were approving hundreds of massive oil drilling permits using this categorical exclusion instead of doing a full environmental impact study. And then, we found out that BP’s drilling permit—the very one that exploded—was done under this loophole and so it was never reviewed by the federal government at all. It was just rubber-stamped.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, according to the Washington Post article, in one of its assessments of the agency “estimated that a large oil spill from a deep platform like the Deepwater Horizon would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a deepwater spill occurring off the Intercontinental shelf would not reach the coast.” Obviously, both of those—both of those assessments have proven dramatically off the mark. As many as 250-400 waivers a year for drilling in the Gulf?
KIERAN SUCKLING: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It’s also important to note that when the government says it’s very unlikely this spill will occur, it’s unlikely the spill will reach shore, those aren’t even the government’s own assessments. They’re just repeating what BP, Exxon, and other oil companies put in their drilling applications. And since there’s no environmental impact study, the government never actually does an independent review. So everyone is just repeating the industry’s statements as they rubber-stamp the approvals.
AMY GOODMAN: Reporters questioned White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday about why BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling operation was exempted from the detailed environmental impact analysis last year. . . .
KIERAN SUCKLING: The White House and the Department of Interior are really sort of ducking their heads on this issue right now because it’s an enormous problem. Especially since just a few months ago the Government Accountability Office came out with the report on MMS’s operations in Alaska, where they also have offshore drilling, and specifically said the agency is not doing these environmental studies properly. They’re avoiding doing them at all. And then they went ahead knowing that the GAO had just done this study and continued to put them out. So, this is not something new. MMS knew they had a problem. In fact, when Interior Secretary Salazar first came into office, he announced ‘There’s a new Sheriff in town, I’m going to clean up this corrupt agency,’ and instead of doing that, he’s pushed them to put out more offshore oil drilling permits while not cleaning up what is clearly a broken process of doing any environmental review at all.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I want to play a clip of President Obama where he says that oil spills don’t come from rigs, but from refineries. He was speaking on April 2nd, just over two weeks before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I want to point out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore. . . .
KIERAN SUCKLING: Yeah, I mean, I think what the President has said here is actually just very, very critical, because he is repeating, and I suspect without even knowing it, the big lie of offshore oil drilling. For decades, the oil companies and the Minerals Management Service have told us, ‘Oil drilling is safe, it’s fine, that’s not where oil spills come from.’ In fact, that’s the basis of not doing any environmental review is, you simply assert it will never be a problem, therefore, you don’t even have to study it. While it’s true that they don’t leak often, but when they do leak, it’s absolutely catastrophic. It’s very similar to nuclear power plants. They don’t often fail, but when they fail it’s catastrophic. And, therefore, you have to plan for catastrophe. You have to do very intensive environmental analysis, not simply say, ’It’s rare, so we can ignore it.’
AMY GOODMAN: Kieran Suckling, what do think has to happen right now?
KIERAN SUCKLING: Well, first off, I think that the President should announce a complete moratorium on all new offshore oil drilling. This three-week time-out is really too little, too late. And it’s very important to do that now because the president, under the urging of Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, has planned to open up new offshore oil drilling in Alaska, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and on the Atlantic coast. And that just needs to end. It’s not safe anywhere, anytime.
Secondly, the president should immediately revoke existing oil permits and especially in Alaska. Shell Oil, this July, . . . is going to start doing offshore oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea of Alaska. And if you think it’s difficult to clean up oil in the relatively warm, calm Gulf of Mexico, imagine trying to do this with icebergs and sea ice, twenty hours of darkness, in the Arctic oceans. It just cannot be done. If this spill had happened in Alaska, its magnitude would have been ten times worse than has happened in the Gulf.
Then, thirdly, the President should start an initiation of an investigation of Ken Salazar and his role in allowing this to happen.
Salazar has been a major proponent of the offshore oil drilling industry. He passed legislation as a senator in 2006 to open up the Gulf of Mexico in the first place to offshore oil drilling. He gets campaign contributions by British Petroleum. And then he walks into this agency he is supposed to reform, and instead of reforming it, pushes it to do even more offshore oil drilling. So Ken Salazar is part of the problem here, not the solution. He should not be doing the investigation of MMS. He should be under investigation for helping to cause this crisis.
"Government Exempted BP From Environmental Review," Democracy Now, May 7, 2010 (video and transcript).
Most institutions only respond to internal problems when they become serious or dramatic enough to create significant adverse media coverage. The response may be helpful, or may be counterproductive -- even to the institution's self-interest.
But even after the public relations disaster there's no assurance meaningful reform will ensue. Consider our financial collapse. As I pointed out in a recent blog entry, the first thing to do if the problem is "too big to fail" is to make the institutions smaller. And yet, when the Senate tried it was the Senate that was "too" something; it failed. The Goldman Sachs alums won again.
A move to break up major Wall Street banks failed Thursday night by a vote of 61 to 33.
Three Republicans, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Ensign of Nevada, voted with 30 Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in support of the provision. The author of the pending overall financial reform bill in the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, voted against it.
The amendment . . . would have required megabanks to be broken down in size and capped so that their individual failure would not bring down the entire system. . . .
In practice, the amendment required the six biggest banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- to significantly scale down their size. It was touted as a way to end Too Big To Fail.
Though top Obama administration officials have not publicly opposed the amendment, its leading economists have opposed ending Too Big To Fail simply by breaking up the nation's financial behemoths. Austan Goolsbee and Larry Summers have both fought back against this idea, as has Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
"Senate Votes For Wall Street; Megabanks To Remain Behemoths," Huffington Post, May 6, 2010.
It remains to be seen whether even America's worst environmental disaster, getting worse by the day, will be enough to change the culture of Washington anymore than our financial collapse was able to do.
But now at least we can see how to connect those slippery, oily dots; now we understand "the rest of the story."
Will we do anything about it -- you and me? That also remains to be seen.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
