Why did (does?) Kagan hate minority drug users

Guess who was behind the Slickster's push for the 100x disparity on crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing? Guess who told Clinton to make this decision on political needs?

Yep, that would be Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Ms. Elena Kagan? And, who in the now all non-black Senate's going to ask her about that?

Well, the NAACP, it turns out, DIDN'T ask her about that:

The nation's oldest and largest civil rights group voted unanimously at a board meeting in Florida to endorse Kagan, in line to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. It was an early endorsement by a major interest group for Kagan, who is solicitor general, the government's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

The NAACP's president, Benjamin Jealous, told The Associated Press that the group initially was concerned because Kagan, who never served as a judge, had little direct evidence or a record that she would actively promote civil rights.

Well, she has a clear past record on one thing that FIGHTS civil rights!

Nor did Jealous and the rest of hte NAACP ask her about her pre-Solicitor General opinions on expanding the domain of corporate "free speech."

In other words, this is just a knee-jerk reaction to a Democratic president, and a minority one at that, running a nomination choice up the flagpole. I guess, collectively, per Matt Yglesias' vapid, tautological definition, the NAACP board is a bunch of good liberals.

On Harriet Miers, a group like Rutherford would have squashed Kagan like a bug.

Meanwhile, speaking of Kagan and conservatives, Media Matters for America claims all conservatives are ramped up against Kagan. It's a cheap fundraising ploy, or something to that effect, I'm sure. Bottom line is that it's not true.

The utterly failed War on Drugs

It's failed so miserably, that in this highly-read, in-depth AP investigative piece, even President Obama's own drug czar admitted it's largely failed.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Gil Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

That said, he, like his boss has a wont of doing, told a big fib, claiming the Obama Administration is devoted to more work on drug addiction prevention, treatment, etc.

Well, it is, unless you look for the dollar signs. Then, it's not.

And, on the addiction prevention side, it's not trying anything new, even though programs like DARE are known flops. How is it a flop, and how badly?

We need a long blockquote from the story, that's how, and how badly:

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

— $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

— $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

— $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

— $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

Meanwhile, we can't stop Mexico ... Ten percent of the Mexican economy is built on drug proceeds, with $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year. Out of that, only 25 cents of each $100 smuggle, or one-quarter of 1 percent, is caught at the border, the story notes.

Here in this part of the world, at least one politician welcomed the story.

El Paso City Councilman Beto O'Rourke is glad to see the in-depth expose, tiring of the drug violence of neighboring Juarez, Mexico. He wants marijuana legalization to be part of the attempted answer.

BP oil dispersal may hide a load of problems

Whether BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout is pumping out an Exxon Valdez every four days, or less than that, it's not dropping an Exxon Valdez sized mess on the beach at all right now.

That's a good thing right? Maybe not.

Since we don't even know right now where that spewing oil will settle, we have no idea what sort of problems it may be causing.

Because of the leak's extreme depth, and the effects of dispersants, (various groups) say this spill is breaking the maxim that oil floats. Instead, they fear it is settling on sensitive corals, or poisoning ecosystems that produce shrimp, snapper and sport fish -- all in places too deep for scientists to watch or help.

In Alaska, people could scrub oil off rocks, clams or other shore shellfish, or even try to help otters or seabirds. No chance, here.

That's why there's no need to hold back on labeling this for what it is.

"Let's see it for what it is: To me, it's a disaster already. It doesn't have to go up on the beach," said Ronald J. Kendall, a professor at Texas Tech University who studies oil's effect on ecosystems. He said the spill's impacts on underwater creatures might not be fully understood for years: "It's a massive eco-toxicological experiment underway."

I'm sure Prof. Kendall isn't fond of this "experiment."

But, what about BP's vaunted, touted, dispersants? Won't they break the oil up enough that it won't cause too much harm when it settles? Probably not:

"By dispersing the stuff at depth, it creates essentially smaller globules of oil (and) it makes the oil mire likely to be affected by even slow-moving currents," said James H. Cowan Jr., a professor of oceanography and coastal sciences at Louisiana State University. "We just don't know where it is, and we don't know where it's going."

In other words, some oil could smother a strand of coral for a while, until a relatively mild eddy releases it, and it then moves on enough, just enough, to drop on another strand of coral.

BP will face a real storm this summer ... a Katrina-like one?

Oops, oops, oops.

Forecasters are predicting an above-average Atlantic hurricane season. Eastern Atlantic temperatures are already pushing record highs for this time of year, and there's little to no El Nino to shear off upper-level circulatory winds.

What might a few big storms do to that oil?

Storms may scuttle clean-up efforts, force containment vessels to retreat, or propel spilled crude and tar balls over vast expanses of sea and beach, scientists said.

Meteorologists say that climate conditions are ripe for an unusually destructive hurricane season, the storm-prone period that runs from June 1 to the end of November in the Gulf. Oceanographers say that could hurt the clean-up.

Storms? In the plural? It may only take one, right? Yep.

"It only takes one storm to wreak havoc," said Chris Shabbot, a meteorologist at Sempra in Connecticut. "The consensus forecast is for above average storm activity as the El Nino (event) decays and the Atlantic is as warm or warmer than 2005."

Let me see ... didn't the Gulf have another disaster in 2005? Oh, yeah, Katrina. And not just Katrina. 2005 was chock-full of monster hurricanes pounding the Gulf.

Meanwhile, since we don't even know right now where that spewing oil will settle, we have no idea where or how a hurricane will disperse it.

Bet that wasn't in BP's disaster planning either.

Obama lyingly promises to get 'tough' on offshore drilling

President Barack Obama promised today to get tough with the oil and gas drilling industry, claiming it was time to move beyond finger pointing:
“This is a responsibility that all of us share,” Mr. Obama said. “The oil companies share it. The manufacturers of this equipment share it. The agencies and the federal government in charge of oversight share that responsibility.”
He even promised an overview of recent offshore drilling leases permitted by the Minerals Management Service, including after the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon well.

Ahh, but here's what The One isn't telling you.

The MMS has been helping oil drillers deliberately avoid getting environmental impact permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact,” said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. “If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.”

AND ... Our Beloved Neoliberal Leader Obama's proposed reform of the Minerals Management Service apparently won't touch this NOAA work-around. (And, the "cozy relationship" he mentioned? Isn't that, too, part and parcel of neoliberalism?)

Update, May 15: Meanwhile, another government entity, the EPA, readily signed off on BP's never-before done, never-before tested, use of deep sea dispersents.

Oxygen waters on the seafloor around the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe have already fallen by 30 percent and will fall more.

Meanwhile, there are oil and gas plumes from just below the surface to 4,000 feet deep.

Researchers Vernon Asper and Arne Dierks said in Web posts that the plumes were "perhaps due to the deep injection of dispersants which BP has stated that they are conducting."

In other words, the dispersants may be contributing to the oil-caused deoxygenation.

That's why BP's "backup" plan to use dispersants in deepwater for the first time, without testing, is so criminal.

The decision (to allow this) by the Environmental Protection Agency angered state officials and fishermen, who complained that regulators ignored their concerns about the effects on the environment and fish.

"The EPA is conducting a giant experiment with our most productive fisheries by approving the use of these powerful chemicals on a massive, unprecedented scale," John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, said in a news release.

BP. Blatantly Polluting. And, the technocratic neoliberalocity is cooperating.

The latest MMS fail on offshore drilling

It's been helping oil drillers deliberately avoid getting environmental impact permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact,” said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. “If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.”

AND ... Our Beloved Neoliberal Leader Obama's proposed reform of the Minerals Management Service apparently won't touch this NOAA work-around.

So, Obamiacs, quit defending him on environmental issues, or his response to this tragic, but quite avoidable, catastrophe.