First, this news about the Gulf of Mexico oil leak leads me to say, we only have 100 years of weather data, so talking about "100-year floods" is bullshit.
Therefore, and along similar lines why do we let oil companies assume they've adequately planned for disasters when they deliberately do not include the possibility of everything going wrong at once?
This is a clusterfuck by BOTH the likes of BP and the likes of the federal government, as the NYT notes.
Indeed, BP even made the official claim that an event like this pretty much could not happen.
At the same time, it's "fun" to see the Louisiana hypocrites, GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, suddenly scramble for the federal government to be big and strong.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
May 01, 2010
The Katrina of oil spills
Labels:
BP,
Louisiana,
offshore oil drilling
April 30, 2010
Who pooped the zoo?
Well, in Minneapolis, the Minnesota Zoo shows off the poop to teach the young 'uns some facts about wildlife.
Labels:
scatblogging
Hopi Indians pass TCB 1710
The Hopi Tribal Council, representing the people that has lived for thousands of years on the Colorado Plateau expanse of northeastern Arizona, in order to preserve the integrity of the Hopi people, has passed Tribal Council Bill 1710.
It reads, in part:
To Anglos not knowing the traditions of governance, leadership and consensus within the Hopi people, you are referred here.
It reads, in part:
Dear other peoples inhabiting the region that the United States Government calls "Arizona":
For countless ages before you or your ancestors came here, our forefathers, the Hisatsinom wandered this area freely, and in peace and tolerance. We did not demand "proofs" from the occasional stranger that wandered in.
We did not demand "proofs" from the Navajo that now surround us, when they finished their journey here.
We did not demand "proofs" from the Spanish when they came from Mexico. And, we could not ask them to leave, when, by their force, they committed grave crimes against our people.
That said, later, other people with white skins, far more numerous, came. We did our best not to stigmatize them, though we could have done so.
To no avail.
And, their descendants, you the people who now claim to "govern" this land you call Arizona, go even further.
Many of our elderly still are not fluent in English. They do not have driver's licenses, utility bills or credit cards. If they were born before 1924, they were themselves not even given the chance to be considered American citizens at birth. And, when they were, we had to decline, in order to maintain our sovereignty. So, they could be mistaken for Hispanic "illegal aliens."
Therefore, we must respond to SB 1710.
As a sovereign nation under United States Government law, we forbid any officials of the government of the state of Arizona to come on our land.
Leave us alone.
That said, we recognize that we are, ourselves, a fiction created to satisfy certain demands of the United States Government. Real discussion and consensus, about which we cannot inform you further, is done in our kivas and other locations on a village-by-village basis.
We can say that there is true consensus on this bill, though, and that it is not the consensus of the "Hopi Nation" but of the villages of the Hopi people.
To Anglos not knowing the traditions of governance, leadership and consensus within the Hopi people, you are referred here.
Labels:
Arizona,
Hopi Indians,
illegal immigration,
Navajo Nation
More proof Tricky Ricky Perry has eye on DC 2012
Gov. Helmethair says, despite folks in the Lege who like the idea, like would-be bill introducer Debbie Riddle, that Arizona's new immigration law "would not be the right direction for Texas."
We didn't hear a peep from Tricky Ricky 24 hours ago, when Debbie Does Dumb first spoke up. But, now, after possibly sticking a finger in the wind (perhaps after pulling it out of his ass first), Tricky Ricky decides that he needs to oppose this bill.
Oh, as for the claims that Perry hasn't been as tough on immigration as Arizona? Maybe not, but he's been a lot dumber. Who can forget his lame-o DIY at-home border monitors via computer? That netted what, about three illegal aliens?
That said, the Trickster is lucky he doesn't have a Tea Partier opponent, or that the Arizona bill didn't come down the pike 2 months ago, with Debra Medina in the GOP primary. He'd have done enough fence-straddling then to risk self-castration.
Speaking of Medina, Lege "birther" Leo Berman (shouldn't Jews especially be wary of "papers" and related issues?) claims he tightened up support for the Trickster during the primary by steering folks away from Medina in exchange for a tougher line on immigration, and now he's pissed. Burnt Orange Report has the details.
We didn't hear a peep from Tricky Ricky 24 hours ago, when Debbie Does Dumb first spoke up. But, now, after possibly sticking a finger in the wind (perhaps after pulling it out of his ass first), Tricky Ricky decides that he needs to oppose this bill.
Oh, as for the claims that Perry hasn't been as tough on immigration as Arizona? Maybe not, but he's been a lot dumber. Who can forget his lame-o DIY at-home border monitors via computer? That netted what, about three illegal aliens?
That said, the Trickster is lucky he doesn't have a Tea Partier opponent, or that the Arizona bill didn't come down the pike 2 months ago, with Debra Medina in the GOP primary. He'd have done enough fence-straddling then to risk self-castration.
Speaking of Medina, Lege "birther" Leo Berman (shouldn't Jews especially be wary of "papers" and related issues?) claims he tightened up support for the Trickster during the primary by steering folks away from Medina in exchange for a tougher line on immigration, and now he's pissed. Burnt Orange Report has the details.
April 29, 2010
Dear Arizona: Here's the illegal immigrant truth
First, let me say that, for various reasons, I want the border properly enforced. But, I don't want that enforcement based on lies and racism.
Unfortunately, as Steve Chapman documents in great back-to-back columns, that's what's happening.
First, the law, and SCOTUS rulings, allow cops to take the initiative in making random contacts with people on the street. Well, that would count as a "lawful contact" in the Arizona law, Chapman notes. See the potential for police abuse?
In an earlier column, then, Chapman debunks the myth of the "criminal illegal alien," among other things. He notes the low crime rate in El Paso, for example, or notes illegals are less likely to commit crimes than Native Americans. (Of course, some of that is a different matter entirely.
Unfortunately, as Steve Chapman documents in great back-to-back columns, that's what's happening.
First, the law, and SCOTUS rulings, allow cops to take the initiative in making random contacts with people on the street. Well, that would count as a "lawful contact" in the Arizona law, Chapman notes. See the potential for police abuse?
In an earlier column, then, Chapman debunks the myth of the "criminal illegal alien," among other things. He notes the low crime rate in El Paso, for example, or notes illegals are less likely to commit crimes than Native Americans. (Of course, some of that is a different matter entirely.
Labels:
Arizona,
Chapman (Steve),
illegal immigration
Criminal Sachs?
So, is Lloyd Blankfein going to tell the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan he was "doing God's business," too? Looks like he has some sort of 'splaining to do.
That said, even though this investigation is playing off the SEC civil probe, there's no slam dunk on charges, let alone a conviction:
The WSJ story notes that the feds are reluctant to pursue criminal cases against financial firms for fear they will implode. But, given post-bailout public opinion, I don't see how the DOJ can not push this case, no matter the implosion risk.
That said, even though this investigation is playing off the SEC civil probe, there's no slam dunk on charges, let alone a conviction:
(T)he Goldman probe presents a significant challenge for the government. Prosecutors in the Brooklyn office of the U.S. Attorney last year lost a high-profile fraud case against two former Bear Stearns Cos. executives, in the first major criminal case linked to the financial meltdown.Intent is the big issue, but some of the e-mails the SEC uncovered go in that direction.
The WSJ story notes that the feds are reluctant to pursue criminal cases against financial firms for fear they will implode. But, given post-bailout public opinion, I don't see how the DOJ can not push this case, no matter the implosion risk.
Labels:
Blankfein (Lloyd),
Goldman Sachs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)