SocraticGadfly

May 22, 2010

Tiger Woods has another pain in the neck

And, it's called an apparent soon-to-be ex-wife, Elin Nordegren.

Ms. Elin wants a lot, starting with $750 million in a settlement PLUS no signing a confidentiality agreement, which would indicate she's already looking at a book deal or something.

Obviously, a book could make her a few million, but nowhere near $750M. That same book, though, could cost Tiger as much as $50-$100M in lost sponsorship fees. And that might be conservative. So, he's got reason to push money on her to shut her up.

BP tells EPA eff you

Big Polluter claims Corexit is the best dispersant it has for the Deepwater Horizon blowout, tells EPA it's not going to change, and isn't interested in how this is affecting deep-sea dispersal, or anything other than trying to make the surface look a little less oily.

So far, the sound from EPA? Crickets.

Meanwhile, BP's Chief Extortion/Excuses Officer Tony Haywood says next week's "top kill" may well not work! The one tenuous silver lining is that this makes deepwater offshore drilling less and less trustworthy without MASSIVE new regulations.

Meanwhile, the real, slick oil now hitting beaches may be impossible to fully clean up out of Louisiana's entangled wetlands. Prince William Sound in Alaska had bare beaches, not thickets of subtropical flora.

BP still lies, Obama still kowtows

The former clause in the header is obvious, but Obamiacs keep trying to deny the latter.

Nonetheless, it's true, even as The One pushes for tougher fuel economy, including first-ever standards for semis, which deserves a true kudo. But, at the same time, Der Neolibbenfuehrer, with such fuel standards, we won't need to rush after all that deep-sea oil!)

As for BP? You knew it was lying when it claimed its siphon hose was recovering as much oil as it first claimed, and still somewhat claims, was the total leak flow. The lies have gone downhill from there, as has Team Obama's attempt to hold BP in particular, or offshore drilling in general, to account. (Include Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at the top of Team Obama's liars.)

Meanwhile, the human life toll, the wildlife toll, the ecosystem toll, the economy toll? As Bob Herbert notes, BP writes it off on its ledgers — again, as Team Obama continues to cover for it, and for offshore drilling in general.

And, sadly, as Joe Conason notes, this all undermines the myth of the all-powerful "Left." Sure, a few of the Gang Green enviro groups are finally getting stirred up, but, what took so long?

Why Rand Paul is wrong on civil rights

Rand Paul has been, famously or infamously, claiming that in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the government's regulation or elimination of discrimination in private establishments was unconstitutional. Funny, I have read the Constitution before.

Let's take a look.

The Preamble to the Constitution says it is ordained and established to:
Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (and) promote the general Welfare.
Now add to that Article 1, Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I consider those forgoing powers to include what's listed in the preamble.

Even libertarians know Rand's wrong, with even more insight than I just offered.

Of course, at heart, Rand, like his old man, is a racist of sorts trying to camouflage it in libertarian language. Congrats, Kentucky GOP voters: You just nominated a borderline racist, if not more than borderline, to carry your party's senate banner.

And, yes, his old man's a racist. "Mainstream libertarianism" (an oxymoron if ever) said so two years ago in its house organ.

May 21, 2010

Fed court has a big fail on detainee rights

How a federal appeals court could rule that U.S. detainees at its Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan have no habeas appeal rights, despite the Supreme Court saying detainees in similar situation at Guantanamo do, I don't know, but the D.C. Court of Appeals made just that claim.

Obama, time to address 'your own'

It's no wonder the Congressional Black Caucus wants Obama to address minority needs more.

Even during the good times, the black-white wealth gap grew, and grew A LOT, in the past 20 years. Even among the middle class, not just the working class or the poor.

Here's how bad it's been:
Measured in 2007 dollars, the disparity in assets increased $75,000 on average, from $20,000 to $95,000 over the 23-year period. At least one in four black households had no assets. ...

This was true even at higher income levels, with middle-income whites seeing their wealth levels increase from $55,000 to $74,000, while high-income African-Americans saw their wealth decrease $7,000 in the same period, to $18,000 in 2007. The study defined middle income as $40,000 to $70,000, in 2007 dollars. In general, wealth produced during this period "accrues primarily to highest income whites."

The authors say this shows higher incomes alone will not lead to increased wealth and security for African Americans, since consumers of color are subjected to "systemic bias that operates in racialized ways" in credit, housing and taxes – dramatically reducing their chances of achieving economic mobility.
Of course, our "first black neoliberal president" hasn't totally caught on to that, perhaps?