Archive: Jsmog
•
|
by Jsmog
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 09:28am
I know the President was against "Drill baby drill!" and what-not, but sabotaging and blowing up that oil rig down in the Gulf of Mexico to create an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions is ridonkulous.
Meanwhile, BP is resorting to ideas form Stephen King books to find a solution to the problem. Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous
View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Monday, May 3, 2010 at 07:41pm
Boy, it sure is a good thing that Cheney's energy task force determined that the $500,000 remote controlled shut-off switches on deep sea oil wells was simply much to "onerous" of a government regulation on offshore drilling. By golly.
I guess that "Drill baby drill!" chant Obama used is coming back to haunt him. Wait, what's that? He didn't use it. Weird. I wonder if Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal or Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour are going to use that chant as they seek the 2012 Republican nomination? Thoughts?
Dick Cheney and the oil spill
As we know from our own comment threads right here on this very blog, right-wingers are expert at taking a few facts from situations that appear to be superficially similar but really aren't upon reflection or closer examination and using them to attack liberals.
And so, in the last few days, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has become Obama's Katrina. Um…look, I'm as pro-pelican as the next guy, and obviously I don't mean to gainsay the scope of this environmental catastrophe, which will end up being staggering.
But Katrina killed about 1,500 humans. And no, it's not George Bush's personal fault that they died, either. But I still rate Katrina a far bigger tragedy for that reason.
And now it turns out, according to an environmental lawyer whose interview on Ed Schultz last week is getting a lot of circulation, that this leak may well be traceable in part to…Dick Cheney.
How? It's hardly as far-fetched as it sounds. From the Wall Street Journal:
The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week…
… regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.
The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.
The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.
The Journal's report doesn't come out and say this, but the environmental lawyer, Mike Papantonio, said on the Schultz show in an interview you can watch here that it was Cheney's energy task force – the secretive one that he wouldn't say much about publicly – that decided that the switches, which cost $500,000, were too much a burden on the industry. The Papantonio segment starts at around 5:00 in and lasts three minutes or so.
In the interests of disclosure I will note that I haven't heard the phrase "acoustic switch" until this weekend, so I don't really know. And obviously the fact that the US isn't alone in not requiring this switch indicates that there are legitimate questions about cost v. efficacy. So maybe it's just one of those things.
But then again, maybe it's not. Regulatory decisions have consequences all the time, and the people who made them should be asked to justify their decisions in a democracy. It'll be very interesting to watch this week and see if other news outlets pursue this.
Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous
View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 10:16am
Here is where you can go to file a Consumer Complaint against Alaska State Governor Sean Parnell and Attorney General Dan Sullivan for threatening to take away Health Care from the good people of Alaska, via the Attorney General's office.
As the page on the Attorney General's own site says:
-
Identify the Problem: After the Legislature passed an $11 billion dollar budget the Governor and AG want to waste badly needed state funds in a meritless frivoluous lawsuit against the federal government in order to deny Alaskans health care, for mere political campaign reasons.
-
Gather Records: Read the summary of the Governor's April 20th announcement with his announced plan to join 19 other states in their wasteful lawsuit against the federal health care package, claiming the Congress has limits under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, all the while ignoring the Supremacy Clause, Limited Immunity Clause, Tax & Spend Clause, and General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution. According to a summery of the Alaska State Department of Law's 48-page legal memorandum analyzing the constitutionality of the federal health care legislation can't make a solid case against the Commerce Clause, nor does it address any of the other clauses granting powers to Congress, thus ensuring the case will be thrown out or certainly lose in court, which demonstrates what a waste in legal fees this fruitless legal maneuver will become.
-
Contact the Person you are Filing Against: For the record be sure to call up the Governor & AG's offices and calmly and accurately explain to them they have no case and ask if they would decide not waste Alaska's money on frivolous lawsuits by dropping the case. Tell them to stop threatening to take health care away from Alaskans. Hands Off My Health Care! Here is the contact information for the Governor's office (465-3500) and here is the contact information for the Attorney General's office.
-
Allow Them to Contact you back: which may just be their response on the phone, or they may ask to get back in touch with you later.
-
Keep a Record of Your Efforts: which can be cross-referenced with their records.
-
Don't Give Up: As the Attorney General's page says, if you are not satisfied with the response, don't give up.
-
Write A Complaint Letter:
- The letter should include your name, address, home and work telephone numbers, and account number, if appropriate.
- Make your letter brief and to the point. Specify all the important facts about your purchase, including the date and place you made the purchase and any information you can give about the product — such as the serial or model number. If you are writing to complain about a service you received, describe the service and who performed it.
- State exactly what you want done about the problem and how long you are willing to wait to resolve it. Be reasonable.
- Include copies of all documents regarding your problem. Be sure to send COPIES, not originals.
- Don't write an angry, sarcastic, or threatening letter. The person reading your letter probably was not responsible for your problem, but may be very helpful in resolving it.
- Type your letter if possible. If it is handwritten, make sure it is neat and easy to read.
- Keep a copy of all correspondence to and from the company.
Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous
View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 06:49am
April 20, 2010, Juneau, Alaska – Alaska Governor Sean Parnell today announced that the State of Alaska will join 20 other states in challenging the constitutionality of recently enacted federal heath care reform legislation. Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan released a detailed legal memorandum in which he analyzes the potential legal claims and recommends the constitutional challenge.
Reporters present: Rena Delbridge – Alaska Dispatch, Jeremy Hsieh – Associated Press, Dave Donaldson – APRN, Pat Forgey – Juneau Empire, Amanda Coyne – Freelance (Huffington Post, former Anchorage Press writer,) Linda Kellen – blogger, Andrew Jensen – Journal of Commerce, Erica Bolstad – McClatchy DC, Pete Carrin – KINY
The governor said he was briefed yesterday on the AG’s memo and was so compelled and felt it was so important that he waived privilege to release it to Alaskans. He said the issue is “a battle for freedom” under the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. He said the issue is one of regulation versus mandating, highlighting pages 23-26 of the memo, but page 25 in particular (the mandated gym membership line.) He said “for the first time we have the federal government dictating commerce.”
“With the enactment of health care legislation, the federal government has reached well beyond the scope of its authority — into the lives and freedom of Alaskans,” Governor Parnell said. “This case is ultimately about the extent to which the federal government can exert power over the states. It has critical implications for the liberty interests of all American citizens. Alaska must join this important litigation.”
The Attorney General said the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an “unprecedented congressional action” and there is pretty “universal recognition that Congress has limited enumerated powers.” He said he’s advising the state to join the Florida lawsuit to protect Alaska’s interests.
(more…)
Dan Sullivan | federal lawsuit | health care | health care reform | individual mandate | Sean Parnell | unconstitutional | View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Friday, March 19, 2010 at 11:27am
Have fun trying to repeal HCR next time you are in power, as if the Republicans will have a majority any time soon. But say they do, what are the Republicans going to do? Remove all those awful taxes? Put the wasteful medicare advantage subsidies back in? Well, like all Congresses, at the end of the year you got to balance the budget, so now how are you going to pay for it? If you guys have a better way of paying for it all by all means, but at the end of the day, it needs to be paid for somehow. Or will you fiscal responsible conservatives go back to deficit spending? My guess is that is exactly what will happen, and there goes the country again into a spiral of deficit spending whenever the Republicans are in charge.
Oh, but then I suppose you could “reform” health care again? You guys want to give it a go next time you are in power? It’s so easy afterall. And clearly after everything you wanted in the health care reform bill is actually included in the bill I can see why you’d want to completely reform it. Maybe you guys can call it the “Health Care Deform bill”? Just give the insurance companies anti-trust exemptions again and let them drop whoever and jack up premiums to whatever? That’s been working out so great so far, afterall. Would you spend a whole year debating it like the Democrats? Or would you “ram it through”? Would you use reconciliation? How about a “self-executing action”? Which form of hypocrisy would you use to get it accomplished? Because after all, the Democrats wouldn’t think of using every single tactic the Republicans used against them when the shoe is on the other foot. For some strange reason Republicans think that if they take back over Congress Democrats aren’t going to filibuster every goddam thing they offer. I guess you guys are prepared for the barrage of hypocrisy attacks that will follow, right? In fact, Republicans should campaign on repealing Health Care. That would be very fun to watch.
But the fact of the matter is, when Health Care reform passes on Sunday, and signed by Obama, it becomes law. If the Republicans want to “gut” it and take away its funding, a program that is paid for and is not contributing to the national deficit, then they will basically have to deficit spend to pay for it. Yeah, nobody will notice that. After all the horse shit the Republicans and conservatives are bitching about Obama spending money to keep our country’s economy from collapsing, trust me, if the Republicans even hint they are about to go on a Reagan/Bush spending spree there will be rioting in the streets.
So yeah, good luck with that.
health care | health care reform | hypocrisy | repeal | Republicans | View Comments
|
•
|
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 10:51am
 a principled, common sense, Strong, HARD conservative Remember when Levi Johnson posed naked in Playgirl? Yeah, most people didn’t care either. But uppity conservatives thought this might actually be the apocalypse. There was all this big hubabaloo as to whether Levi was going to go Full Monty or not reveal the real “Johnson”. He eventually went with the latter by covering his extreme private parts with a hand towel. However, this didn’t stop Palin from saying about the father of her grandson, that Levi was taking a “heartbreaking” venture into “porn” on Oprah.
Never the less, while Palin has been traveling the country embarrassing herself elsewhere she has weighed in on a few of the upcoming elections as well, saying this about MA Senatorial Republican candidate Scott Brown, that he has “you know, common sense conservative values, principles, solutions, being plugged in to meet the challenges facing America today.” Because obviously someone who poses nude in a Centerfold (without even a hand towel) demonstrates, what is it again, “conservative values, principles, solutions, being plugged in to meet the challenges facing America today.” Or maybe Levi is taking a venture into porn because of the magazine in which he chose to pose in, which was no Cosmo like Brown’s pictorial. And who knows, since Brown’s expose was during the 80s, maybe Levi will make a great Republican Senatorial candidate in 20 years. Hmmm, Levi doesn’t seem to have quite as good a grasp on hypocrisy yet, like all principled common sense Republicans do.
Take the poll : Is A.) the nude photo of Levi Johnson the porn and the nude photo of Scott Brown the common sense conservative, B.) the nude photo of Scott Brown the porn and the nude photo of Levi Johnson the common sense conservative, or C.) Sarah Palin is a hypocrite?
centerfold | hypocrisy | Levi Johnson | Palin | Scott Brown | View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 10:45am
 McCain/Palin visor at the beach My god, this lady is so dumb. Is there a bigger idiot than Sarah Palin? While in Hawaii with her family she decided to go “incognito” by putting on a “visor”, that way nobody would recognize her with a flap over her forehead and a band around her head, much in the same way that when Superman puts on a pair of glasses he is mysteriously no longer Superman but now Clark Kent instead, or when Zoro dawns an eye mask he’s instantly unrecognizable. However, since the RNC hasn’t been buying Palin any new clothes in over a year, all she had were these old “McCain/Palin” visors left over from the campaign. Except wearing a visor that said “McCain/Palin” would obviously ruin the whole being “incognito” for those who already recognize her, because wearing a visor in the first place is such a dumb disguise. Solution? Palin decided, in her infinite wisdom that’s being reserved for when she presides over the most powerful nation in the world, and with the fact that nobody in Hawaii sells any other kind of hat, the best option would be to take a sharpie and black out the words “McCain/Palin” on the visor. Now nobody will know it’s her! Well, except TMZ who took pictures of her in her silly blotted out campaign visor.
(more…)
idiot | incognito | Palin | View Comments
|
•
|
by Jsmog
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 12:03am
 GOP says No to Reagan This is too much. OMG! The Republicans are now trying to get Ronald Reagan kicked out of the party by invoking his name even! So frickin hilarious. Not only would Abraham Lincoln have been long booted from the party awhile ago, but now they’re trying to kick their hero, Ronald Reagan out on his ass.
Conservative RNC member James Bopp Jr. is circulating a draft resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support if they wish to have party backing. The resolution calls on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of the positions. RNC chairman Michael Steele will now have to choose a side between those who would expand the party ideologically and those more concerned with conservative purity at the next RNC meeting in January.
(more…)
amnesty | Beirut | DOMA | gun control | Iran | national debt | party purity | reagan | View Comments
|
|
| | A V E R T I S E M E N T
|
