Walruses! Dead Turtle Experts! Xerox Machines! 16JUN10 & Judge Blocks Moratorium On Gulf Offshore Drilling 22JUN10

This has been in public since 16 JUN and the "judge" (with substantial financial investments in the energy sector)  in Louisiana still found the Obama administration moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico unfounded and unjustified. Bet he's a tea-bagger....click the header for the story from Mother Jones, and the article on the judge's ruling from NPR follows.

— Still from Alice in Wonderland, 1951

It's not every day that Congress discusses walruses and the phone numbers of dead guys at length. But then again, it's not every day that the top executives from the nation's biggest oil companies are put on the hot seat to defend their pitiful emergency response plans in case of a catastrophe like the one we've seen unfold in the Gulf of Mexico over the past eight weeks.
Since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, we've seen just how sad BP's planning for the event of a disaster has been. But we also got a glimpse of how ridiculous it was on paper. BP's 583-page Gulf plan, last updated in June 2009, included references to how to protect walruses and sea lions, which, as Energy and Environment subcommittee chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) noted, "have not called the Gulf home for 3 million years." The plan also included the phone number of a sea turtle expert who has been dead for five years.
And it gets even worse: The other four oil giants are using almost the exact same plans.
In yesterday's hearing, representatives brought out the emergency response plans of Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP that had been drafted in case of an oil spill in the region. The cover photos of rigs and tankers are identical, just in different colors, and four of the five plans include the references to walruses, sea lions, seals, and sea turtle expert Dr. Peter Lutz. They list him as a staff member of the University of Miami, though he hadn't worked there since 1991, when he left for Florida Atlantic University. Oh, and he passed away in February 2005, so he probably wouldn't be able to offer much help now anyway.
"ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are as unprepared as BP," said Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who called the responses "cookie cutter" plans. "When you look at the details, it becomes evident these [response] plans are just paper exercises."
Markey summed up the companies' response strategies pretty well in Tuesday's hearing: "The only technology you seem to be relying on is the Xerox machine."
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson defended the inclusion of Lutz. Just because he passed away, said Tillerson, "does not mean the importance of his work died with him." (He did grant that, "It's unfortunate that walruses were included.") Tillerson also defended the overlap between the companies' plans: "Cookie cutter should not come as a surprise. The industry relies on sharing resources."

The plans were all prepared by a consulting group with a rather non-descript moniker, the Response Group. From the company's website, we learn that it specializes in all manner of emergency response—hurricanes; oil, gas, and chemicals incidents; crisis management. Formed in 2003, it has 35 employees in offices in Houston, Anchorage, and several other satellite locations. The "company news" section of the website hasn't been updated since May 2008, and it only has three press releases. One of the three is about how the company "competed in the ConocoPhillips Sweeny Refinery 8th Annual Employees Benefit BBQ Cook Off" in April 2008. I called them several times today to find out more, but no one's gotten back to me yet.
All of the executives testifying yesterday maintained that the Gulf disaster was the fault of BP failing to uphold safety and environmental standards, not an industry-wide problem. Had this been their operation, they would have made better decisions, each said, decisions that would have prevented the blowout in the first place. "Most of us sitting here today would have handled it differently," said James Mulva, president of ConocoPhillips.
The companies are, however, very concerned about the media coverage. Exxon's plan has a 40-page appendix on dealing with the media, with 13 sample press releases. They range from what to say in case of a minor incident ("ExxonMobil deeply regrets the incident that occurred") to a major incident possibly involving fatalities ("We are greatly saddened by this tragic event and express our deepest sympathy to the families of those affected. We are working with [APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES] at the site to investigate the cause of the incident").
They might be ready for the media, but none of the executives would testify that they could do much better than BP when it came to responding to this kind of disaster. "The fact of the matter is when these things happen, we are not well equipped to handle them," said Tillerson. "That's why the emphasis is on preventing them."
And when that doesn't happen? Well, then we apparently get what we're currently watching unfold in the Gulf. But don't worry – this is just BP's problem.
See all the response plans for the Gulf:
BP
ConocoPhillips
ExxonMobil
Shell
Chevron

Judge Blocks Moratorium On Gulf Offshore Drilling

by The Associated Press

Enlarge Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images A crane idles next to offshore oil rig supply ships at Port Fourchon, La., last week. More than 95 percent of the port's business is related to the oil and gas industry.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

A crane idles next to offshore oil rig supply ships at Port Fourchon, La., last week. More than 95 percent of the port's business is related to the oil and gas industry.

June 22, 2010

A federal judge struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as rash and heavy-handed Tuesday, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too.
The White House promised an immediate appeal. The Interior Department had imposed the moratorium last month in the wake of the BP disaster, halting approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama believes that until investigations can determine why the spill happened, continued deepwater drilling exposes workers and the environment to "a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."

Heard On 'All Things Considered'

June 22, 2010

Michele Norris Talks To NPR's Robert Smith About The Ruling's Impact

[3 min 52 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download

 

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore rigs argued that the moratorium was arbitrarily imposed after the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and blew out a well 5,000 feet underwater. It has spewed anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons of oil.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and has owned stock in a number of petroleum-related companies, sided with the plaintiffs.
"If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are?" he asked. "Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."
He also warned that the shutdown would have an "immeasurable effect" on the industry, the local economy and the U.S. energy supply.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement late Tuesday that within the next few days he will issue a new order imposing a moratorium that eliminates any doubt it is needed and appropriate.
Feldman's ruling was welcomed by the oil and gas industry and decried by environmentalists.

More From NPR's 'Political Junkie'

Republicans Pleased, Enviros Appalled, At Ending Of Drilling Moratorium June 22, 2010

Feldman's financial disclosure report for 2008, the most recent available, shows holdings in at least eight petroleum companies or funds that invest in them, including Transocean Ltd., which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that blew up. The report shows that most of his holdings were valued at less than $15,000; it did not provide specific amounts.
It was not clear whether Feldman still has any of the energy industry stocks. Recent court filings indicate he may no longer have Transocean stock. The 2008 report showed that he did not own any individual shares in big companies such as BP, which leased the rig that exploded, or ExxonMobil.
Feldman did not immediately respond to a request for more information about his current holdings.
Josh Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said the ruling should be rescinded if the judge still has investments in companies that could benefit. "If Judge Feldman has any investments in oil and gas operators in the Gulf, it represents a flagrant conflict of interest," Reichert said.
Feldman's ruling prohibits federal officials from enforcing the moratorium until a trial is held. At least two major oil companies, Shell and Marathon, said they would wait to see how the appeals play out before resuming drilling.
In his ruling, the judge called the spill "an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster," but said Salazar's rationale for the moratorium "does not seem to be fact-specific and refuses to take into measure the safety records of those others in the Gulf." Feldman said he was "unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium."
The judge said the blanket moratorium "seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."
The lawsuit was filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La. CEO Todd Hornbeck said after the ruling that he is looking forward to getting back to work. "It's the right thing for not only the industry but the country," he said.
Earlier in the day, executives at a major oil conference in London warned that the moratorium would cripple world energy supplies. Steven Newman, president and CEO of Transocean, called it unnecessary and an overreaction.
"There are things the administration could implement today that would allow the industry to go back to work tomorrow without an arbitrary six-month time limit," Newman said.
BP CEO Tony Hayward skipped the event after coming under fire for attending a yacht race in England on Saturday rather than dealing with the spill.
BP stock dropped 81 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $29.52, near a 14-year-old low for the company in U.S. trading. The stocks of other companies associated with the spill remained low despite Feldman's ruling.
The drilling moratorium was declared May 6 and originally was to last only through the month. Obama announced May 27 that he was extending it for six months.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, slammed the ruling.
"This is another bad decision in a disaster riddled with bad decisions by the oil industry," said Markey, who was at the forefront of the effort to force BP to make underwater video of the spill public. "The only thing worse than one oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico would be two oil spill disasters."
In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal and corporate leaders had complained that the moratorium would cost the region thousands of lucrative jobs, most paying more than $50,000 a year.
Feldman agreed, writing: "An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country."
He said Gulf drilling accounts for 31 percent of total domestic oil production and 11 percent of domestic natural gas production, and an estimated 150,000 jobs are directly related to offshore operations.
Tim Kerner, mayor of the fishing town of Lafitte, La., cheered the ruling. "I love it. I think it's great for the jobs here and the people who depend on them," he said.
The American Petroleum Institute, one of the industry's main lobbying groups, also welcomed the decision: "With this ruling, our industry and its people can get back to work to provide Americans with the energy they need, and do it safely and without harming the environment."
In its response to the lawsuit, the Interior Department had argued the moratorium was necessary while the effort to stop the leak and clean the Gulf continues and new safety standards are developed. "A second deepwater blowout could overwhelm the efforts to respond to the current disaster," the department said.
The government also challenged contentions that the moratorium would cause long-term economic harm. There are still 3,600 oil and natural gas production platforms in the Gulf.
As Feldman was issuing his ruling, the people in charge of a $20 billion fund to compensate those whose livelihoods have been ruined by the spill were on the coast Tuesday to talk with officials about the claims process.
Kenneth Feinberg, tapped by the White House to run the fund, has pledged to speed payments to fishermen, business owners and others. He was to meet with Alabama Gov. Bob Riley.
BP claims director Darryl Willis visited a claims center in a rundown strip mall in Bayou La Batre, Ala., and said the company has already cut 37,000 checks for $118 million. Claims totaling about $600 million have been filed so far.
"Anyone who feels like they have been damaged or hurt or harmed has every right to file a claim," Willis said. "These are complicated in some cases, and in some cases they're straightforward. But every person should file their claim, and they will be looked at fairly."

Related NPR Stories

Why Dawn Is The Bird Cleaner Of Choice June 22, 2010

Toll Of Oil Drilling Felt In Peru's Amazon Basin June 22, 2010

 

 

Energy 

• Obama Postpones Energy Meeting With Senators
• Administration Challenges Ruling On Oil Drilling
• Experts Feel Misrepresented In Drilling Moratorium

The Right's Latest Faux Obama Outrage 18JUN10

These tea-baggers and their neo-nazi fascist pig supporters in the gop are pathetic. They spread their lies through "fox news" and gullible Americans suck it all in because they are too stupid and too lazy to try to find out the facts. I really detest voluntary ignorance and stupidity, and too many Americans, especially in the gop and the tea-bagger movement, are guilty of both. This is from Mother Jones, click the header to go to the article on the magazine blog.

— St. Murse/Flickr

Is Obama's support for an arcane maritime law really preventing other countries from assisting in the Gulf?

Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.
To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."
During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness. Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.
Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.

Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.
In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.
"You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)
Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.
So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.
"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.
His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."
There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.
This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.
There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.
In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.
Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.
Read all of our BP coverage here.

Cory Gardner, Colorado GOP Candidate, Holds Fundraiser With BP Lobbyist And Joe Barton 23JUN10

HERE'S A REMINDER FROM THE GOP OF WHO THE TYPICAL GOP POLITICIAN REALLY STANDS FOR.......BP AND THE OTHER BIG OIL COMPANIES.....AND THE QUESTION REMAINS.....WILL AMERICANS BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ELECT THESE POLITICIANS??? UNFORTUNATELY I AM AFRAID THEY WILL.....BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVEN WRONG!

A set of upcoming political fundraisers has brought up once again a question often asked by good government groups: Just how tainted do donors have to be before politicians stop taking their money?
On Thursday, Dan Meyer, a lobbyist for BP -- the besieged oil company responsible for the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history -- will co-host a luncheon at Hotel George in Washington D.C. for the benefit of Colorado GOP congressional candidate Cory Gardner. An official with the Dubernstein Group, Meyer serves on a BP account that has brought in $100,000 in lobbying fees during the first quarter of 2010. He's not the only Republican official hosting the $1,000-a-plate affair (Meyer formerly served as the chief of staff for Newt Gingrich as well as chief congressional liaison in the Bush White House). Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) are participating as well.
But at a time when BP is in the news for all the wrong reasons -- and when members of Congress are being asked to play an oversight role over the company's actions in the Gulf -- Meyer's presence on the host list seems a bit brazen for Gardner.
"When you see that members of Congress are supposed to have oversight over a particular interest and at the same time they are going to events hosted by lobbyists who represent those interest, how can there not be a conflict of interest?" asked Gabriela Schneider, communications director for the Sunlight Foundation, a open-government group which first reported on the Gardner fundraiser. "The fact of the matter is members are constantly having to raise money... The fundraising circuit is just a mater of life
And yet that fundraiser could very well take a backseat in terms of political riskiness to the one being held in honor of Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who is putting together a June 30 lunch fundraiser "With Special Guest, Congressman Joe Barton." Barton of course was a political toxin last week after he apologized to BP for the "shakedown" they endured at the hands of the Obama administration.
After offering an apology for the apology, however, Barton has earned his way back into the good graces of some in his party. Not only is Stearns fundraising with him, on Wednesday Barton's fellow Republicans in the House offered a vote of confidence, choosing to keep him on his perch as ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE

As more women enter public life, I see developing a more humane society. - Dorothy Height, a founding matriarch of the American civil rights movement

Nations fail to agree on curbing Japan whale hunt 23JUN10

SHAME ON THE IWC AND THE U.S. DELEGATION FOR LACKING THE MORALITY TO STOP THE SLAUGHTER OF THESE BEAUTIFUL, INTELLIGENT AND STILL ENDANGERED CREATURES OF THE SEA. BOYCOTT JAPANESE, ICELANDIC AND NORWEGIAN PRODUCTS, DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON VACATIONS IN THESE COUNTRIES, AND JOIN SEA SHEPHERD IN THEIR FIGHT TO SAVE WHALES AND OTHER OCEAN LIFE!

SLIDESHOW

  Previous        Next    

File - In this Feb. 6, 2009 file photo released by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru, right, hauls a newly caught minke whale up its slipway, accompanied by Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 2, while a Sea Shepherd helicopter flies over in the Ross Sea, the Antarctic. A quarter-century ban on commercial whaling, one of the world's most successful preservation agreements, could crumble altogether if conservationists cannot persuade Japan to cut back on the tradition it champions. Delegates to a meeting of the International Whaling Commission which starts on Monday, June 21, 2010 in Morocco will consider whether to allow limited commercial hunts if Tokyo stops pursuing whales in a southern sanctuary. (AP Photo/Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Adam Lau) (Adam Lau - AP)

In this photo taken on June 17, 2010, whale meat restaurant Magonotei manager Tomohiro Akio slices a chunk of lean meat of a whale caught in the Antarctic as he prepares for a sashimi dish at its kitchen in Tokyo Thursday, June 17, 2010. Makoto Ito, managing director of Kyodo Senpaku Co., the company that runs the annual Antarctic hunt, said he didn't think they should be ended, because "we need to collect more data." Japan's refusal to give up its Antarctic hunt puzzles even observers within the country. Current coastal catches, also conducted for scientific research, provide fresher meat and are cheaper. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara) (Koji Sasahara - AP)

File - In this March 12, 2010 file photo, Japan Coast Guards officials hold a blue sheet to cover Pete Bethune, captain of the Sea Shepherd vessel Ady Gil, following the New Zealander's arrest or illegally boarding the Japanese whaling ship Shonan Maru 2 in February upon the ship's return at Harumi pier in Tokyo. A quarter-century ban on commercial whaling, one of the world's most successful preservation agreements, could crumble altogether if conservationists cannot persuade Japan to cut back on the tradition it champions. Delegates to a meeting of the International Whaling Commission which starts on Monday, June 21, 2010 in Morocco will consider whether to allow limited commercial hunts if Tokyo stops pursuing whales in a southern sanctuary. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye, File) (Itsuo Inouye - AP)

File - In this Feb. 11, 2010 photo released by the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan, an activist, bottom left, of anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's ship the Steve Irwin holds a chemical launcher, aiming at the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru during their latest clash in the Antarctic waters. A quarter-century ban on commercial whaling, one of the world's most successful preservation agreements, could crumble altogether if conservationists cannot persuade Japan to cut back on the tradition it champions. Delegates to a meeting of the International Whaling Commission which starts on Monday, June 21, 2010 in Morocco will consider whether to allow limited commercial hunts if Tokyo stops pursuing whales in a southern sanctuary. (AP Photo/Institute of Cetacean Research, File) (AP)

In this photo taken on June 17, 2010, whale meat restaurant Magonotei manager Tomohiro Akio shows a sashi dish of raw meat of a whale caught in the Antarctic Ocean at its kitchen in Tokyo Thursday, June 17, 2010. Makoto Ito, managing director of Kyodo Senpaku Co., the company that runs the annual Antarctic hunt, said he didn't think they should be ended, because "we need to collect more data." Japan's refusal to give up its Antarctic hunt puzzles even observers within the country. Current coastal catches, also conducted for scientific research, provide fresher meat and are cheaper. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara) (Koji Sasahara - AP)

File - In this April 15, 2008 file photo, Japanese media cover Japan's whaling ship The Nisshin Maru following its return from the Antarctic at a Tokyo pier. A quarter-century ban on commercial whaling, one of the world's most successful preservation agreements, could crumble altogether if conservationists cannot persuade Japan to cut back on the tradition it champions. Delegates to a meeting of the International Whaling Commission which starts on Monday, June 21, 2010 in Morocco will consider whether to allow limited commercial hunts if Tokyo stops pursuing whales in a southern sanctuary. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye, File) (Itsuo Inouye - AP)

Press and members outside the IWC meeting venue in Agadir, Morocco, Sunday June 20, 2010. The IWC, the international body that regulates whaling, will gather for its 62 annual meeting next week in Agadir. The meeting is expected to seek a compromise between pro- and anti-whaling countries, which may include allowing commercial whaling on a limited scale.(AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar) (Abdeljalil Bounhar - AP)

A Moroccan women passes by posters outside the IWC meeting venue in Agadir, Morocco, Sunday June 20, 2010. The IWC, the international body that regulates whaling, will gather for its 62nd annual meeting next week in Agadir. The meeting is expected to seek a compromise between pro- and anti-whaling countries, which may include allowing commercial whaling on a limited scale.(AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar) (Abdeljalil Bounhar - AP)

Wednesday, June 23, 2010; 9:41 AM

By Marc Kaufman and Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Three years of talks aimed at reducing whaling activity by Japan, Norway and Iceland broke down Wednesday, leaving management of the population of the world's largest animals essentially in the hands of whale hunters.

Anthony Liverpool, the acting chairman of the International Whaling Commission, told delegates meeting in Agadir, Morocco, that "fundamental positions remained very much apart," The Associated Press reported.
The goal of the Morocco meeting was to forge a 10-year compromise that would create a legal framework to allow limited whale hunting by Japan, Norway and Iceland. Currently, all types of whale hunting are banned by the commission, but the three whale-hunting nations consistently ignore the bans and have caught thousands of the mammals since the 1980s under loopholes in the law.
Delegates of the commission's 88 member governments were trying to work out a plan proposed by the United States and other anti-whaling nations to let the three countries conduct whaling expeditions, but under tight international control and at significantly lower numbers.

The talks reportedly failed over the issue of how many whales Japan could kill in the waters off Antarctica, where Japanese whalers hunt hundreds of whales each year. The compromise plan also called for a gradual phase-out of the Japanese hunt in the South Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and Japanese officials balked at that step.

The Japanese government says that its whaling activity is for scientific purposes, but critics say the Japanese hunts are in reality commercial.
"We are deeply disappointed that the governments present here, after more than three years of intense work, could not reach a solution that will benefit whale conservation," said Sue Lieberman, Director of International Policy for the Pew Environmental Group.
" In particular, the lack of sufficient flexibility of Japan to phase out its whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary prevented a decision from being adopted. Continuation of the impasse here may retain the whaling moratorium on paper, but unregulated whaling outside of IWC control, by Japan, Norway, and Iceland, will now be able to continue."
Junichi Sato, the director of Greenpeace Japan, said in a statement that it was "time for real political action and consequences to be brought to end Japan's bogus scientific whale hunt in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and the commercial hunts of Norway and Iceland."
Jemma Jones, a spokeswoman for the commission, declined to comment. Hideki Moronuki, an official with the Japanese delegation, said he could not immediately comment either.
The talks became even more contentious after The Sunday Times of London reported that that Japan had been offering aid to fisheries in poor nations in an effort to gain those countries' votes. The newspaper conducted a sting operation where several nations wearing hidden cameras caught officials discussing the price of their support.
Both the Japanese government and officials from other nations who were named in the stories denied accusations of bribery.
The compromise proposal was controversial among environmental groups as well, some of whom opposed the notion of any legal whaling.
"Under a cloud of corruption allegations the IWC is taking a safe course, opting for a cooling off period that protects the moratorium and other IWC conservation measures," said Patrick Ramage, Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare's Global Whale Campaign. "Had it been done here, this deal would have lived in infamy."

Lesbian Kagan Speculation Mocked By 'Auto Tune The News' (VIDEO) 21JUN10

Oh, hey! Have we not highlighted the recent YouTube creation from the Streamy Award winning Internet superheroes known as Auto-Tune The News? Here you go, then! This merry summertime jam features the media discussing the merits of legalizing pot, as well as coverage of that time everyone wondered if Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's love of softball was some sort of secret indication that she was a lesbian. You can get a contact high from all the blissed-out, idiotic speculation! Enjoy!

TELL SEC OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON TO STAND UP TO XE/BLACKWATER from CREDO ACTION 23JUN10

Click the header of the link below to participate in this petition. Learn more at my earlier post on 15 MAI Blackwater is just the tip of the iceberg . I really resent these fascist neo-nazi pig bastards getting any government contracts and taxpayer money.
The U.S. State Department, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, just awarded Blackwater an 18-month contract worth $120 million to guard U.S. consulates in Afghanistan.

Remember, Blackwater was kicked out of Iraq by the Iraqi government after Blackwater mercenaries massacred 17 civilians in Baghdad's al-Nissor Square. And that was simply the most notorious example of Blackwater acting in a manner that respected neither common decency nor American national interest.

When this incident came to light, then-Senator Clinton said, "These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq." She continued, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due."

I just told Secretary of State Clinton that it's time for the U.S. Department of State to stop doing business with Blackwater.

I hope you will, too.

Have a look and take action at the link below.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/clinton_blackwater/?r_by=9707-179986-TEODORx&rc=confemail

Failed Times Square Bomber's Guilty Plea Is a Win for US Justice System 21JUN10

After an initial delay, Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square car bomber, stood up today in a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan and entered a plea of "guilty."
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.

The Fate of the Internet -- Decided in a Back Room 22JUN10

The Wall Street Journal just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding "closed-door meetings" with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality -- the rule that lets users determine their own Internet experience.
Given that the corporations at the table all profit from gaining control over information, the outcome won't be pretty.
The meetings include a small group of industry lobbyists representing the likes of AT&T, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Google. They reportedly met for two-and-a-half hours on Monday morning and will convene another meeting today. The goal according to insiders is to "reach consensus" on rules of the road for the Internet.
This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality - involving millions of people from across the political spectrum - the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street's bottom line.

Obama pledges to appoint Net Neutrality supporters to the FCC

We've seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the subprime mortgage meltdown.
The Industry's regulatory capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The one agency tasked with oversight of communications now thinks it can wriggle free of its obligation to protect the open Internet, if only it can get industry to agree on a solution.
Congress is holding its own series of "closed-door" meetings and, while they've been ambiguous on the details, many remain skeptical on whether the process will lead to an outcome that serves the public interest. After all, this is the same Congress that is bankrolled by the phone and cable lobby in excess of $100 million.
Why is this so startling even for the more cynical among us? The Obama administration promised to embrace a new era of government transparency. It's the tool we were supposed to use to pry open policymaking and expose it to the light of public scrutiny.
In that spirit, President Obama pledged to "take a backseat to no one" in his support for Net Neutrality. He appointed Julius Genachowski to head the FCC -- the man who crafted his pro-Net Neutrality platform in 2008.
But the mere existence of these private meetings reveals to us a chairman who has fallen far short of expectations. Instead Genachowski is shying from the need to fortify the Internet's open architecture in favor of deals made between DC power brokers.
These deals will determine who ultimately controls Internet content and innovation. Will phone and cable companies succeed in their decade-long push to take ownership of both the infrastructure of the Internet and the information that flows across its pipes? Will they cut in a few giant companies like Google and the recording industry to get their way?
Whatever the outcome, the public - including the tens of millions of Americans who use the Internet every day and in every way - are not being given a seat at the table.
Genachowski's closed-door sessions come after six months of public comments on whether the agency should proceed with a rule to protect Net Neutrality.
During that period, more than 85 percent of comments received by the agency called for a strong Net Neutrality rule. Look at it this way: If a candidate received more than 85 percent of the vote, wouldn't she have a mandate to decide on the public's behalf?
In Chairman Genachowski's alternative view of reality, though, the public is immaterial, and industry consensus supreme.

BP's Media Clampdown Continues: Activist Hassled By Louisiana Police (VIDEO) 22JUN10

The video is extremely disturbing...a cop, being paid by the public with tax dollars....behaving like a lap dog of BP, doing their bidding and not at all interested in protecting the civil rights of a citizen
Mother Jones's Mac McClelland has been soldiering on down in Louisiana, even as her attempts to report on the oil spill response have largely evolved into covering the way BP has clamped down on media access in the region, through a network of private security contractors and an apparent iron grip on local authorities. Still going on!

Everyone knows by now that BP is still blocking press access to oil-spill sites even though they're not supposed to anymore. I've been blathering about it for weeks, and it's been all of three days since four contractors wouldn't let me through the Pointe Aux Chenes marina outside Montegut, Louisiana. And though as of June 16 the federal government was saying helicopters could fly reporters as low as 1,500 feet around spill sites, on June 17 I was on a helicopter that was prohibited from flying below 3,000 feet (and whose pilot flipped silent birds at the "military guys" coming over the radio and hassling him about being in the area at all).

Insert standard reminder that National Incident Commander Thad Allen issued a written directive weeks ago ordering these media blockades to be lifted. Smash cut to the Associated Press's senior managing editor Michael Oreskes, seeking redress from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to no avail.
McClelland also provides a video of an encounter between Drew Wheelan of the American Birding Association, getting hassled by a local police officer for shooting a segment across the street from BP's facility in Houma, Louisiana. Wheelan was not on BP's property at the time, but still caught a share of Kafkaesque static:

Wheelan: "Am I violating any laws or anything like that?"
Officer: "Um...not particularly. BP doesn't want people filming."
Wheelan: "Well, I'm not on their property so BP doesn't have anything to say about what I do right now."
Officer: "Let me explain: BP doesn't want any filming. So all I can really do is strongly suggest that you not film anything right now. If that makes any sense."

Making even less sense is the fact that Wheelan was subsequently pulled over by the same police officer some time later, and then tailed by "two unmarked security cars" for 20 miles! As McClelland remarks, this "is a whole other level of alarming."