Haaretz on yesterday's disaster

Yup.

Yesterday's fiasco could and should have been prevented. This flotilla should have been allowed to pass and the blockade should be brought to an end.

This should have happened a long time ago. In four years Hamas has not weakened and Gilad Shalit was not released. There was not even a sign of a gain.

And what have we instead? A country that is quickly becoming completely isolated. This is a place that turns away intellectuals, shoots peace activists, cuts off Gaza and now finds itself in an international blockade. Once more yesterday it seemed, and not for the first time, that Israel is increasingly breaking away from the mother ship, and losing touch with the world - which does not accept its actions and does not understand its motives.

Yesterday there was no one on the planet, not a newsman or analyst, except for its conscripted chorus, who could say a good word about the lethal takeover.

The Israel Defense Forces too came out looking bad again. The magic evaporated long ago, the most moral army in the world, that was once the best army in the world, failed again. More and more there is the impression that nearly everything it touches causes harm to Israel.

"My favorite video on the nature of conservatism"

Courtesy of Howie Klein, and wow.

Votevets.org

As usual, making smart ads that connect Republican energy dependence policies to treason, in a way that the national party is unable to conceive of.



If you have some spare cash, send them some.

Bottom line: this is a teachable moment, and teachable moments were exactly what the Obama presidency were supposed to be all about. Following today's disappointment statement, it sounds like the President could use a bit of advice, not just from VoteVets but JUSIPER mainstay E.J. Dionne.

So there you have it: "Do something!" citizens shout to a government charged with protecting the environment in and around a Gulf of Mexico that is nobody's private property. Yet the government, it seems, can't do much of anything because the means of stopping the flow of oil are entirely in the hands of a private company. BP was trusted to know what it was doing with complicated equipment that, it would appear, it either didn't understand very well or was willing to use recklessly.

Belatedly, the Obama administration has realized that citizens can never accept the idea that their government is powerless. It is moving to show that it's in charge, even when it is not. The president plans to visit the gulf again, on Friday, and on Wednesday, the White House called in a group of journalists for a briefing with Allen, who is earning a reputation for bluff candor. He spoke as the order was given to try to plug the well through a process colorfully called "top kill." [...]

"Deregulation" is wonderful until we discover what happens when regulations aren't issued or enforced. Everyone is a capitalist until a private company blunders. Then everyone starts talking like a socialist, presuming that the government can put things right because they see it as being just as big and powerful as its Tea Party critics claim it is.

But the truth is that we have disempowered government and handed vast responsibilities over to a private sector that will never see protecting the public interest as its primary task. The sludge in the gulf is, finally, the product of our own contradictions.

"Cuando me enamoro"

In terms of the American pop world, it's the equivalent of a Stevie Wonder singing with... well Enrique Iglesias, and letting Enrique write the song! But the result, though light as a merengue (the edible kind) is a replayable, if derivative, pop confection, with the sweetest music video in recent memory.

Thank you, Sarah Palin

For reminding Democrats that politics is a zero-sum game. When Democrats, beginning with the President, don't come out strongly enough against the big banks, Wall Street and Big Oil, Republicans will--even if they are receiving the bulk of the contributions from both entities and have been practically unanimous in doing their bidding.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking, but why should anyone blame them for beating Democrats with a stick of the latter's own making? The inaction of corporate Democrats, will take many, many decent lawmakers to defeat this November. Let's hope that at least some of the culprits (hello, Blanche Lincoln) lose their seats as well.

Now that I've bashed the President, let me say one another thing. There is a strange method to his passivity that is decidedly Lincolnesque. Lincoln was similarly "weak" through much of his presidency, but often times he struck, and hard, just at the moment that it was politically opportune to do so. Obama has fought and won more progressive victories, already, than any President since Johnson.

And that's what makes this little nugget from ProPublica.org that was rebroadcast in Daily Kos, so extraordinarily interesting:

Several former senior EPA debarment attorneys and people close to the BP investigation told ProPublica that means the agency will re-evaluate BP and examine whether the latest incident in the Gulf is evidence of an institutional problem inside BP, a precursor to the action called debarment.

Federal law allows agencies to suspend or bar from government contracts companies that engage in fraudulent, reckless or criminal conduct. The sanctions can be applied to a single facility or an entire corporation. Government agencies have the power to forbid a company to collect any benefit from the federal government in the forms of contracts, land leases, drilling rights, or loans.

The most serious, sweeping kind of suspension is called "discretionary debarment" and it is applied to an entire company. If this were imposed on BP, it would cancel not only the company's contracts to sell fuel to the military but prohibit BP from leasing or renewing drilling leases on federal land. In the worst cast, it could also lead to the cancellation of BP's existing federal leases, worth billions of dollars.

Present and former officials said the crucial question in deciding whether to impose such a sanction is assessing the offending company's culture and approach: Do its executives display an attitude of non-compliance? The law is not intended to punish actions by rogue employees and is focused on making contractor relationships work to the benefit of the government. In its negotiations with EPA officials before the Gulf spill, BP had been insisting that it had made far-reaching changes in its approach to safety and maintenance, and that environmental officials could trust its promises that it would commit no further violations of the law.

In short, there is provision in existing law that permits the people of the United States of America to end BP's lease of United States property.  The prospect of losing tens of billions of dollars is the one thing that might cause the the company to show a bit of humility.  The fact that BP hasn't is a sign of its confidence that the U.S. would never dream of doing so, either because of its assistance in the war effort, or repeated victories against effete regulators and Washington Republicans who would never dream of regulating their top donors (what to speak of the two oilmen who ran the Executive Branch for eight years).

So credit Sarah Palin for waking up the President and his team. She may have created just what our mini-Lincoln needed: the window of political opportunity to do the right thing.  Let's end the BP leases until we have recouped every penny of cash, and then some, for the damage this foreign corporation has caused to the United States of America and the living beings on its southeastern coast.

Thailand: Signs not of civil unrest but civil war

"I think the Red Shirts are not Thai people because they destroyed things, they destroyed Bangkok, they destroyed Thailand," said dress shop owner Kasana Opasthanakoon, as he inspected the destruction in Bangkok's commercial centre. "My friends have shops here, destroyed, they have nothing."

Once you no longer see your enemy as your own kind, it's hard to see how you can reconcile. Maybe the country should split into the capital and royalist allies as a constitutional monarchy (ideally led by Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, who would be the nation's first queen, since reports suggest the present heir does not have the unifying power of King Bhumibol) , the rest of the country independent.

The problem is not exactly the Red Shirt movement. Less income inequality is generally a good thing. But Thailand's Gini coefficient has been in the 40's for a long time. The nation is, in fact, more equal than the United States, according to the CIA's 2009 report. This is hardly a nation that's ripe for revolution on income grounds. On the other hand, the aspirations of the poor in Thailand are hardly something to turn up ones nose at, as too many do.

The Thaksin Shinawatra regime instituted reforms that genuinely helped the poorer elements in Thai society, from microfinance to an increase of the welfare state to scholarship programs. The Gini coefficient did indeed move down during his administration (from slightly worse than the US to slightly better) though government revenues were certainly easier to come by in the go-go 1990's and even the early 2000's in Asia.

The problem, however, is that the poor and Red Shirts in Thailand are being bankrolled by Shinawatra, who is bizarre mixture of Silvio Berlusconi, Dick Cheney and Rupert Murdoch. A billionaire and media mogul, as prime minister he used the state apparatus to enrich himself, his family and his corporate empire.

The present conflict in Thailand, then, is essentially between royalists, old money and policy incrementalists against Thaksin, new money (equally if not more corrupt), and populist economic policies. The ultimate goal, of course, is to end the royal role in Thai politics, and maximize Thaksin's personal wealth.

The real question for me, and I am no expert on Thai politics, is the army's role in 1) continued civil unrest 2) a peaceful negotiation resulting in two different countries or 3) the return of Thaksin to Thailand. I am not sure it is possible for 1) or 3) to have bloodless results. In fact, it isn't clear to me that Thaksin can command the loyalty of the armed forces to begin with, particularly if he moves to diminish the royal family. Working for him, however, is the impending transition to a less popular royal face post-Bhumibol. That's one reason the strongest card pro-royalists could play would be to have the most popular head of state possible. From all I've read, that person would be a Queen, not a King.

Lee DeWyze' success explained

Great stuff from the Los Angeles Times' Idol Tracker:

How did Lee overtake Crystal to become the favorite to win? Psychology Today blogger Scott Barry Kaufman calls Lee's "inevitable" victory "pretty darn textbook."

"I don't think he consciously planned out every last detail, but one couldn't have planned out the path to an 'American Idol' win any better," writes Kaufman, explaining that the gruff-voiced contestant with the sweet smile and the growing confidence "has perfectly struck the delicate balance between showing off his talents and appearing relatable to the masses."

He explains: "This is not an easy balance for 'Idol' contestants to strike. 'Uniqueness-seeking' behaviors that can increase social status and 'similarity-seeking' behaviors that can increase affiliation are drives that are deeply encoded in our DNA due to the potential evolutionary advantages for each style. While people vary in their drive for each behavior, 'American Idol' contestants are a rare breed because they are extremely high on both drives -- they want to both stand out a lot and relate to a lot of people. The balancing act of these two drives is key to winning 'Idol' -- stand out too much, too soon, and you risk sacrificing your relatability. Relate too much, too soon, and your talent starts to look average."

What Timothy Egan said

After all, is it not socialism to force younger taxpayers to pay for the shortfall on behalf of an expanding pool of older Americans? Doesn’t Ayn Rand’s philosophy hold that Wall Street should be free to run wild, that a national health care system for the elderly is tyranny and that the only way for people to live freely is with “full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,” as Rand said?

We need to have this discussion; it is the fundamental disconnect among people who call themselves Tea Partiers. [...]

Too often, campaigns are about surface abstractions: liberty versus government control, real Americans versus Hollywood. But this year, large events of tragic and ongoing impact have occurred, prompting what should be a much bigger discussion of Real Stuff.

Those who argue for continuing the deregulatory trend of the last decade need to look at how well that worked for the families who lost their loved ones in the Massey coal mine, run by a company with a history of bucking government oversight while promoting politicians who do their bidding.

Those who think drill, baby, drill should be the national energy policy must consider the mortal blow to a marine ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, because a global oil company didn’t want to spend the equivalent of a day’s profit on adequate controls.

And those who think the incomprehensible form of toxic capitalism that evolved in the snake pits of Wall Street should be left unfettered — in keeping with the emerging Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party and lobbyist-rolled representatives of both parties — should consider an astonishing figure from the Treasury Department.

The financial meltdown cost Americans $17 trillion in lost household net worth between 2007 and 2009, according to Alan Krueger, the chief economist for the department.

“How’s that hands-offey, non-regulatory thing workin’ for ya?” was the stinging tag of a recent cartoon by Stuart Carlson. It was meant as a punchline, but if this election does turn out to be about Real Stuff, it could also serve as a question every candidate will have to answer.

Read the whole thing here.

Boys

Ever befuddled and a few steps behind their counterparts:

When the two visitors took questions from the children, one little girl said, “My mom said, I think, she says that Barack Obama’s taking everybody away that doesn’t has papers.” After Mrs. Obama replied, “Yeah, well, that’s something we have to work on, right, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?” the girl said “But my mom doesn’t have [papers].”

The girl’s final word is difficult to hear on video, because a boy next to her asked “How do you make papers?” at the same moment.

Actually, let me take that back. He may have asked the smartest question of all.

Will Senate Democrats save Blanche Lincoln?

It would be good for the country if they succeeded in keeping her come-to-Jesus-moment-caused banking regulations intact, and bad for the country if they succeeded well enough to knock off her primary opponent Halter, who is far more electable against the Republican.

Complicating matters for Reid is electoral politics. A runoff election in Arkansas means Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who didn't prevail in her primary Tuesday, stands to suffer if Democrats weaken her section of the bill, which would impose strict regulations on derivative trading, and, most controversially, would require financial institutions to spin their derivatives trading desks off into separate entities. At the last possible moment on Tuesday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd sneaked an amendment into the queue, which would delay, and quite possibly eliminate, the spin-off provision from ever taking effect. If Dodd wants a vote on that tomorrow morning (which is to say if he wants a vote at all) he'll need the consent of the full Senate to bring it up right away. Lincoln may still be in Arkansas when that happens, but there's enough discontent among Democrats and Republicans with Dodd and Democratic leadership that their attempts to scale back the derivative measure could get scotched...at least for now.

The two terms I do a Google News search for every day now. Twice.

Germany + Euro.

John Paul Steven's stinging goodbye to the wackos who rule the Court

Where Elena Kagan might prefer to hold a mixer and split the difference (in the mold of the other Democratic Supreme Court disappointment, Justice Breyer), the real John Paul The Great prefers the smackdown.  Joined in his Graham v Florida concurrence, courageously, by the two women on the Court (who will still have to live with Mr. Coke Can for a long time to come), the nonagenarian legend breathes fire:

In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS argues that today’s holding is not entirely consistent with the control- ling opinions in Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63 (2003), Ewing v. California, 538 U. S. 11 (2003), Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991), and Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263 (1980). Post, at 7–9. Given that “evolving standards of decency” have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, see Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373–378 (1910), this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does JUSTICE THOMAS’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commit- ment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete, post, at 8–9, and n. 2.

While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old, see post, at 4, 10, n. 3, the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

One more from Betty White

One of the show's best moments was this homage to Nichols and May and 1960's television.

 

Paradigm shift in the offing?

Wow:

The differing viewpoints of European Union states puts a strain on their common currency, and may mean the euro experiment should end, according to John McCarthy, director of currency trading at ING Financial Markets LLC.

“Unfortunately the euro isn’t strong enough in many respects to absorb those differences,” McCarthy said in a telephone interview from New York. “In the long run, it has a breakup written over it. But stranger things have muddled through. It is possible they cobble something together and everybody works hard, but as a betting man I’m betting it’s not going to survive in its current form.”

For long the #1 YouTube video of all time

And still #2. I must be one of the only people who hadn't seen it.

A question

The BP oil gusher, barring some miraculous, untested solution, will not be stopped for another 3-5 months.

That takes us into August, and maybe September. By then the oil slick will, naturally, have grown substantially.

The early forecast suggests a heavier-than-usual hurricane season.

So what would a direct strike of, say, a category 4 or 5 hurricane , along with its storm surge (oil surge?) mean for the Gulf coast? This is not a rhetorical question. I have no idea whether an oil slick fed by 3-5 months of a 70,000 barrel a day gusher, by itself, is already the worst case scenario, or whether things could get substantially worse.

UPDATE: Yes, it could get worse, and no, nobody knows exactly how bad it would be.

"You're barking up the wrong lesbian"

One of the many fine SNL moments that came courtesy of Betty White.

"Your equality is an illusion"

The trailer for 8: The Mormon Proposition.

"I'm no Bill Clinton."

And he sure isn't. Thank God:

The book, Jonathan Alter's The Promise, goes much further than previous accounts in documenting just how opposed Rahm was to proceeding with ambitious reform -- something that was widely suspected at the time but never proven in detail. Excerpts of the book were made available in advance of its release next Tuesday.

"I begged him not to do this," Rahm admits to Alter. But according to the book, Obama overrode Rahm's advice, privately taking a bit of shot at Clinton by telling advisers that he hadn't been sent to the White House to do "school uniforms."

Jed Lewison of Daily Kos notes, however, that Rahm's advice may have come at a tremendous political price, that the Obama Administration continues to pay.