SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (66359)11/7/2004 12:07:57 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
Newsweek Campaign Coverage

TRUTH LAID BEAR -
November 06, 2004 08:36 AM

Wizbang points us to Newsweek's extensive insider report msnbc.msn.com on the two Presidential campaigns, and declares it required reading. Never one to refuse Mr. Aylward, I have begun complying.

My favorite passage so far describes John Edwards reaction when told that some of the accusations against Kerry made by the Swift Boat Veterans were, er, true:


"[Edwards' aides] warned the veep candidate that the story was already out of control and about to get worse. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. "Let me get this straight," the senator said. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Oh, and I like this one too:

The Kerry campaign did work closely with the major dailies, feeding documents to The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe to debunk the Swift Boat vets. The articles were mostly (though not entirely) supportive of Kerry, but it was too late. The old media may have been more responsible than the new media, but they were also largely irrelevant.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)11/7/2004 12:15:53 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (26) | Respond to of 89467
 
You are in a quandary. You can pretend you believe that
everyone has lied about Kerry's treachery & outrageous anti-
war activities, including his intentionally false war crimes
testimony & his presence at a conspiracy to assassinate US
Senators. But to do that, you have to accept that Kerry also
lied, because his own words & biographies prove all of it to
be true.

Now we learn that Edwards is a bit miffed about Kerry's
meeting with the commies. And that revelation came straight
from Kerry's own historian who had access to all of Kerry's
journals, etc.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)11/17/2006 1:23:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
MITCH ALBOM: He made them believe
________________________________________________________________

Tigers' Leyland hailed as league's top manager

BY MITCH ALBOM
DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
November 16, 2006

When the phone call came, he was driving to a local mall because he needed "some new corduroys." He has a big weekend on tap -- a football game, a dinner in his hometown -- and "I don't have too many good clothes."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your American League Manager of the Year: Jim Leyland. He didn't fly in for a press conference. He didn't race off to some network TV show. After the mall run for corduroys -- corduroys? -- he went home and celebrated quietly, with his family. When I called, he came to the phone without a screener, without an agent in between.

The low-profile guy who forged a high-profile team just won the biggest award in his profession -- only the third manager to ever win the honor in both leagues -- yet you could try a thousand ways to stick him with the credit, and all he wanted to do was whack it away.

"This," he said, "is for the city of Detroit and all the fans."

Yes, but you won the award.

"The most important thing is that we got people in Detroit back in the seats."

Yes, but you won the award.

"The best part was how many Tigers hats and shirts we saw in the stands at the end of the season."

Yes, but you won -- ah, never mind. If Leyland has a gloat gland, it isn't secreting. Remember, this is a guy who could snicker if he wanted to snicker. When he was hired last year, many wondered whether after six years all but out of baseball, he still had the chops to do the job.

Well, here's how those chops held up: He took a team in search of a winning season and gave it a 95-67 record. He took a team that hadn't been to the playoffs in 19 years into the playoffs. He took a team that hadn't been to the World Series in 22 years into the World Series. Chop, chop.

Kirby remembered

"What was the one thing you think you did most right?" I asked Leyland.

"Well, I'm not gonna take credit for much," he said. "But I will say this: I believe if I did one thing right, I almost forced these players to believe how good they were. ... I instilled the confidence in them that in the past they tiptoed, and now they were ready to crash the door down."

How did you do that?

"Well, I told them in spring training this is not Jim Leyland's way, it's what I believe is the right way. ... There's a right way and a wrong way to go about your business. ...

"And then there was a day -- I get a little emotional talking about this -- but there was day in spring training when we all mourned the death of Kirby Puckett. And I talked to the team the next morning about it. I said, 'You know the one thing that he'll always have and that you'll hope that you always have is not an MVP award, it's not a World Series ring, it's that everybody who spoke about Kirby Puckett said he was a great teammate.

" 'All the awards, all your salary, all the money you'll make, the most satisfying thing you'll have when you sit back when you're 70 years old is that they said you were a good teammate. ...' "

That says a lot about Leyland's style. Because the White Wizard thought of himself all season as a teammate. Not that he was buddy-buddy with everyone. Come on. He's 61. He'd need a road map to understand Justin Verlander's computer.

But Leyland looked at himself as part of the whole. His job. Their jobs. All part of this big picture. In it together.

Their job was to get it done on the field.

And his job as to make sure they believed that they could.

A magical season

There was an incident early in the season that got a lot of ink. The Tigers lost a 10-2 game to the Indians on what they call a "getaway day" (when the team catches a plane for a trip). Afterward, Leyland ripped into his players so loudly, it could be heard (according to reporters) from outside the clubhouse. He lambasted their effort and their attitude, and he snapped to the press, "It's been going on here before and ... it's not going to go on here."

The Tigers seemed to respond to that tongue-lashing. They streaked to the best record in baseball, and they held it for much of the season.

On Wednesday, I asked Leyland if that incident really was a turning point.

"It was, but I'm not sure people understood what happened there. I think everybody thought that I chewed them out because they dogged it. That wasn't the case. I chewed them out because they gave in. They thought they were beat. They said to themselves, 'Let's go onto the next one.' That just wasn't gonna fly to me.

"It wasn't that someone didn't run out a ball. ... It was the psychological part."

And that's what Leyland changed more than anything. He established a culture where the local team expected to win. That is not only remarkable, it's damn tough. The Lions, for example, have been trying to do it for decades.

Leyland did it in a season. It was a season fans will never forget, a season that fell just short of a championship ring.

No matter. What is done is done. What happened, happened. And while a World Series was lost, a franchise was rediscovered, a fan base was rekindled, and a sport was reinvigorated in a city that had gone to sleep.

When you change a base metal into gold, it is called alchemy. And the person who does it is called an alchemist. Jim Leyland certainly turned lead into gold this season, he played the alchemist, and he earned this award. His nickname is the White Wizard, and this weekend, at some point, the wizard should toast himself for a job well done.

In his corduroy robe.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)12/8/2006 2:12:13 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
What Every Company Should Know

by Ram Charan

finance.yahoo.com



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)1/8/2007 4:26:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The private equity bubble

venturebeat.com

The private equity bubble, and what it means for start-ups

venturebeat.com



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)1/21/2008 6:34:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
As did KU, Obama will overcome

kansascity.com

By ANDREW MCDONALD*

Posted on Sun, Jan. 20, 2008

Few in August projected the University of Kansas football team in a Bowl Championship Series game, while Virginia Tech entered the season in the Associated Press top 10, expecting to return for a fifth major bowl.

In December, though, the Orange Bowl announced the unlikely match-up between the Jayhawks and the Hokies. Pundits hailed KU’s inspiring Cinderella story. But even Lou Holtz agreed that the more experienced Hokies would crush the untested Jayhawks.

When Aqib Talib high-stepped into the end zone in the first quarter, it was clear that the Jayhawks possessed an intangible element that not even the vaunted Virginia Tech juggernaut could stop. The Jayhawks’ feeling of destiny trumped the Hokies expectations of inevitability in Miami.

Destiny and inevitability also squared off hundreds of miles away that night in Iowa. And from the tropical rains of south Florida to the icy tundra of rural Iowa, destiny bested inevitability. “Our moment is now” promises Barack Obama, encapsulating the unique essence of his campaign.

Unlike the incessant claims to experience coming from Hillary Clinton, which necessarily emphasize the recent past, Obama speaks to the hopes of a future inspired by collective myths of American destiny. Their post-caucus speeches juxtaposed not just campaign styles, but philosophies of history and politics.

Surrounded by former Cabinet members, Clinton ticked off the challenges facing the country and claimed that her political acumen uniquely enables her to cut the deals that can change policies. The visual and the verbal combined to form a rhetoric of steady but incremental change. Obama, in contrast, constructed a narrative of national unity in the face of national challenges. By evoking Washington, Roosevelt, and King, he contextualized present challenges in the story of the nation.

Clinton promises to implement Democratic solutions to policy problems while Obama offers democratic responses to national challenges.

Clinton recalls the mediocrity of the 1990’s while Obama has the audacity to tap into America’s latent feelings of Manifest Destiny. Unlike the 19th-century land grab, though, Obama promises to live up to America’s boundless potential.

The spirit of the age calls for a leader who can weave contemporary problems into a coherent and inspiring story of American possibilities.

Clinton may better navigate the halls of power, but Obama can harness the zeitgeist to power the ship of state in a new direction.

Inevitability relies on the past, but destiny promises the future. Destiny overpowered conventional wisdom on the football field in 2007, and I think it is fated to give an encore in the voting booths in 2008.

*Andrew MacDonald is a history and political science major at the University of Kansas. He lives in Lawrence.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)1/28/2008 7:54:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Why the Kennedys Went for Obama

time.com

By Karen Tumulty / Washington / Monday, Jan. 28, 2008

Thousands had been lining up outside American University's Bender Auditorium in Washington, D.C., hours before Barack Obama's arrival Monday afternoon. The campaign had initally booked the arena for a rally, but the news that he would be getting the endorsements of three members of the Kennedy clan there had given it the aura of a historic event.

The scene that greeted the candidate backstage could have been a Kennedy family reunion. Ted's branch of the clan had gotten there first. The senator was there with his congressman son Patrick, Ted's wife Vicki, and Vicki's son Curran. Then Caroline arrived with her three teenagers. Teddy's sisters, Eunice Shriver and Jean Kennedy Smith, showed up too, along with an assortment of their children and grandchildren. Through the blue curtains, the crowd was thundering: "Yes. We. Can."

For a moment, Obama looked overwhelmed when he saw all of the Kennedys waiting for him. Then he gathered Caroline in a big hug. "Thank you so much," he whispered. "I'm so excited."

As they prepared to go onstage to declare their support for Obama, Caroline and Ted Kennedy discussed their decisions to support him in exclusive interviews with TIME. Afterward, Obama talked about what the endorsements meant to him, and what they might mean for his chances of becoming President.

Ted Kennedy

TIME: Everyone had thought that you would wait until after the Democratic race was more settled after Feb. 5 to endorse a candidate. Why did you decide to do it now?

TED KENNEDY: I said for the last year I was always going to support the candidate that inspired. I said that on the Stephanopoulos show and also on Meet the Press and in various interviews. And it always seemed to me that at the start of this campaign there were a number of people that I knew that have absolutely wonderful qualities and are capable to inspire. And a number of them have dropped out. That was just now three weeks ago. So after that period of time, I continued to sort of observe the campaign and it became more apparent to me. It was sort of a growing process about the inevitability of Barack Obama, that he would appeal to the youth, that he had a message of hope and that he had this ability to draw across age lines, between the young and the old, and between the east and the west and the north and the south, between black and white, straight and gay. And it's a process really, isn't it?

And then you come down to the particular issue on time: Is [the right time] today, or is it yesterday, or tomorrow? So by the middle of [last] week, I'd made up my mind.

How did Caroline's decision and yours affect each other?

TED KENNEDY: Well, Caroline and I are very close, and she started this process — she could tell you about it — but she started it really last summer. She took her children to listen to all of the candidates, and they were very, very good. They were very thoughtful about it and very knowledgable about it and care very deeply about what's happening in the country. All of which is very, very inspiring. And they talked with me, I remember we had a long lunch in the middle of the summer. They were talking about it at that time; they were talking about Barack Obama.

But Caroline normally hasn't gotten involved in politics.

TED KENNEDY: I think what she wrote [on the New York Times op-ed page Sunday] is really what she felt. She wrote that in just a few hours. She writes very quickly, very eloquently and carefully. She introduced me one time at a convention, and she wrote the talk in about three or four hours, and you didn't have to change it a bit. So she writes what she thinks, thinks what she writes, and does it very powerfully, and I think that article really sets it out.

This has been, of course, seen as a rebuke in some ways of the Clintons.

TED KENNEDY: I'm for a candidate; I'm for Barack Obama. I have enormous respect for Senator Clinton; I have great respect for President Clinton. I've worked with them on different issues. I have as well with John Edwards. I've worked with him on the Patients Bill of Rights; I worked on the Judiciary Committee [with him]. I would campaign wholeheartedly if they gain the nomination. I indicated that to them. This is about who you're for, not who you're against. That's the way I looked at it.

It's also in some ways a referendum on Clintonism and the 1990s. Isn't it to some degree?

TED KENNEDY: It's a referendum on this time. Each of these candidates have virtually similar positions on the great issues, about how are we going to get health care, out of Iraq, about the economy and about education, about global warming. So the issue and the question is, who is going to be able to achieve this and get this done? That gets back to what I had mentioned earlier about the person who inspires. What I've observed and been convinced of in these past weeks is that Barack Obama is uniquely situated to be able to achieve that.

To be able to get elected, or to be able to accomplish things after?

TED KENNEDY: Afterward. I came to the Senate to get things done. We've been able to achieve a number of important achievements, and I want to continue that. My interest is in getting things done, and I think he has the ability to bring people together, not only for an election, but to achieve it. And that was the fundamental reason for my involvement now.

Can I ask you one more thing? About the role that Bill Clinton has played in this campaign?

TED KENNEDY: He's a very significant figure in our time and he cares very deeply about the process and he cares very deeply about her. And I admire his grit in trying to do everything he possibly can to secure the nomination for her.

Caroline Kennedy

You started thinking about this last summer?

CAROLINE KENNEDY: It was actually my kids talking about it last Christmas vacation. A friend of theirs, who is here today, is working for Senator Obama. It really made me realize that I should pay attention. I started going to events in New York last spring, and we went in the summer on the Vineyard with the kids and were talking to them. It was a gradual process. The bigger decision for me in a way was, should I do something more public than I usually would ever do? But I'd say it was a process and Teddy ... it was great to have him to talk to. And with the writing, I thought, well, let me see if I could put this together in a way that would make sense to me in terms of my own reason and feeling, and then I'll see what I do with it.

So you were talking to your uncle all along? Were you guys on separate paths or??

CAROLINE KENNEDY: I didn't see him all that much? We saw him in the summer, the kids were telling him about the events we'd seen. We were lucky - all the candidates were on Martha's Vineyard last summer, so we had a great up-close view. Then not so much in the fall because obviously he had so many friends in the race.

Why have you stayed out of presidential politics until now? And what kind of a decision was it, given what you represent?

CAROLINE KENNEDY: I really felt like it was a crucial moment and if I had something that I believed in, then I really owed it to myself to express that. I recently turned 50, so I figured, I'd better get going — what am I waiting for?

Senator Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA: That was pretty strong. I gotta admit, I had to clamp it down a little bit. That was powerful stuff. When you see Ted, Caroline, Patrick together, and I think about the role they played in shaping my values and ideals and what I believe about America, the connection to my father traveling to Hawaii and meeting my mother [He described in his speech how his father had come to America in part because of a program for Kenyan students that had been championed by the Kennedys.] As I said, it brings things full circle.

What kind of message do you think this endorsement will send to the Democratic base and the country at large?

BARACK OBAMA: I don't think there's anybody who understands the possibilities of government more than Ted Kennedy. So for him to endorse me in this fashion indicates his confidence that by unifying the country, we can bring about changes on universal health care, education, immigration reform. The major challenges that we face — he has been on the front lines, he knows what it takes. I think he gets a sense that the spirit we saw in this auditorium today is what can propel us past the divisions and the partisanship and the technical roadblocks that stand in the way of us achieving a better country.

He seems to have dispensed with every attack line against you in the space of one fairly short speech.

BARACK OBAMA: Nobody's better than him. What's amazing is his voice has all the power of 30, 40 years ago. He is at the heart and soul of the Democratic Party — the belief in civil rights, the belief in opportunity for all people, in upward mobility, in caring for the least of these, a vision that extends beyond our shores. And he speaks to a vision in which we are a beacon for those who are still trapped in poverty or oppression. To have him offer such a powerful endorsement I think will mean a lot. Obviously, there are people who are still getting familiar with me nationwide. Their vision of this day will make them give me a close look.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/24/2010 4:02:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Texas Rangers File for Bankruptcy:

Posted on: May 24th, 2010 - (Reuters) - The Texas Rangers baseball team filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday to ease the sale of the team to a group led by team president and Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan for about $575 million.

The “prepackaged” filing calls for creditors to be paid in full, and has the support of Major League Baseball, current Rangers ownership and Ryan’s group.

Rangers Baseball Express, the group led by Ryan and his partner Chuck Greenberg, a Pittsburgh-based lawyer at Pepper Hamilton LLP, is also buying the lease for the Rangers’ Ballpark in Arlington, as well as nearby land.

According to the Rangers, the plan would fully pay lenders of HSG Sports Group, an ownership group led by longtime private equity executive Thomas Hicks that bought the team in 1998 from investors including then-Texas Governor George W. Bush.

The Rangers filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors with the U.S. bankruptcy court in Fort Worth, Texas.

Alex Rodriguez, now the New York Yankees’ third baseman, is the team’s largest unsecured creditor, the filing shows.

The bankruptcy filing is “the best way to complete the sale and smoothly transition to new ownership, which we expect will occur by midsummer,” Ryan said in a statement. He said the bankruptcy will not affect day-to-day operations.

In a statement, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig added that the bankruptcy filing “serves the best interests of the team, its fans, Major League Baseball and all other parties.”

It was not immediately clear whether Rangers creditors would agree to the Chapter 11 plan. Lenders to the Hicks group had declared a default on $525 million of loans in April 2009.

Earlier this month, The New York Times said the top lender, Monarch Alternative Capital LP, told baseball owners that lenders would not agree to a sale to Ryan’s group “at a price below fair market value.”

Monarch, which is based in New York, did not immediately return a request for comment.

CUBS ALSO FILED BANKRUPTCY

Hicks co-founded private equity firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Inc, and would remain chairman emeritus of the Rangers should the bankruptcy plan be approved. He also owns half of the English Premier League’s Liverpool soccer club.

The Rangers are the second Major League Baseball team to seek bankruptcy protection in the last year.

In October, the Chicago Cubs filed for court protection in connection with the team’s $845 million sale by Tribune Co to the family of Tom Ricketts, whose father founded the brokerage TD Ameritrade Holding Corp (AMTD.O).

Forbes magazine this year estimated that the Rangers and the ballpark lease are worth a combined $480 million.

Rodriguez signed a 10-year, $252 million contract with the Rangers in 2000. The team traded him to the Yankees in 2004, but agreed to pay an estimated $67 million of the amount still due under his contract.

Scott Boras, the agent for Rodriguez, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

According to the bankruptcy filing, the Rangers have between $100 million and $500 million of assets and between $100 million and $500 million of liabilities.

Ryan pitched in the major leagues for 27 years, including five for the Rangers. He retired after the 1993 season.

The case is In re: Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, No. 10-43400.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Santosh Nadgir in Bangalore; Editing by Robert MacMillan and Gerald E. McCormick)



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/25/2010 8:23:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Oil spill response out of control

cnn.com

Gergen is Right About Oil in Gulf

dailykos.com



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/26/2010 7:37:31 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Time for industry to end its war on regulation

washingtonpost.com

By Steven Pearlstein
Columnist
The Washington Post
Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The biggest oil spill ever. The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The deadliest mine disaster in 25 years. One recall after another of toys from China, of vehicles from Toyota, of hamburgers from roach-infested processing plants. The whole Vioxx fiasco. And let's not forget the biggest climate threat since the Ice Age.

Even if you're not into conspiracy theories, it's hard to ignore the common thread running through these recent crises: the glaring failure of government regulators to protect the public. Regulators who were cowed by industry or intimidated by politicians. Regulators who were compromised by favors or prospects of industry employment. Regulators who were better at calculating the costs of oversight than the benefits. And regulators who were blinded by their ideological bias against government interference and their faith that industries could police themselves.

Most of us are aware by now of how lawyers for Massey Energy were able to game the appeals system to prevent the government from closing mines such as the deadly one in West Virginia that had been cited for multiple, serious safety violations.

We all know how the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to let investment banks set their own leverage ratios and how bankers delayed for nearly two years a crackdown on excessive lending for commercial real estate.

We've seen the e-mails from Toyota officials boasting of their successful efforts to avoid a costly recall despite numerous reports of sudden acceleration.

And on Tuesday we read a report from the Interior Department's inspector general describing how oil company employees filled out government inspection reports for their own drilling rigs in pencil so that real inspectors could just trace over the results in pen before filing them.

It hardly captures the breadth and depth of these regulatory failures to say that during the Bush administration the pendulum swung a bit too far in the direction of deregulation and lax enforcement. What it misses is just how dramatically the regulatory agencies have been shrunken in size, stripped of talent and resources, demoralized by lousy leadership, captured by the industries they were meant to oversee and undermined by political interference and relentless attacks on their competence and purpose. And it makes it perfectly laughable to suggest, as many in the business community now do, that during the first 16 months of the Obama administration the pendulum has already swung back too far in the other direction.

Yet, there they were last week, trotting out all the tired old arguments in a last-ditch effort to scuttle financial regulatory reform -- how it would stifle innovation and risk-taking, send jobs and investment overseas and dry up credit for small businesses. Those were the same excuses for not regulating derivatives trading, not regulating mortgage brokers, not regulating hedge funds, not regulating insurers and industrial finance companies, and not second-guessing the underwriting of federally insured banks. Only this time, nobody was buying it.

The big flaw in the business critique of regulation is not so much that it overstates the costs, but that it understates its benefits -- in particular, the benefits of avoiding low-probability events with disastrous consequences. Think of oil spills, mine explosions, financial meltdowns or even global warming. There is a natural tendency of human beings to underestimate the odds of such seemingly unlikely events -- of forgetting that the 100-year flood is as likely to happen in Year 5 as it is in Year 95. And if there are insufficient data to calculate the probability of a very bad outcome, as is often the case, that doesn't mean we should assume the probability is zero.

Another challenge in thinking about regulation is that any meaningful analysis has to go beyond merely toting up the costs and benefits to a consideration of how those costs and benefits are distributed. Regulations limiting derivatives trading, for example, may add costs or reduce profit for a bank or its corporate customers every year, but the benefits of that regulation would mostly accrue to taxpayers and the economy as a whole if it saves them from the occasional financial crisis that requires a bailout or triggers a recession. From the banks' standpoint, such a regulation may well seem like a bad idea, but for society as a whole it would be a winner.

It's time for the business community to give up its jihad against regulation. We can all agree that there are significant costs to regulation in terms of reduced sales and profits, stunted job growth and even, from time to time, stifled innovation. But what we should have learned from recent disasters is that the costs of inadequate regulation are even greater. Strong and efficient economies require strong and effective government oversight.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/28/2010 11:35:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Truth Spill: Gulf Disaster Brings Home the Real Costs of Fossil Fuels

truthout.org



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/28/2010 3:02:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
President Obama needs to create a "moon landing" project to take over the BP Oil Spill, or else...

joeranft.posterous.com

By Joe Ranft

May 26, 2010

(First of all, I'm a huge supporter of President Obama and have been since he gave his Democratic Convention speech in 2004.)

But I think President Obama is making a huge mistake by not responding with more authority to the BP Gulf oil spill. He needs to create a moon landing type project out of this problem now. Here's how:

1. Form a government/private sector task force with a prominent leader, either a retired corporate giant like Jack Welch, or a military leader like Colin Powell, or a senator like Sam Nunn. The leader must be somebody above reproach and bi-partisan who is known for leading and authority.

2. Put the BP corporate operations under this leader and task force. BP can have a seat at the table but they can no longer run the show.

3. Establish an open budget for the project. No solution can be too expensive.

4. Freeze BP's assets in the US until the leak is fixed and the cleanup is complete, with the understanding that they are out of business in the US if they don't pay every penny of the cost.

5. Assign every scientist in government and private sector who knows anything about this type of spill to the job of stopping the leak and then cleaning up the mess. This includes everybody in the military, the Department of Energy, other oil companies, universities, national and international experts.

6. Keep trying solutions to stop the leak until something works.

7. Hold daily press conferences on what is being done, what's worked, what hasn't worked, what's going to be done tomorrow.

8. Make it clear that there is no other priority in government until the leak is stopped and the clean-up has begun.

If President Obama does not move quickly, like this week, he is putting his presidency at risk. Here's why:

1. This really is a disaster worse than Katrina. I didn't believe it at first, but if you look at the scope in terms of size and time, this will linger as long if not longer than the problems of Katrina.

2. The optics are terrible. President Obama seems as if he does not care. It's been over a month, and he has been too quiet on the spill.

3. His current decision to leave it to BP plays into his critics who say he's a weak and indecisive leader, and a friend of oil.

4. Even after the spill is stopped, the aftermath will go on for years, well into his next election, and it will be easy to paint him as the person who allowed the Gulf of Mexico to be destroyed by big business.

5. He's at the risk of losing some of his most progressive supporters, especially environmentalist and alternative energy advocates.

6. It's just a very photogentic crisis, perfect for commercials. Obama's image will be tied to oil covered birds, fish, coral, shores.

7. It's the right thing to do, and if he doesn't do it, he'll deserve to lose his presidency.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)5/30/2010 2:37:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Is BP's cure worse than the spill?

bangordailynews.com

Maine toxicologist tells about swimming in gulf

By Dylan Riley
BDN Staff
5/29/10

BROOKLIN, Maine — A marine toxicologist from Maine who traveled to New Orleans earlier this month to get a firsthand look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the effects of the chemicals used to fight it said she was horrified by what she saw.

Dr. Susan Shaw of Brooklin, who accompanied a London Times crew to the gulf May 20-22, said the damage done by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is rivaled by the harm done by the dispersants British Petroleum is using to break up the viscous fluid.

“We’re actually doing a pretty good job of poisoning the sea, and we’re calling it a chemical remedy,” Shaw said.

Bathed in Vaseline, Shaw snorkeled several miles off the coast for about eight hours, she said. She described the oil spill as an “amazing, horrible batch of brown pudding.”

Shaw is the founder and director of the Blue Hill-based Marine Environmental Research Institute, an organization dedicated to “scientific research and education on the impacts of pollution on marine life and human health, and to protecting the health and biodiversity of the marine environment for future generations,” according to MERI’s website.

Shaw, who is one of the few experts who has swum in the spill to gauge its impact, said she saw an oil and dispersant mixture on May 21 and that the dispersants work. But they work too well, she said. Instead of the oil collecting on beaches and harming marine animals, it is being broken down into smaller globs that affect animals further down the food chain, such as phytoplankton, Shaw said.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” she said. “They’re definitely breaking up the oil and globs,” but smaller fish such as herring or anchovy eat the poisoned phytoplankton, and they become poisoned for larger animals who eat them.

“My view from being down there is that we should not be using these dispersants in such unprecedented volumes,” she said.

Reduced populations of forage fish like herring and poisoned food supplies will contribute to a decline in larger animals, Shaw said. She added that “exposure for fish is very high right now.”

Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered BP to immediately select a less toxic dispersant. The company has used more than 800,000 gallons of Corexit, a chemical manufactured by Nalco Co. — to which BP has close ties — to treat the spill. Corexit 9527, which BP has sprayed in the gulf, contains 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that ruptures red blood cells and causes bleeding when ingested, according to Shaw. Its replacement, Corexit 9500, contains surfactants and petroleum solvents that are caustic, accumulate in animals and can cause chemical pneumonia if breathed into the lungs, she said. Corexit is more toxic and less effective than dispersants made by Nalco’s competitors, according to EPA data.

In a statement released May 24, the EPA reported, “We are still deeply concerned about the things we don’t know. The long-term effects on aquatic life are still unknown, and we must make sure that the dispersants that are used are as nontoxic as possible. Those unknowns — and the lengthening period of this crisis — are why we last week directed BP to look for a more effective, less toxic alternative to their current dispersant.”

The president of BP, in a May 20 letter to the EPA and the Coast Guard, said he believes Corexit is still the best dispersant for the gulf oil spill because the five other possible chemicals degrade to nonylphenol, a potential endocrine disrupter, which remains in the environment for years. He went on to ask the EPA and Coast Guard for a meeting to discuss the alternatives.

The EPA wrote back to say, “The EPA and the Coast Guard believe your response to the directive was insufficient. We believed the response lacked sufficient analysis and focused more on defending your initial decisions than analyzing possible better options.” The letter went on to reiterate the EPA’s demand that BP reduce its dispersant use.

“What I see unfolding is that we’re going to lose these stitches in the food web … and that will devastate all the higher organisms,” Shaw said.

She plans to participate in a live interview on CNN International on Monday about her experiences in the gulf.



To: altair19 who wrote (66359)6/2/2010 9:55:29 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
June 2nd, 2010 -- Flagship Ventures a Cambridge, Mass.-based VC firm focused on cleantech and life sciences opportunities, has begun raising its latest fund with a $300 million target, according to VentureWire. It already has secured a $20 million commitment from Mass PRIM.

Flagship’s prior fund closed in 2007 with $235 million in capital commitments. flagshipventures.com




To: altair19 who wrote (66359)6/2/2010 10:52:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
BP Spill Cost May Hit $37 Billion, Credit Suisse Says (Update1)

By Brian Swint

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc’s cost to deal with the well leaking into the Gulf of Mexico may reach $37 billion, Credit Suisse Group AG said.

Cleanup costs may be $15 billion to $23 billion if the well leaks until relief drilling is completed in August, analysts led by Kim Fustier in London said. Claims may rise to $14 billion, the Swiss bank said.

“By early August when the relief wells are drilled, Macondo could have spilled 45 to 75 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, four to seven times Exxon Valdez,” the analysts said. “Dividend risks are clearly rising.”

BP is trying to seal a new pipe to the damaged well to direct the oil and gas to a drillship after an attempt to plug the well failed. The company has lost more than a third of its market value since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20 that triggered the leak.

The costs to BP would be equivalent to three years of the company’s cash flow after dividends and capital expenditure, assuming oil prices at $80 a barrel. It would need a 10 percent increase in borrowing to equity, according to Credit Suisse.

BP paid a dividend of 56 U.S. cents a share last year. The company will promise to keep the dividend this week, the Times of London reported today without citing anyone.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Swint in London at bswint@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: June 2, 2010 10:14 EDT