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: stockman_scott who wrote (81093)6/9/2010 10:13:09 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Sure hope..
Trent Lott's house and porch are safe..
from greasy Dick's never ending blunderings

people build houses along the water because it makes economic sense to do so. Houses or apartments with ocean views command higher prices. Beachfront property owners can demand higher rents. Beachside businesses -- casinos, hotels, restaurants -- spin money. And, best of all, the risks of owning beachfront property -- risks from floods, hurricanes and erosion -- are covered by other people. Federally subsidized flood insurance programs and state-subsidized beach "re-nourishment" programs ensure that taxpayers -- rich, poor, local, national -- pay for damage to property built close to the water. To put it differently,
Lott's house was on the beach because you and I paid for it.'

washingtonpost.com

eom



To: stockman_scott who wrote (81093)6/9/2010 10:42:06 AM
From: T L Comiskey1 Recommendation  Respond to of 89467
 
American Opinion on Climate Change Warms Up

ScienceDaily (June 8, 2010) —
Public concern about global warming is once again on the rise, according to a national survey released June 8 by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities. The results come as the U.S. Senate prepares to vote this week on a resolution to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since January, public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent. The number of Americans who worry about global warming rose three points, to 53 percent. And the number of Americans who said that the issue is personally important to them rose five points, to 63 percent.

"The stabilization and slight rebound in public opinion is occurring amid signs the economy is starting to recover, along with consumer confidence, and as memories of unusual snowstorms and scientific scandals recede," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. "The BP oil disaster is also reminding the public of the dark side of dependence on fossil fuels, which may be increasing support for clean energy policies."

Americans who said President Obama and Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a high priority increased 11 points, to 71 percent, while those who said that global warming should be a high priority rose six points, to 44 percent. In a seven-point increase since January, 69 percent of Americans said that the United States should make a large or medium effort to reduce global warming even if it incurs large or moderate economic costs.

Current public support for specific policy options (and changes since January, 2010) include:

77 percent support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (+6)
87 percent support funding more research into renewable energy sources (+2)
83 percent support tax rebates for people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles and solar panels (+1)
65 percent support signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 (+4)
61 percent support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 per year (+2)
Support for expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast fell to 62 percent (-5)
"More than seven out of 10 Americans say the United States should take action to power our nation with clean energy," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. "Even more Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including 64 percent of Republicans."
sciencedaily.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (81093)6/9/2010 1:24:15 PM
From: T L Comiskey1 Recommendation  Respond to of 89467
 
"I think ultimately it's going to be more damaging to the American republic, to our country, than perhaps the Iraq War or the interrogation policies and so forth that Dick Cheney's more famous for."

Cheney's push of deregulators led to BP disaster

Wilkerson on Cheney Pt2: Cheney's support for pro-industry "regulators" maybe his main damage to America

If it was supervised, if it was overseen, if it was regulated by the federal government, Cheney with his marvellous bureaucratic talent moved in and essentially replaced the people who were in the positions that were central to this regulation, this oversight, with people who were either lobbyists for the industry being regulated or executives from that industry.

Bio
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."

LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: Good to be here.

JAY: So talk about the dynamic of Cheney's economic alliances. He was CEO of Halliburton. He's known as a friend of oil. What are the actual mechanics of that? Like, does he actually sit—like, we've seen it in the movies; we've seen politicians sitting in rooms, you know, private clubs, with expensive cigars and nice cognac, and they talk to their political minions. What's the dynamic?

WILKERSON: It's an extraordinary dynamic, actually, and I think ultimately it's going to be more damaging to the American republic, to our country, than perhaps the Iraq War or the interrogation policies and so forth that Dick Cheney's more famous for. A book by a political scientist at Gettysburg College, Shirley Anne Warshaw, called The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney, documents a lot of what Cheney did to destroy about a half-century or more's regulatory work with regard to oversight of fisheries, forestry, oil, gas, minerals in general. You name it. If it was supervised, if it was overseen, if it was regulated by the federal government, Cheney with his marvellous bureaucratic talent moved in and essentially replaced the people who were in the positions that were central to this regulation, this oversight, with people who were either lobbyists for the industry being regulated or executives from that industry.

JAY: SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] is one of the examples of it.

WILKERSON: He destroyed the regulatory mechanisms in America.

JAY: Give us some examples.

WILKERSON: Well, he put—as I recall, he put a 20-year veteran of lobbying for the oil industry into the position overseeing, essentially, the regulation of offshore drilling and that sort of thing, the MMS [Minerals Management Service]. You name it, there's a Cheneyite there. And here's the further genius of the man. Every president since World War II, and before that, too, in different ways, has left his mark on the administration that a incoming president really can't erase very easily. Cheney did this par excellence. I mean, Cheney left, I'm told, somewhere around 1,600-plus people in the administration whom he had converted from being political or he had recruited as civil service. He converted them to civil service if they were political and left them in these positions that are very key to regulation and oversight. And those people will take a year or a year and a half, maybe even two years, for the Obama administration to root out and get rid of. First they've got to identify them, and second they've got to go through the civil service procedures to fire them, which are onerous, arduous, and difficult. So eighteen months to two years to get rid of some of them.

JAY: So you can draw a line between Cheney and what's happening with BP in the Gulf.

WILKERSON: Absolutely. Absolutely. Cheney is responsible for what's happening in the Gulf, in my view, for two very distinct reasons. One, he was CEO of Halliburton, and Halliburton was the company, I think, that was on Deep Horizon doing the cement cap which has caused so much problems because it wasn't done properly, apparently, and it exploded and allowed the oil to begin leaking. So, I mean, this is the company that he guided and ran (and he's very proud of that, as he's said many times) for several years. And he also—and I think this is a more direct responsibility—.

JAY: Well, just to be fair, we don't know that he was running the company at a time that had a direct connection with BP's pipe in the Gulf.

WILKERSON: No, we don't. But I would suspect that his lack of oversight and lack of expertise in the things that they do was very appreciated by the people who did them at Halliburton. I mean, you bring in a Rolodex guy and not a guy who really knows about the nitty-gritty of what you're doing, and the nitty-gritty gets done however you want to do it because the guy's bringing you the cash. So I don't have a problem ascribing responsibility to Cheney's leadership of Haliburton leading into Halliburton's [inaudible]

JAY: 'Cause you're saying it helps create a culture that allows something like this.

WILKERSON: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we saw that in Iraq, too. We saw Halliburton charging prices that were out of this world.

JAY: And even convicted of [inaudible]

WILKERSON: Yeah, [inaudible] convicted of this sort of thing, and actually having to break off Kellogg Brown & Root, its subsidiary, because Kellogg Brown & Root was getting so nefarious in what it was doing that Halliburton didn't want to be associated with it anymore—and, of course, all this was cast as financial decisions and so forth. But in the second way, and I think the more profound way, Cheney's responsible for the deregulation that leads to, I think, lots more problems down the pipe. In fact, I'm told there are—in this same category, I'm told there are platforms out there that are drilling at 7,000 feet. This one, Deep Horizon, was about 5,000 feet. I'm told that the same kind of procedures are being used on all of them. Just this morning I heard about the MMS again being embroiled in these kickbacks from the industry and so forth, people at the MMS, on NPR. This is all a part of the culture that Cheney created in the eight years that he was vice president. And I don't want to blame it all on Cheney, because this has been a Republican mantra for a long time. And whether it's Mitch McConnell in the Senate or whether it's someone else in the Republican guard, we—I'm a Republican—we have been spouting this deregulation, spouting this "the market is the best guide", spouting this business about let private industry do everything and all things will be wonderful, and don't have any government interference at all. And what we've done is stripped government regulation and oversight from so many things across this country, we're going to be paying for it for years to come. We're going to be paying dearly for it. There are going to be more oil spills, there are going to be more bridges collapsing, there are going to be more hurricanes that surprise us in their devastation and so forth, because we Republicans have stripped government of its ability, of its capacity to do the kinds of things that it should do that no one else can do, certainly not someone with a profit motive can do.

JAY: What, did you used to believe in this?

WILKERSON: I'm a more balanced Republican, I think. I recognize the need for government in some places. I recognize the power of the market. I recognize the power of entrepreneurship. I recognize the power of the American economy, the way it runs. But I am not for divorcing government entirely from that economy, because when you do so you get what we just went through. You get financial banks, for example, breaking all kinds of previous rules until they were stripped away, Glass-Steagall on, and you get messes and you get incredible maldistribution of wealth. You get—what are we now? We're at something like 13 percent of households in America own 40 percent of the wealth, I think. I can't remember the figures exactly, but the distribution of wealth in this country right now is horrible. It's worse than the UK.

JAY: So a lot of these things get dressed up as ideological positions like "we believe in the power of the free market". The war in Iraq is "we believe in democracy". But a lot of this is just about money-making.

WILKERSON: It is about money-making. It's about commercialism. I had a student at George Washington University who wrote a great paper about Colombia. Why have we been putting $750 million, roughly, a year, about $1 billion a year, some $6.8 billion overall, I think, into the Andean region, into Plan Colombia? Why have we been doing it? Has it really been to fight drugs? Has it really been to fight drugs? Is that what we're really interested in? Well, if you look at where we're talking about building our military bases, they're not near the FARC, the group that is involved in narcotrafficking. They're not near the coca fields. The bases are near the pipelines, the pipelines in Colombia, the oil pipelines. Where are we laying down our troops in Afghanistan? Near the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India proposed pipeline. It's all about commercial interest in the long run. And I don't fault the country for that; I don't fault our leadership for that. We do have to have a sound economy, and we do have to be competitive in the world. But I do fault them for making this less than transparent to the American people, and even to lying about it at times.

JAY: Well, it's also a little difficult to get young Americans to go give up their lives to defend somebody's oil pipeline.

WILKERSON: Absolutely.

JAY: So in the next segment of our interview, let's talk about the waning years of Cheney in the White House, and then we'll get caught up with where he is today. Please join us for the next segment of this interview on The Real News Network.

therealnews.com