The Keystone Abomination: Trump Will Learn It's Easier To Sign Some Exec Actions Than To Carry Them Out

"President Trump will live to regret the actions he's taken today"-
Michael Brune, Executive Director, The Sierra Club.

The misfit and stooge occupying the White House, Donald J.Trump, has naturally neglected the difficult parts of the job of chief executive to do showy, signing photo ops.

After all, it's a lot easier to just put pen to paper in front of clicking cameras to fuck people out of their Medicaid benefits, rights to clean water, or reproductive choice - than to man up and to the heavy lifting needed to get this nation back on track. But for Trump, the consummate showman, it's all about carny barking and show.

No surprise then that Trump also has signed a document clearing the way to government approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as for another called the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. What he will learn, however, is that millions of citizens are not prepared to just sit by and let those actually manifest - not with a planet that can ill afford any more of that crap coming out of the ground.

Proposed by a Canadian firm (Trans Canada), the Keystone pipeline would carry 800,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast. Republicans and some Democrats argued that the project would create jobs and expand energy resources, while environmentalists said it would encourage a form of oil extraction that produces more gases that warm the planet than normal petroleum

As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly Hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Give a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

McKibben,  as early as 2011, noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.


4) Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

All of this ought to inspire furious opposition, the same sort as transpired when  Obama had contemplated bringing it forth. The same goes for the Dakota Access pipeline which threatens the water sources on Indian lands and has seen thousands - even Army vets- motivated to protest. That is bound to occur again, as the battle lines have formed thanks to Trump's stodgy, stumpy fingers signing these criminal orders.

Trump has also signed an order that begins to unravel Mr. Obama’s  (ACA) health care program, reversed his policies on abortion and housing and ordered a freeze of any pending regulations left behind by the outgoing administration.  The cumulative effect of these barbaric signings is not difficult to parse and will include: increased cancers from lowered clean water testing and protections, increased incidence of all forms of cancer as well as water-borne diseases like cryptosporidium, much greater medical  burden thereby imposed on citizens who will now face these diseases without medical insurance. This on top of increased frequency of abortions due to less access to birth control.  His climate depredations including signing approval for Keystone XL, will lead to a world no human will be able to inhabit within very few years.

Does Trump give a damn? Nope, only about his poll ratings or whether he really won the popular vote. His ego rules all and he cares not a whit about millions becoming ill or pregnant when they can't afford the costs. As long as he does the bidding of knaves and fools that's all that matters. This is Trump World, and welcome to it.

The Trump team, to promote these pipelines, is pushing the "new jobs" bunkum on the dumb Trumpies who believed the Donald was their deliverance. But not so fast. A 2014 State Dept. review of Keystone showed that nearly all the projected jobs (maximum 42,100 or barely enough to satisfy the needs of a town like Pueblo, CO) nearly all would fill only one position for ONE year. In other words, they'd be gone, as in vamonosed at the end of a year. Big deal, all temp jobs! A grand total of 35 permanent employees would be needed once  the pipeline commences service. This is about half the staff needed for your average mid-level department store. Yeah, the pay will be much better, but the health costs will also be a lot higher - and one wonders if that pay will cover all the pancreatic and liver cancers when they appear. Especially for people who will no longer have the ACA to lean on.

The hype that costs will go down is also bullshit. A study out of Cornell, cited by Hayes, shows that consumers in the Midwest alone could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel if the Keystone is approved.

And we haven't even covered the calamity that can follow from a massive leak that can lead to widespread water contamination.  For more about this, and what can happen see:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/25/487357502/canadian-oil-spill-threatens-drinking-water


In the wake of a potential rupture leading to a crude spill of this tar sands crap,  this is a clarion call for all out protests. These may even necessitate occupying the locations for pipeline construction to prevent enormous environmental transgressions that will undermine citizen well being. Once that water is contaminated  - as the previous link shows - it will be the devil's own job getting it back to its original potable condition.

.

Bernie Schools Hillary On What It Means To Be Progressive

Bernie Sanders makes a forceful point to shatter Hillary's progressive delusions.

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future."   -- John F. Kennedy

Last night's MSNBC debate (moderated by Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow)  between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton probably had more fireworks than earlier ones-  as it should - since intensity must increase the more Hillary tries to blur distinctions by painting herself as a progressive. She isn't. She's a "moderate"  or in common political parlance, a Neoliberal right centrist Dem. For those who haven't been around the last 60 years or so - and that is roughly 80 percent of Americans - the Democratic Party has steadily mutated from its New Deal origins and basis into something most of us (Kennedy liberals) no longer recognize. Sen. Bernie Sanders is trying to bring the Party back to its roots, while Hillary wants to take it further to the Right.

In essence, that is what this whole debate was about, irrespective of the particular topic: health care, Wall Street's influence, immigration, corporate campaign contributions, climate change or national security. There IS a correct Progressive or Liberal position on all of these, and anyone who attempts to blur over the differences is an obscurantist pure and simple. So let's not mince words.

In this blog entry I am not going to pick over every issue or segment of the debate, but provide an overarching framework of what it means to be a progressive and readers can DVR wind back the Dem debates - or any parts thereof- and see which candidate's claims and arguments meet the criteria.  

The true progressive or liberal then, will embrace each of the following and do so consistently, not ditch any when it becomes politically convenient:

   1) Taxes are of BENEFIT to Society and Increased Taxes are GOOD not BAD!

Instead, too many progressives flee from the T-word out of political expedience or chicanery, despite the fact it is higher taxes that can support the domestic programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)  they are supposed to back, as well as allow for mega-projects we need like major infrastructure repair. (The Flint lead -in -the- water incident is just the 'canary in the coal mine' of what lies in wait if we don't act.)

The must-read article ‘The Next Tax Revolt’ (American Prospect, June, 2009, p. 37) held progressives’ feet to the fire by making them partly responsible for playing into the Reepos ‘no new taxes’ bandwagon.  Part of this is the natural desire to try to protect the lower income quintiles from higher taxes, which leads to gamesmanship – in using the tax code for political leverage. Thus, the author notes:

“a platform of no tax increases for the bottom 95 percent can win elections but it reinforces rather than debunks the Right’s fundamental view of the tax question: that public services aren’t worth paying for- and merely suggests getting someone else to pay for them.”

Many of us saw this at the time, which is why we vociferously pleaded for the Bush Tax cuts NOT to be extended, period, for ANYONE- both the high fliers, and the lower, middle class tier. The reason is that we knew from several analyses that only getting the wealthy to forego them would not cut the mustard. We needed everyone to sacrifice, since the necessary revenue can’t be found merely by soaking the rich (which also gives the Reepos ammo that the Left always attacks the wealthy)..

But sadly, progressives sabotaged their own cause by arguing for tax hikes only on the richest. Their moral center had thereby been obliterated on the issue because they played right into the Reeps’ mitts. In the most recent manifestation of this tendency we beheld Pelosi denying any increase in taxes would be part of the D-platform this year (thereby undermining Bernie's agenda) and also Hillary vowing she'd never raise taxes on the middle class. But when it comes to cuts to Social Security, you can be your sweet bippy she and Pelosi will be first in line to enable it!

2)     Environmental Threats Must Be Confronted – Not Dodged!

Thus, to forge a coherent moral center and abiding progressive position there can be no divergence of interest regarding environmental threats.  This leads to a series of elementary actions that can’t be disputed - at least not by genuine progressives (as distinct from the situational or 'cafeteria' variety):

-        The Keystone XL pipeline must be permanently mothballed never to arise again

-        Fracking must be cut back given its deleterious effects on  the water supply (especially given how water intensive it is, and 55% is done in the most drought –ravaged states).

-        Carbon taxes, either via front end (e.g. tax on production) or back end (tax on gasoline at the pump) must be implemented to prevent our hitting the 551 gT limit of carbon deposition, which would lead to going over the critical 2 deg C threshold.

-        Deep sea drilling must also be scaled back and much more rigorous regulations must be put into place to prevent a repeat of the BP oil disaster from ever occurring again.

The danger to the progressive moral center will come-  as it usually does – from unions -   objecting to “loss of  jobs”. But they have to be made to see that these jobs are worthless if people later pay a higher cost in untreatable cancers, or disasters that can affect large swaths of population.

3)     Wars Must Never Be Launched Unless the Nation is Truly At Risk

The obvious standard here is World War II and the threat from the Axis Powers. In other words, if there is no threat comparable to that threatening our immediate security, we do not ramp up the war machinery nor do we launch or instigate invasions, occupations or even cruise missile attacks- because we understand the consequences of those actions can only lead to more violence. Nor does a real progressive vote on war and invasion as Hillary did back in 2002.

This is also why none other than Chalmers Johnson noted it was our aggressive policy decisions, including keeping militarized bases in Saudi Arabia, that provoked the “blow back” of 9/11.  In other words, neither Afghanistan or Iraq ought to have been entered into – the first was misplaced, since it was 19 Saudis that were responsible for 9/11, the second was entirely contrived based on flawed WMD information from an Iraqi defector named “curve ball”.
 

In the judicious application of a coherent liberal-progresive ethics no war would be casually conducted by a random presidential edict, or pseudo-doctrine (i.e. 'Bush doctrine'). Instead, we’d have an actual declaration of war by congress. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional duty, while imparting moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures of choice, finagled outside the parameters of congressional authority. For too long wars have been waged through the back door  at great financial and moral cost to the U.S.  The Iraq invasion, for example, never would have been allowed had an actual declaration of war been demanded by congress, as opposed to it meekly rolling over for the executive branch.

 

4)     The National Security state as it is presently configured is inimical to constitutional rights
 

This is  based on the Snowden- released files, hence we need to scale back the intrusiveness because no truly progressive person can defend or justify a mammoth dragnet sweep program that essentially renders everyone guilty. This disrespects the cornerstone of our republic – the 4^th amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Thus, no true progressive ought to have been in support of the NSA PRISM, Xkeyscore, Muscular or other programs. If you're a  right wing militarist, pro-security state fetishist, it's understandable you'd hump for security over liberty, but not as a progressive. And bear in mind any of those rights lost today will not be recovered later.

5)     Multinationals Must be Checked – Starting with GMO Foods.

Author and academic George Lakoff was quite correct  a year or so ago when he wrote that GMO foods are “horrible” so why is this even an issue for some progressives? You mean because they’ve bought the codswallop that GMOs will “help feed the world”. They need to do more research, and grasp how a tiny bump in larger crops – but which later lead to a range of cancers- is no gain. Not at all.  You’re exchanging 50 million hungry people for 500 million with terrible cancers in 30-40 years. How does that help the overall picture? Oh wait, yes! Immediate gain trumps the future pain! The mantra of Neoliberal capitalism!

6)    Wall Street Influence in Political Campaigns and 'Dark Money' Must Be Checked

Bernie has been all about this in every town hall meeting and in the D- debates. He invokes it because it is critical. So long as Wall Street money infects the political process it will be corrupted: the endless cycle will continue whereby citizens vote and instigate the latest money power coup for putative "leaders" (benefiting from the campaign largesse) and then those allied powerful interests redirect the government to their own ends as opposed to the citizens'.

Douglas Rushkoff, in his superb book, Life Inc. - How Corporations Conquered the World and How We Can Take It Back, has a special chapter on money (Chapter 6, 'To Whom Credit Is Due') and ought to be required reading for every citizen. As he points out: "Money is not a neutral medium - it favors some types of behavior while discouraging others."    In the case of the influx of money from Wall Street  the dynamic favors behaviors such as: weakening of banking laws (making it more likely citizens will again bail out banks, credit agencies, insurers etc.), greater advantage to select traders at the expense of ordinary investors, and lower corporate and other taxes accompanied by less regulation - making us more supporters of corporate welfare than the general welfare mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution.  

 NO progressive worth his or her salt should therefore be taking money from Wall Street - whether for speaking fees or direct campaign donations via Super Pacs.

One wonders if indeed Americans, even most who claim to be progressive Democrats, really have the moxie and courage to follow that path to the hilt: the one Bernie Sanders advocates. Sometimes I wonder when I hear so many yapping about "pragmatism" or "Sanders can never get it done". If we adopt that mindset we never will, but then we can't bellyache about the deplorable condition of the country we're left with if we can't summon the will for real - as opposed to cosmetic - change!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/65852/if-you-want-to-win-go-progressive

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gary-leupp/65854/is-a-socialist-really-unelectable-the-potential-significance-of-the-sanders-campaign

Obama's SOTU: Defiant and Generally Good (A Few Quibbles)

Barack Obama's State of the Union speech last night was generally solid, especially with its emphasis on "middle class economics" and his proposals to halt the nation's increasing economic inequality. While many of the proposals will never see the light of day in terms of passing legislation, they are pretty much within a common sense standard of what any decent, sane nation would do -unless of course it isn't sane or decent. Those include:

-   Increasing the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 annually, to 28 percent.

- Allowing all workers to have at least 7 sick days per year as all other advanced nations do

-  Increasing the minimum wage to at least living wage standards.

-  Require estates of the wealthy to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they're inherited


These are all eminently sensible and shouldn't require elaborate defense or justification. For example -as the Financial Times noted yesterday (p. 3):

"Americans pay a top rate of 23.8 percent on their investment income, significantly lower than the top rate of tax from employment which stands at 39.6 percent.

The gap in how different kinds of income are taxed overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest households which are much more likely to hold investments over time."

Of course, the FT is spot on. Investment income, or "rentier income", should always be taxed a lot higher than working income since it fuels economic and income inequality. Why should some rich guy with $50 million to spare, be able to laugh his taxes off because he has his money stashed in equities, hedge funds or derivatives? It make no sense. Thus, a small increase is 28 percent is no big sacrifice to ask. But don't worry, the Reepos will believe it is as they instead go on their austerity and deficit cutting binge - despite the fact as Obama has noted, the deficit has been cut by two-thirds.

But what's reality to a party that doesn't even believe global warming is a scientific fact - as much as anything can be- and still has problems accepting evolution?

The sick days proposal is really a no-brainer and ought to have been enacted over twenty years ago. It's a bloody disgrace that all other advanced industrial nations have this provision, but Americans don't. But then, I guess the Reepos have no problem with 5 million citizens getting sick each year from food poisoning because food handlers at restaurants are ill (say with norovirus) and ought not have been at work, period.

Minimum wage increase is also an obvious need, but the Reepo maggots would clearly rather underpaid workers have to go on food stamps to survive. (Even as I write this they are prepared to cut another one million from food benefits, sending 500,000 kids into the condition of food insecurity.)

Lastly, forcing wealthy estates to pay capital gains on inherited securities is also a rational move, given how most wealth in this country is derived from daddy's riches - not work. That inherited capital then massively contributes to economic inequality as economist Thomas Piketty has shown.

Another high point was when the president vowed to use his veto pen to strike down the Republican leadership's efforts to dismantle his signature accomplishments, including his health care and financial reform laws, i.e. "unraveling the new rules on Wall Street "  (Alas, as I told wifey, that hog already escaped the farm - what with the passage of the spending bill back in December, with the rider doing away with swaps regulations.)

Obama said, defiantly - in regard to protecting Obamacare:

"We can't put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance"

Which is good to hear because the Affordable Care Act is the only route most people (especially with pre-existing conditions) have to get health care.

Other high points:

- Vowing to fight climate change, also noting noting 2014 was the hottest year on record (see my January 17 post)

- Vowing to veto any other laws that weaken financial regulations.

Regarding the first, the big test will be the Keystone XL pipeline, which bill is likely to come to Obama's desk in the next few weeks. If it does, it is essential he veto it, given that tar sands oil would be a catastrophe for the planet.


Not so great segments:

- Calling out Vladimir Putin and Russia in relation to the Ukraine, when it was in fact NATO and the neocons still in State Dept. positions, like Victoria Nuland, who instigated it. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/putin-is-acting-rationally-col-lawrence.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html


- Asking for a new authorization for military action against the Islamic State terror group in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

As much as I'd like to expunge the ISIS vermin and rabble from the face of the Earth, I am not sure a new military "authorization" is what we need to do it. It sounds ominously  like the authorization,  post 9/11,  that literally sucked trillions from our Treasury via the two useless engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then too, let's bear in mind the primary goal of ISIS is to trap the U.S. and allies into a new round of military spending and incursion in the Middle East, to fan the flames of Muslim hate and gain new recruits.  See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-french-islamic-terrorists-is-their.html


 -  Boasting of U.S. energy independence.

While this sounded great on its face, let's bear in mind it didn't come so much from alternative energy sources (though Obama did mention wind energy developments) but from fracking - which is ruining water systems, and polluting soil and air across the nation. See my previous posts:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/now-fracking-pollutes-soil-as-well-as.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-fracking-is-worse-than-you.html


Funniest moment? As Obama neared the end of his speech, he declared, "I have no more campaigns to run."

When the goofball Republicans erupted in laughter, Obama retorted, "I know, because I won both of them."

Good on you, Barack,  for reminding the Reepo losers of your prior electoral conquests!

Now, be sure to keep that veto pen well -filled and ready to snuff out the oncoming Reepo bunkum!

Let's Hope For An Internecine GOP 'War' !

Thanks to indolent, stupid American voters - namely in the Democratic ranks - the GOP stands to put a world of hurt on millions of the most vulnerable citizens, including kids, seniors, and workers. All this because critical demographics - including the young voters and Hispanics - didn't turn out for the 2014 midterms to the same level they did for the 2012 general election.

All of this was anticipated by the GOP obstuctionists, of course, acknowledging  progressives' midterm lethargy as well as the general dumbing down of the populace. Recall as recently as 2010, the rodent -faced Mitch McConnell vowed that the GOP Senate’s primary responsibility was to make Barack Obama a one term president   This strategy failed but as  Paul Waldman put it in this insightful piece in the American Prospect:  

“He devised and implemented the strategy of total obstruction in the first six years of the Obama presidency not because he couldn’t stand the president, but because he thought (correctly) that it would be the strategy most likely to get Republicans what they wanted.” 

And, of course, the GOP did get what it wanted thanks to up to 8 percent of the Demo general election voters staying at home. What? Were they stoned? Were they incapacitated? Did they not know that the gates of hell would be unleashed electorally on the majority?

Some of this  - of which most aren't aware - includes:

- Further cuts to food stamps, to increase defense spending, leaving even more poor kids hungry at night (already 15 million since the December, 2013 sequester cuts)

- Putting back on the table cuts to Social Security, mainly via the chained CPI but also more severe and general cuts (up to twenty percent) which I recently was warned about in a letter from the National Committee to Protect Social Security & Medicare.  Excerpt:

"Republicans made a change to their proposed rules package that makes it more difficult to pass legislation to protect millions of current Social Security beneficiaries (disabled workers and their families) from a potential 20 percent cut in their benefits in 2016.

Your National Committee was on Capitol Hill all day long fighting to stop this dangerous last-minute amendment from passing. And we sent a letter to every member of Congress, which you can read here, urging them to vote it down."


- Efforts to annihilate Medicare and replace it with a "premium support" system, i.e. seniors would get a fixed voucher each year to try to get the health care they need - described by one wonk thusly:

"Beginning in 2022, it would create a marketplace in which seniors have a fixed amount of money to buy health insurance. The amount of 'support' would match the price of the insurance premium."

The truth is eighty percent of seniors would find themselves further behind the eight ball on account of rising medical costs -especially for cancer treatments, hip replacement surgery etc.- while the vouchers would be barely $10, 000 a year, if that. This means they'd have to cough up much more out of pocket.

- Gutting a main component of Obamacare by eliminating the 30 hrs. a week of work entitlement to access, and replacing it with 40 hrs. But all that would happen if this was done is the corporatocratic rats would ensure most workers don't make the 40 hr./week cut and leave it at 39 hrs. or less. 

- Passing the Keystone XL pipeline which would be the fastest way to hurl us all into the climate shitcan given the degraded quality of tar sands oil - in terms of CO2 injection into the atmosphere, but also the risk of spills across the length of it especially near the Ogallala aquifer.

At least Obama has vowed to veto the last, and he will certainly veto many others as well, particularly if the Dem spines collapse in the Senate - as I predict they will. The Dems when in opposition never display cojones, they act more like terrified little wimps afraid to act the least bit obstructionist. See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/harry-reid-turns-out-to-be-another-punk.html

So, in fact, we may have to rely not only on Obama vetoes but splits in the GOP itself - as revealed earlier this week when the Teepees threatened Johnno Boehner's Speaker hegemony in the House.

As salon.com columnist Heather Digby Parton put it ('The GOP's Coming Horror Show'):

"The real battle of the budget may just be between the House and the Senate Republicans with Democrats reduced to popping popcorn and settling in like they’re watching a live version of “Transformers: Age of Extinction.” 

But let' not forget the GOP House also has a faction that is leery of Boehner's leadership and this bunch of renegades (mostly Tea Partyers) attempted to oust him from his Speaker role on the first day. They failed, but their intentions and agenda were clear: they want the party to go all out in its anti-Obama crusade and not give an inch.

Maybe, if we're lucky, the GOP with its fighting factions - extremists vs. not so extremists- will 'blow itself up' and most of their bills won't even reach the sign off stage.

One can always hope!

A Bad Omen Emerges From Senate Dems : Voting for Keystone Pipeline to Try To Save Landrieu

The idea that a minor political gain can create an opportunity for environmental catastrophe is one that now must be reckoned in by Democratic voters, as they behold Senate Dems prepared to cave in on the Keystone XL pipeline in order to (hope) Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu can retain her seat as that state election moves to a runoff. This was announced this morning on CBS Early Show as we learn - incredibly - that a number of Senate Democrats have "changed their minds" on the pipeline and the reason appears to be to toss their female D-counterpart a bone in the hopes she can keep her seat. (Louisiana is a huge oil and gas state as I can attest, having worked two plus years in New Orleans for an oil company in the late 60s).

But if this is what we can expect from the Dems as the Reepos assume a majority in the Senate next year, then we are all for the high jump. We can likely expect them to turn on a dollar on a number of key votes (maybe even the "Ryan Budget"), giving the Repukes the filibuster- proof majorities they need to even survive Obama vetoes. Sickening is the word that comes to mind, but again, why I left the Democrats to become an independent. (Back in 2002-03 when Tom Daschle's Senate Dems gave in to Bush on almost everything- from wars to budget -busting tax cuts.)

Why is this a misbegotten move?  As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Given a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

Prof. McKibben,  in his November, 2012 appearance on Chris Hayes’ 'UP', noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon (from tar sands oil) it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

4)Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b/ yr on fuel, could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

To his credit Obama has so far nixed this odious deal, which will only bring jobs for the very few (maybe 21,000 if that) and major hellacious environmental costs that would be a hundred times greater than the Exxon Valdez disaster if major leaks occur. Now, Obama must use his full authority (which no repug can stop) to kill this project once and for all, i.e. if the Senate vote falls short of the filibuster proof majority of 60 votes.

Just WHO is pushing this abomination on us? Giant oil corporations invested in Canada's tar sands and who have, as Bill Moyers stated in an April, 2012 appearance in on Bill Maher's Real Time, already contributed more than $47 million of campaign donations to Repukes and lobbying money to try to make it so. They are hoping that Americans will be too dumb or dense to see the hidden (and not so hidden) costs that will be extracted.

But evidently the Senate Dems don't see it that way. According to the CBS account:

"Louisiana is an oil and gas state and pipeline is very popular there. So Democratic leaders thought that giving Mary Landrieu something that she has been demanding might boost her chances back at home."

In other words, fuck the planet to (try to) preserve a Senatorial seat for the Dems. What kind of malignant political calculus is that? It's one that only a compromised political party - by too much corporate cash infusion- could dream up.  Even now the Repukes in the House are grabbing the language advantage for their own version of the bill by calling it the "Cassidy Keystone Solution" after Landrieu's opponent.

Make no mistake that this is serious. Approving this abomination (especially in a blatantly cynical political move)  will speed this planet toward an earthly hell partly captured in the initial scenes of the scifi flick 'Interstellar' and will be a threshold from which there is no turning back.

At that point the polar vortex, connected to instability of the Arctic ice cap from global warming, will be the least of your worries.

Raise the Minimum Wage in Return for Approving Keystone XL? A Bad Deal

John Thune on 'Morning Joe' two weeks ago tossed around the possible idea (with other guests, errr......political poltroons) of having a "deal" in which a raise in the minimum wage (to $10.15 an hour) might be effected in return for the Dems allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to go through. (Let's forget for the moment the hike in the minimum wage DID technically pass at the last Senate vote by 54-46, but the Reepos phoned in a "filibuster" because the 60 majority wasn't attained.)

Thune, in his monologue, insisted that unless the economy is expanding we can't afford a minimum wage hike. The Keystone - by providing some 50,000 odd jobs- would presumably allow such expansion, which is why this compromise deal is being knocked around by the pols. Thune added that we can't simply raise the minimum wage by itself if the jobs aren't there and companies aren't experiencing demand for their goods.

What he doesn't get is that there is little demand because people aren't being paid the income that allows them to spend, given their other obligations (mortgages, rents, utilities, groceries etc). Even now, 6 years after the financial collapse, 14.5 percent of families are food-challenged. They are having difficulty paying for food in the richest nation on Earth..  Hence, merely approving the Keystone will not in itself be adequate to generate aggregate demand across the board to expand the economy.

Beyond all that, approval of the Keystone would add monumental extra costs to the health and environment: more cancers, more illnesses from polluted air- water. In addition, the added carbon deposition - especially from tar sands oil - would be too much to halt the worst effects of global warming,

Bill McKibben in an appearance on Chris Hayes’ UP in 2011, noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

All of this discloses that no deal should be made and the minimum wage ought to be increased based on its own value of increasing aggregate demand.  It makes no sense to approve Keystone and get 50,000 more jobs but then impose recurring costs that effectively are fifty times higher than any economic benefits.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumesidesumaen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day.

Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.


There should be no connection at all between raising the minimum wage and the Keystone XL pipeline. The latter is a horrific idea that neither the planet or the nation can afford while the former is long past due and would spark an increase in aggregate demand because it would give millions of workers the income to spend - which is what our GDP and economy is all about.  All the research done regarding effects of raising the minimum wage - except those coming from right wing think tanks - show it to be a boon for the economy - and with only minimal cost effects for most employers.

It is the right thing to do and the human thing. And besides, if we refuse to provide this increase in income we can't complain as ever more families have to go on food stamps to survive! It's either more food stamp beneficiaries or higher minimum wage. Take your pick!

Why Obama Failed to Become the Transformative President

Obama - in the glow of his victory in 2008- when expectations ran high after his campaign themes of hope and change. What happened after he became President had most to do with his failure to adopt a political identity which would have provided a compass for governance.


As a new Constitutional crisis unfolds, that the CIA has been accused (by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, no less)  of breaking into Senate Intelligence Committee computers, those not au fait with deep politics would be advised to pay rapt attention. The issue revolves around an internal review known as the Panetta Review, which highlights severe transgressions committed by the spooks in their rendition and torture programs. The CIA - according to Feinstein, as well as Mark Udall- broke into Senate Intelligence Committee computers and eliminated the key files,.

 As I have written in a number of blog posts, especially last October and November, the CIA as part of the national security state (with the NSA) has risen to become so powerful - throwing its weight around since the 1950s - that its power threatens the Constitution. Ike knew it - which is why he set up 'The President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activity'. The Board concluded that the CIA's clandestine services were "operating for the most part on an autonomous and free-wheeling basis in highly critical areas."  This was after the CIA sponsored a coup in Guatemala in 1954 to oust Jacobo Arbenz its President.

JFK also understood the threat, especially after the Bay of Pigs - which is why he fired the CIA chief Allen Dulles and his Deputy Director, Charles Cabell. It is also why Kennedy emulated Ike in setting up a Foreign Intelligence Advisory board - the express purpose of which was to bring the CIA under independent control.  Kennedy addressed the group on May 15, 1961 and informed them he was "undertaking a total reassessment of U.S. covert action policies and programs".

None of these boards or supervisory incentives worked and the CIA broke out every time to become ever more powerful.  Now Obama, like his predecessors, will likely be faced with finding a resolution - but what will he do? Will he become 'transformative' and side with the People and the Constitution or will he side with Brennan (instead of firing him as JFK would have done) and the national security state.

The answer is predictable if one understands Obama's political temperament - which is to always avoid taking a strong stand, avoid looking partisan (and if he sided with Feinstein and the Senate Dems he would look that way) and avoiding severe conflict - which would likely occur if he sided with the People against Brennan and the CIA. Besides, his stand against Snowden and other whistle blowers discloses he is no longer invested in "transparency" which he proclaimed would be a hallmark of his presidency back in 2008.

Now, David Bromwich (at salon.com),   in an article Obama’s Disappearing Act- What Happened to the President He wanted to be?  has examined Obama's political tendencies and temperament  in a deep way and pretty well shown that anyone as early as 2008 could have forecast he'd have turned out the way he has - afraid of political battles, and averse to making powerful  (but politically controversial) moves - say along the lines of JFK or FDR. For example, if he really wanted to he could have closed Guantanamo by Executive Order.

Bromwich's premise (and working title) assumes, of course, that Obama really wanted to be anything different from what he has been.  Which to many of us has been a human Rorschach. Read into  him whatever you want and there it is! Of course, we can dispense at once with the nonsense of the idiots on the Far Right, i.e. that Obama is some kind of “Socialist” or “communist”  - as I overheard an idiot braying the other day while walking out of a movie theater. 

Put it this way: If Obama is a Socialist, far less Communist, then I am a new Roman Catholic convert and a newly confirmed Bishop!

But then, if you ask ten people exactly what Obama is, you will likely get ten different answers, or …..ten different versions of head scratches….with ‘I don’t know’ to follow. Is he pro-War? Don’t know! Is he pro transparency? Odds are he’s not, given his defense of the NSA.  What principles does he espouse? We don't know since if one examines his speeches at any given venue they're all chameleon-like taking on the hue of the environment he's addressing.


Then there are those fulsome quotes he reels off sometimes, as Bromwich notes. For example, the recent response to Russian claiming of the Crimea, which in fact it has much more license and right to claim than we had for claiming Iraq and its oil: Obama said, “Russia was putting itself on the wrong side of history.”  Bromwich observes:

“This might seem a surprising thing for an American president to say. The fate of Soviet Communism taught many people to be wary of invoking History as if it were one’s special friend or teammate. But Obama doubtless felt comfortable because he was quoting himself. “

And here I thought the man was quoting FDR or at least JFK! Quoting himself? Yeppers, from a 2009 inaugural address.  Most striking to me was Bromwich’s observation of Obama while Editor at the Harvard Law Review:

“He kept his editorial colleagues happy by insisting that the stance of the Review need not be marked by bias or partisanship. It did not have to be liberal or conservative, libertarian or statist. It could be “all of the above.”

So even then we detected the man’s aversion to being labeled or politically pigeonholed, but which many might construe as a reluctance to be defined, hence remain "slippery" (especially warranted if one has Neoliberal tendencies at heart). Hence, one can appear all things to all people, especially if they really knew one's political stance they might get pissed and not vote for you in the next election. Also, what better way to catapult oneself into elected power?   Especially if one's record in the Senate and Illinois state senate are also non-committal or non-existent.

This is also consonant with having no self-identity or self context. Some might even say, with some justification, it discloses a man without an ideology.  This perhaps might be perceived in the wrong way since these days ideology has such negative overtones, right there next to ‘zealot’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’. But let’s be real!  It is ideology that gives one’s world and perceptions context and color. If you lack an ideology, as an old logic teacher once put it to me, then you will find yourself cast adrift and swayed by any and every meme, blabber or blowhard that might try to influence you. Of course, one always checks his ideology against reality, this is important! But one needs a central POV to make any sense of the world. This is the very quality Obama lacks and explains many of his otherwise confounding decisions, such as setting up a debt commission and proposing a Social Security cut via the chained CPI..

A leader lacking  a compass of ideological conviction or defined principles ends up everywhere and nowhere.  ON all sides of every issue and no sides. He takes this ambiguous stance as trying to please everyone, but the game can't last forever ('you can fool some of the people some of the time" etc.), so ultimately he pleases no one and his poll numbers will begin to recede.   In this sense Bromwich's next observation might be very apropos:

"He was elected to govern when little was known about his approach to the practical business of leading people. The unexplored possibility was, of course, that little was known because there was not much to know. Of the Chicago organizers trained in Saul Alinsky’s methods of community agitation, he had been considered among the most averse to conflict. Incongruously, as Jeffrey Stout has pointed out in Blessed Are the Organized, Obama shunned “polarization” as a valuable weapon of the weak. His tendency, instead, was to begin a protest by depolarizing. "

 This explains why, for example, he tried the futile tack of trying to appease the Repukes after being elected and launching his 2009 stimulus. Trying to compromise, and being only reviled in return, not grasping his role was to BE a partisan and fight like one for the rest of us against these monied interests. But he couldn't abide conflict. The hard fact is that if Obama had allowed fewer compromise measures in his stimulus plan (like the tax cuts) and increased it to $1.5 trillion as opposed to the paltry $787 m, the jobs numbers would have brightened much sooner.

He also could have helped himself - as The Financial Times noted at the time- by repealing the Bush tax cuts for everyone. This single step would have obviated the need for all the later showdowns and theatrics, including the ridiculous debt ceiling standoffs, and the sequester.   Then there was his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, but instead of at least fighting to enable a public option he turned it over to a Dem-led Senate Committee, which also featured Max Baucus and three Repukes. It was little wonder it turned out the way it did, but the options ought to have been much better.

Bromwich has a term for this:  "leading from behind". Instead of standing out there and taking "point" - staying in the recesses and letting others do the major work.

This was also true in approving the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, when he ought to have said NO to Gates and the Joint Chiefs. But there was his next error. Trying to assemble and deploy a "team of rivals". This also explains why neocons like Victoria Nuland still inhabit the halls of the State Dept. when they ought to have been shown the door. (Nuland is the prime suspect in the recent coup in Ukraine to install Arseniy Yatsenuk, aka 'Yats' as a neocon puppet).

Apart from that, Bromwich devotes a good bit to Obama's belief in "preferences" in his subsection 'The Preferential President'.   He writes:

“the truth is that Obama’s convictions were never strong. He did not find this out until his convictions were tested, and they were not tested until he became president.

Perhaps the thin connection between Obama’s words and his actions does not support the use of the word “conviction” at all. Let us say instead that he mistook his preferences for convictions — and he can still be trusted to tell us what he would prefer to do. “

But expressing preferences isn’t leadership, or even "leading from behind". Sure, JFK would have ‘preferred’ not to face down U.S. Steel and earn the wrath of the corporatocracy, but he knew he had to do it for the welfare of the nation. Hence, he threatened that corporation with removing its defense contracts unless it complied and didn’t raise steel prices in the spring of 1962.  Similarly, Kennedy would have ‘preferred’ not to have to confront his Joint Chiefs over their intent to bomb and invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, but he did so because he realized the preservation of life on Earth may well depend on it. 

 Kennedy also would have preferred not to get involved – realizing the political costs to himself and his party - in the civil rights movement. But he did, and when he federalized the National Guards in Mississippi and Alabama in 1963 he knew it was the right thing to do, but also knew it would cost the Democratic Party in the South.....forever. I doubt Obama would have done a similar thing.

Also illuminating, as Bromwich notes:

"More than most people, Obama has been a creature of his successive environments. He talked like Hyde Park when in Hyde Park. He talks like Citigroup when at the table with Citigroup. And in either milieu, he likes the company well enough and enjoys blending in. "

Again, we see the lack of self- clarity or identity.  Hence, reinforcing Bromwich's observation that:

"In discussions about Obama, one occasionally hears it said — in a mood between bewilderment and forbearance — that we have not yet known the man"

Being a ‘creature of one’s environments’ means, however, that one has no self-identity or self-context.  (Which again also touches on ideology) Ralph Waldo Emerson called it, a “self culture” – meaning whatever the venue or context  ventured into, you yourself remained centered and can’t lose yourself. You also know yourself enough to be confident of who and what you are without having to try to be a chameleon.  The problem is, clearly, Obama doesn’t have any self-context or center which is exactly why he often seems to be on the wrong sides of issues

It’s why he could talk of “transparency” at the outset of his administration then end up being the most secretive president in history, who also invoked the archaic “Espionage Act” of 1917 and use it against whistle blowers more than anyone else. It is why he could mouth liberal rhetoric in his campaign  then appoint a ‘debt commission’ intent on cutting “entitlements” – including  naming a guy (Alan Simpson) who once referred to Social Security as a ‘cow with 300 million tits”.

It’s why he could receive a Nobel Peace Prize, yet never really earned it – instantly going on to marshal a surge in Afghanistan – and even talk of staying there until 2024.  Bromwich again:

"It is no less true that by postponement and indecision, by silence and by speaking on both sides, he has allowed the obstacles to grow larger. Consider his “all of the above” energy policy, which impartially embraces ........deep-sea drilling, wind farms, solar panels, Arctic drilling, nuclear plants, fracking for natural gas, and “clean coal.”

Such a scatter-shot energy policy would never be remotely conceived by a person of ideology. The reason is that such a person, a President say, has focus which enables him to filter those aspects or elements irrelevant to his ideology out of the picture.  It means, in the case of energy policy, that if one were a true liberal one shuns Arctic drilling, fracking for natural gas and clean coal. This is also why I worry that Obama will end up approving the Keystone pipeline.  Indeed, as Bromwich notes:

"The Keystone XL pipeline, if it is built, will bring carbon-dense tar sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and probably Obama would prefer not to see the pipeline built. Yet it would be entirely in character for him to approve and justify its construction, whether in the name of temporary jobs, oil industry profits, trade relations with Canada, or all of the above."

So there it is. A presidency predicated on 'preference' and leading from behind. Those of us who voted for Obama - twice in fact - can' t but help imagine the presidency that might have been had he not been held back and his self-image and leadership diluted by this lack of a center. This obsession with preference over principles.

There are still crucial decisions to come, and we hope Obama can make them to reflect the President we'd hoped for. It starts with his response after the Crimean referendum is held this weekend, and the likely positive vote for annexation. It also extends to the current CIA -Senate Intelligence Committee fracas. How will he respond?

Will he merely only measure up to the man Bromwich (and many others) believe him to be, or will he rise to the occasions needed and disclose the transformative leader he might have been.

The whole world is watching!

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54745/how-looking-forward-tripped-up-obama