Looks like Democrats in Congress aren't the only one to think Big Oil should "us it or lose it" with regards to the millions of acres of federal land that is sitting idle. It may not be convenient, but an oil spill is hardly convenient either.
The oil industry is correct about not hoarding oil, said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit. With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said.
But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.
Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.
Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.
"Government agencies should hold their feet to the fire," he said. And oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they do back in line."
Photo by Palden MacGamwell, paldenphoto@cruzio.com
Yesterday was a beautiful day here in Paris and a few hundred people showed up for the "Bridges for Obama, Yes we Span" photo op. Photos from around the world will be shown at the Democratic Convention in August.
This is so pathetic. They go along with bailing out Wall Street without a peep yet now they are going to throw the jobless under the bus. Regular Americans who are losing their jobs in part because of Wall Street and their failures are getting the shaft again. Where are the "Blue Dog Democrats" and their "conservative" principles when we shovel out billions to maintain luxurious lifestyles on Wall Street? Answers? Anyone? It's incredible to think that as a nation we can't afford to extend jobless benefits for 13 weeks yet we can afford to ignore the gambling problems of Wall Street. How on earth do Democrats ever get the reputation for being spineless and wobbly? Gosh, I can't imagine.
Oh the irony. Sitting in my mailbox today is a note about the next event, viewing a movie about the 2004 election and voting problems in Ohio. But of course on the more pressing matter of this current election, all I hear is rubbish. When I asked how Hillary had so many delegates including the delegate from France despite a clear thrashing overseas, I received some garbled answer that boiled down to "we have a complicated system so please don't ask any more questions" or something like that. Telling me that four years ago "we were busy trying to guess who the VP nominee was going to be" is hardly the same, but hey, who needs to give a clear answer. Or even respond to my follow up question.
The much bigger problem for me and many other Democrats living abroad is why the Superdelegates abroad can't make their choices. Hell, we all voted back in February so why do the Superdelegates have the luxury of doddling and letting the party rip itself to shreds? I asked again why "our" superdelegate Chair, Christine Schon Marques and Theresa Morelli, have not yet voted, the response was that Ms. Marques would decide by 1 July. July? Are you serious? All of this reminds me of why I am sick of the party leadership who continue to fail Democrats over and over and over. As Joe mentioned yesterday, the superdelegate members are enablers and they ought to be more worried about regular Democrats than the Clintons. Keep thumbing your nose at us voters and see how many Democrats are really uncounted.
The results are from American expats living in Indonesia. Don't forget to get out and vote today if you are a Democrat living outside of the US. Check out the Democrats Abroad site to get more details and make sure you have the proper documents. Here in Paris, there has been a lot confusion due to too many emails from the Democrats Abroad in Paris, none of which really explained what was happening, how it worked or what it meant. That's pretty much business as usual for the group but if you can make it to one of the polling stations, check out the list and vote.
Be sure to ask about when our expat votes are going to be counted in a general election while you're there. The organization seems to be moving in the right direction, but could certainly use some help in Washington. There are roughly six million Americans living abroad, so that ought to count for something.
While Bush says everything is fine with the economy, the Fed has increased its future cash injections by 50% so that banks can maintain proper liquidity. Ignore the high fuel prices, forget about the housing crash, don't even think about the employment numbers and for heavens sake, pretend as though we do not have a credit crisis in America. All done? Great. Now you too can be just like George Bush. Not a problem in the world. Heck, with this great strategy of ignoring the facts on the ground, it's no wonder he's once again talking about tax cuts.
Taking action to help the economy (which Bush says is solid) makes perfect sense. If ever there was a moment to take the keys away from Bush it's now. For him to stand up and say the "economy is on a solid foundation" should be all we need to hear from him. The Democrats - especially the presidential candidates - are going to have to step up and provide their own plan. Leaving these decisions up to the idiot who created them would be painfully foolish. Do the Democrats have it in them to take on this challenge?
For every fool who didn't jump into the shoddy loan business, you get coal in your stocking. Whether we're talking handouts to the wealthiest and big business or loans to people who fell for get rich quick schemes in real estate, I've had it. Congress ought to start thinking about all of the schmucks in the middle who are paying for this stupidity. They're the ones paying for the war, the tax cuts and now the subprime bailout. The schmucks in the middle also ought to take a long look at who they are voting for and why, while they are at it. Neither party looks very appealing.
The Republicans were perfectly fine with ignoring the practices of the credit card industry. Whatever Big Finance wanted to do, they could do. Even this past weekend I heard one American tell me about a brand new credit card that arrived in the mail - ready to go after one phone call - despite never even asking for the card. Who actually thinks such programs are beneficial or safe for consumers?
With Americans weighed down by some $900 billion in credit card debt _ an average $2,200 per household _ practices of the very profitable industry have been ripe for scrutiny by the Democratic-controlled Congress. They have also grabbed the attention of the Federal Reserve, which plans to require credit-card issuers to give customers at least 45 days' notice before raising interest rates and to provide clearer information on fees.
On Tuesday, Levin's subcommittee, which has been investigating the industry, will look at how credit-card issuers raise consumers' rates -- to as high as 30 percent -- when their so-called FICO credit scores decline even if they've paid credit card bills regularly and promptly. In many cases, consumers have little notice of the increased rate, which are automatically triggered by declines in FICO scores for reasons left unexplained, the subcommittee found.
Ultimately it wouldn't be such a bad idea for people to get rid of personal debt but until that happens, the system needs to be a bit more fair. It doesn't always have to be a one way street with Big Finance, despite what the GOP likes to think.
The first-ever worldwide database of such pollution also reveals the rapid growth in global-warming emissions by power plants in China, South Africa and India. Power plants already produce 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas and 25 per cent of the world's.
But it is the enormous carbon footprint of Southern Company – among the largest financiers of Republican Party politicians – which has raised eyebrows. Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990.
A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia already emits more carbon dioxide annually that Brazil's entire power sector. The company is in the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters and sixth worst in the world.
Apart from vague promises by the Democratic presidential hopefuls, there is no pressure on this or any other power company to clean up their act and cut back on CO2 emissions.
I'd like to see the Democratic candidates talking more about this issue but then again, I'd like to see the Democrats in general take a stand on quite a few issues. Being cautious is one thing, but this is getting silly.
Why do the Democrats let the GOP walk all over them only to get a swift kick at the end? I know the majority is slim, but to give more money to one of the worst programs ever funded by Congress was downright stupid. To get it vetoed afterwards is just salt in the wound.
To entice Republicans to support the bill, the House of Representatives agreed to increase money for abstinence-only sex education by $28 million, to a total of about $200 million a year. Abstinence-only courses, the only form of federally financed sex ed, teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to cause psychological and physical harm.
If that were true, our health care system would be not only broken, but besieged. A 2002 survey found that 93 percent of American adults had had premarital sex by the age of 30.
In addition to provoking shame about a nearly universal activity, abstinence-only sex education is ineffective and dangerous. Last April, a 10-year study found that students who took abstinence-only courses were no more likely to abstain from sex than other students. Previous studies revealed that abstinence-only students avoid using contraception.
Abstinence-only is dangerous both in America and overseas where our tax dollars fund the theories of the flat-earth lunatics. There's no reason to offer compromise if the GOP refuses to compromise. Good grief, when will the Democrats ever learn?
If the sub-prime lending problems and looming banking crisis were not problems created during his tenure it could perhaps be easier to listen to this guy but he's been about as accurate on the economy as Cheney was on the war with Iraq. Wow, has anyone ever been so far off so many times? Worse still, he can't even accept his own responsibility for the past problems, not to mention what's up ahead. Uh huh, he was the great savior to us all with two ugly economic bubbles under his belt and a fresh banking crisis on the way. Mr Bubble's failure to provide any reasonable regulation or oversight and being bamboozled by the Wall Street easy money pitch makes him look more pathetic with each interview he gives.
Mr. Bubble is still preaching the values of free trade which sure, in theory sound great and certainly there are benefits to freer trade but just as we are nowhere near a free market economy or a true democracy for that matter, free trade needs to be properly monitored and regulated. Finding a balance is not such a bad idea and if that's what Hillary and other Democrats are seeking, that sounds perfectly reasonable. If only Mr Bubble spent so much time talking about the decreasing middle class and the sickening compensation plans for the elite few at the top, his arguments might also resonate a bit better with regular Americans.
If he actually knew anyone trying to get by he just might learn that these days, it's all about finding a balance and not his tired old "let the market decide" and "free trade" rubbish. I sure hope he stays available for interviews when Northern Rock comes to America so he can tell us again how it was the fault of someone else.
It's 3:30 in the AM Pacific time, and I was packing to leave for LAX (I'm in the airport now), and I was tuned in to MSNBC to Morning Joe, where Tucker Carlson was subbing and they were discussing last night's HRC/LOGO forum.
Brad Luna of HRC was interviewed on the show, and Tucker went into a -- excuse me -- completely batsh*t dialog with Luna about transgenders and gender reassignment surgery. Carlson was nearly apoplectic and grabbing his "boys" at the thought of someone wanting to transition (clearly only MTF in his mind) and having surgery to remove male genitalia. It came up in the context of John Edwards answering a question about whether he would support a staff member who informed him that they wanted to undergo gender reassignment.
Brad tried ably to place the matter into context, that someone willing to put up with the potential ridicule and rejection to transition to a different gender has already spent a lot of time thinking about reassignment surgery, and that the removal of that part of themselves is not viewed as self-mutilation, as Tucker believes, but as corrective surgery.
Needless to say, logic did not seem to penetrate Mr. Tucker's hysterical mind and his vivid images of a scalpel coming anywhere near his testicles.
Thumbs up to Brad Luna for making it through that insane interview.
They had a lot of fun replaying Governor Richardson's meltdown when he was asked about whether being gay is a choice or biological. I don't think the earnest damage control by his campaign is helping them out of this pickle.
They seemed to view the question Melissa Etheridge posed as part of some orthodoxy in the LGBT community that being gay is not a choice, and any candidate that believes this is not following some sort of LGBT party line. No, the issue last night was that she believed that the governor misheard the question, based on his gay-positive record, which is why she restated it. The fact that he missed an opportunity to clarify at the time is what caused the matter to spin out of control.
The obvious question that seemed to escape Tucker Carlson and the Morning Joe gang is it's clear they don't consider whether their (presumed) heterosexuality was a choice they made. It's fascinating to see that blind spot playing itself out in the discussion. That said, it could have opened up a thoughtful conversation about the fluidity of sexuality generally -- that people tend to want to box our sexuality into fixed orientations, when that may not be true for everyone on the sexual continuum. That doesn't mean, however, that the vast majority of gay and straight folks don't know their orientation early on.
[UPDATE (10:30 PM, PT): I spoke with Governor Richardson just a few moments ago to discuss his remarks at this evening's forum. See below.]
Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question.
The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's the same thing, Joe. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.
Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here. I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together.
As I type this, the Richardson campaign is in scramble mode and plans to issue a "clarification." His deputy communications director, Katie Roberts is working the press room now. Here's the press release from the governor:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement tonight clarifying an answer to a question during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles. The question came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality is a choice.
"I misunderstood the question. Let me be clear- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."
UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.
He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."
He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."
I pressed him more than once about his refusal to answer the hypothetical question as to whether Richardson would sign a bill passed by the NM state legislature that would grant marriage equality. He repeatedly gave the same answer that he's worked hard to pass domestic partner legislation in his state, and feels that separate but equal DPs are achievable, and don't pose the threat of a legal morass, as we see occurring in NJ with civil unions.
The governor then handed the phone over to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for the NM equality movement, who worked with the governor to craft the DP bill. She said "it has been drafted to include every possible state benefit," -- acknowledging it cannot do anything about the federal benefits denied gay couples. "It will, however, immediately give our citizens hundreds of protections the currently don't have."
Richardson then came back on the line. I thanked him for his time and, clearly in frustration, he chastised the media for focusing on his "maricon" moment, said "For Christ's sake, why don't you write about my record."
Well, we have focused on the positive aspects of your record at my blog, Governor -- diarist Miss Wild Thing wrote a passionate positive post, as a former resident of New Mexico, about your efforts on behalf of the LGBT community. It makes what happened this evening all the more perplexing.
Another release from Richardson's office, just so folks are aware of his record.
Governor Bill Richardson has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans. Since taking office, Governor Richardson has: 1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature] 2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature] 3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010] 4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature] 5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature] 6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.
***
Joe Solmonese came over to comment on the Richardson debacle and he plans to personally meet with him to discuss the issues. "We really have to have a conversation with Mr. Richardson, that's the first step -- we have to clear the air."
Obama and Edwards avoided land mines, and did fairly well. Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president.
I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.
If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well.
An even bigger faux pas, if you can call it that, was Clinton's reassertion that it should be up to the state to decide who can marry. This is simply not acceptable, given the history of bigotry legislated at the state level.
Elizabeth Birch said this about Hillary Clinton's stance on state's rights (via the press pool/Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate):
"I am very disappointed in her analysis around the states rights issue and I intend to have a long talk with her about it because it is simply wrong. Each time in the country when we've had to expunge great bias or prejudice, like slavery, a woman's right to vote, regulating child welfare and a myriad of other issues, what has held addressing those issues back is leaving it to the states. The Federal government has a very particular and bold role to play when there is discrimination operating at the state level and it is their job to step in, be strong, and use the Constitution to eradicate that discrimination."
Well said.
Some post forum quotes (thanks to Karen Ocamb):
Brian Graydon, head of LOGO: "This event was incredibly validating. Gays and Lesbians are a voting bloc-- 4 % or more and that can swing an election, and the candidates know that." He believes their support is a real evolution. the very fact that they all believed (the import of our vote) we were worthy was almost as moving at what they had to say."
Joe Solmonese also indicated that HRC is not likely to endorse anyone in the primaries. "They are all pretty clear on our issues and there's no clear distinction on the issues." ..."I was looking for some revelatory moments about the forum itself. My primary focus was how the candidates focus on religion and faith on the issues." He also wished that Hillary Clinton could have come for a more personal place in explaining her position on marriage equality, but she relied on policy-speak too often. "It's fine to talk about tactics and strategy but it was important to speak from the heart."
"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community. From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."
Melissa Etheridge: I'm for all those people, they are all heading in the right direction. Obama mesmerizes me, I was under his spell. Edwards surprised me with his honesty. I'm a huge Hillary fan, but she wanted a better explanation for having been thrown under the bus. For my community I needed to ask that. She talked about sitting next to David Mixner and discussing DADT. Our hopes were so high, and I felt needed to challenge him. She hasn't endorsed anyone.
John A. Perez, a labor leader representing the Food and Commercial Workers Union, he was undecided before the forum, and now he's firmly in the Edwards camp. He had been on the stage with Richardson when he announced his candidacy, so this endorsement of Edwards is significant.
***
I do have to give a thumbs-up to HRC and LOGO for putting on a smoothly run event. The format worked out very well -- 15 minutes of concentrated time with the candidates was definitely a plus.
The questions were tough, and covered a lot of ground -- and the candidates had ample opportunity to expand on their otherwise thumbnail sketches on their views on LGBT rights. While Melissa Etheridge burned some of the precious time up on frivolous chatter that could have been used for additional questions, her earnest questions were often spot-on. In particular, she held Clinton's feet to the fire regarding her own positions as well as the policies of Bill Clinton, that have affected our community.
Almost live. I'm getting settled into the press area at The Production Group Studios where the The Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum, put together by HRC and LOGO. They have us pretty squeezed into a dark room (surrounded by black curtains; it's sort of like being in a vampire's chamber.
I was late getting to the venue for the security check, so they had to go through all my bags. I was graciously greeted by Chris Barron and Hilary Rosen and grabbed a bit to eat. On a four hour flight, all they gave us was a bag of pretzels. Thanks, AirTran. I also spoke briefly to one of tonight's questioners, Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo.
***
Karen Ocamb, news editor for IN Los Angeles magazine, just dropped by my table (she's the LGBT pool reporter tonight) and had a few quotes from folks here:
Actress Jane Lynch: she's leaning towards Edwards but could go for Obama. "We've come a long way since 2000. It's ironic that they put targets on gay backs, but that ultimately speeded up the process toward marriage equality."
Andy Tobias, DNC treasurer: "I am enthusiastically neutral."
Phill Wilson, Black AIDS Institute: "I am for whoever has the best AIDS answer."
***
I was interviewed by Mary Breslauer for HRC's satellite radio program The Agenda, and was asked about the role of blogs in this election cycle, what issues are of importance to readers, and making note that this forum is being extremely well-covered by the MSM. She plans to ask them what they are looking for. Some of the MSM folks that I recognized so far, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Candy Crowley of CNN. Ah, Arianna Huffington just walked by. There's some dude from Faux News here, but I don't recognize him.
We can see the set for the forum on the big screen TVs now. There are a few comfy chairs with a very small audience that was warmed-up/prepped in an preview show (not on the air). The
