Posted at December 29, 2005 5:40 AM in response to from a wise lawyer friend, in re warrantless searches

Originally posted by Rep. Joseph Crowley: 

"What members of Congress need to do is hold this Administration accountable and take back our oversight role."


Total spent on Whitewater Investigation:  $73 million

Total spent on 9/11 Commission and Report:  $15 million


Submitted without comment.

Posted at September 15, 2005 5:19 AM in response to Downing Street Secrecy

Maybe I'm missing something (probably) - but I'm not understanding how relaxing environmental regulations is going to help the region.  From what I can see, the region needs to start rebuilding, at least in part through job growth and business spending.  Without the existing environmental regulations, then the energy industry will no longer be buying pollution control equipment, or operating existing equipment, or hiring workers to operate the equipment, etc.  Basically, the energy industry will instantly start saving big bucks, with no obvious or direct benefit to the region as a result. 

I could understand the motive if there was a connection between reduced spending on environmental controlls and increased production of refined product, such as gasoline.  However, the energy industry has seen record profits of late and is clearly not cash limited.  Therefore, the recent problems with production capacity can not be caused by companies diverting money from expanding production to meeting environmental regulations. 

As I see it, not only would this not benefit the region (or the nation), but I suspect it would actually hurt the region.  Meeting environmental standards requires equipment, consumables, and above all trained workers.  Relaxing the standards eliminates the needs for much or all of these things - thereby further hurting the region, and not helping.

I hope I'm wrong.  More than that, I hope this conservative strategy is not employed.

Posted at September 14, 2005 4:55 AM in response to Liberal vs. Conservative Crisis Management

I'd just point out that, from an environmental perspective - this site is relatively benign.  I'm not saying it's not hazardous, but for the most part, the major threat (to humans, that is) is from chronic or long term exposure - most likely through ingestion.  The contaminants of concern, including lead, arsenic and PAHs are not volatile, and therefore not an inhallation risk (unless associated with dust), and are not adsorbed very readily through the skin.  In short - while this is certainly a big picture issue - the risk is to drinking water supplies - and this site was nowhere near any drinking water supplies, since the groundwater was infiltrated with saltwater - making it decidedly non-potable.

Also - while the site is identified as a Superfund site, it should be mentioned that sites placed on the Superfund list are there because of funding issues and not toxicity or contaminant levels.  I know that the general public typically assumes that Superfund sites must be the worst of the worst - but this is not the case.

Having said the above - I should point out that (in my opinion at least - 15 years haz waste treatment experience) what we are seeing is an environmental disaster of unimagined proportions.  I suspect the most accute issues will be drinking water supplies, but chronic issues associated with sites such as this will remain for decades at least.  I just don't see the flooding of this one site as being that significant, compared to many of the other issues we are seeing.

Posted at September 6, 2005 7:34 AM in response to Under Water

You said:  "staggeringly obvious to anyone with the faintest clue about how to win elections"

For my part - I think that's true (although I realize you meant it as a criticism of me personally).  I'm just curious - who exactly are these people with the "faintest clue" that you speak of?  I submit that recent history shows that the Republicans certainly understand this (as election results demonstrate), and that Democrats, perhaps, do not.  Oddly - that was the point of my post.

Posted at June 30, 2005 11:41 AM in response to A Thought

Karl Rove's best move during the last election was to attack his opponents strengths and not his weaknesses.  I suggest a variation on this theme - and attack Republicans with a dual theme of security and conservative economic / fiscal policy.

Posted at June 30, 2005 4:54 AM in response to A Thought

I think John Sununu (R - N.H.) said it best:

"When you raise the minimum wage you are pricing some workers out of the market.  It is an economic fact." Link

I wonder which members of congress have now been "priced out of the market"?

Posted at June 30, 2005 4:36 AM in response to DeLay's Fatal Admission

Not only does he not listen to criticism - he actually uses it to solidify his position.  Look at Social Security - the further his public support drops - the harder he sells his position.  This is a man who feels its his job to tell Americans what to think - not to listen to what they say.

But geez - I hate to be so negative.  Here's some constructive criticism he might actually accept: Next time, wear a Red tie (you are a Republican after all).

Posted at June 30, 2005 4:22 AM in response to Taranto Chides TPMCafe

You know - I finally get it.  The war isn't a debacle after all - it's all part of the Presidents plan.  While Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the invasion, it is now a hotbed of terrorist and insurgent activity.  But here's the kicker - the President seems to think this is a good thing.  All part of the plan.  Apparently he's turned Iraq into one big country-sized terrorist bug zapper (TBZ).  Sure it attracts terrorists from accross the region - but it kills them too.  I just worry that if terrorism hits the U.S. again, we may need a TBZ a bit closer to home - maybe Canada?

Posted at June 29, 2005 4:25 AM in response to Prez says Dance with the Girl Who Brung Ya

Could the Dems have a hand in pulling out of Iraq, and maybe score some transient credit?  Sure.  But I suspect that, whoever manages it, our withdrawal will be surrounded by the same sort of self-deceptive bullshit and gas that got us into the debacle. 

I suspect that, from a purely political perspective, any type of pullout will be spun as a victory for Bush et al.  After all - they will be able to claim credit for bringing our heroic men and women home from battle.  It would be "Mission Accomplished" all over again.  Unfortunately, just as actual casualty rates increased after the first "Mission Accomplished" claim - we just might see the same pattern again. 

Posted at June 17, 2005 4:05 AM in response to Iraq and such