The Dude's blog

Hooray!  The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in California!!!

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

Read the story here.

Now the battle with bigotry moves on to the voters.  As Kevin Drum notes:

The initiative to strike down their ruling has already gathered over a million signatures and is just waiting for verification from the Secretary of State before it goes on the November ballot. It's 14 words long, identical to the wording of Prop 22 back in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This time, however, it's a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.

Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We're about to find out.

By the "standards" of the Bush administration, this is just another day at the office... but you really have to be amazed that they are doing this crap.  It is almost like they know that there is no way that McCain is going to get elected, so they don't mind being completely oblivious to public outcry... I mean, let's face it, as long as the MegaCorp (tm) is happy, then the Bush people are happy. And as for average citizens?  Who?  As for any government worker who actually tries to do her job... well she clearly has not gotten the Bush & Co. memo which directs them to either do nothing, or actively try to sabotage any publicly beneficial functions.

SAGINAW, Mich. - The battle over dioxin contamination in this economically stressed region had been raging for years when a top Bush administration official turned up the pressure on Dow Chemical to clean it up.

On Thursday, following months of internal bickering over Mary Gade's interactions with Dow, the administration forced her to quit as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Midwest office, based in Chicago.

Gade has been locked in a heated dispute with Dow about long-delayed plans to clean up dioxin-saturated soil and sediment that extends 50 miles beyond its Midland, Mich., plant into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. The company dumped the highly toxic and persistent chemical into local rivers for most of the last century.

Gade, appointed by President Bush as regional EPA administrator in September 2006, invoked emergency powers last summer to order the company to remove three hotspots of dioxin near its Midland headquarters.

She demanded more dredging in November, when it was revealed that dioxin levels along a park in Saginaw were 1.6 million parts per trillion, the highest amount ever found in the U.S.

Dow then sought to cut a deal on a more comprehensive cleanup. But Gade ended the negotiations in January, saying Dow was refusing to take action necessary to protect public health and wildlife. Dow responded by appealing to officials in Washington, according to heavily redacted letters the Tribune obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Regional EPA administrators typically have wide latitude to enforce environmental laws, but in April Gade drew fire from officials in Washington after she sent contractors to test soil in a Saginaw neighborhood where Dow had found high dioxin levels. The levels in one Saginaw yard were nearly six times higher than the federal cleanup standard, and 65 times higher than what Michigan considers acceptable.

Read the whole article..

Mmm tasty pollution

It is pretty amazing that something so insipid as a "gas tax holiday" from John McCain could gain any traction with the media... and with Hillary Clinton.  The whole idea is so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe that it is being taken seriously by anyone.  Clearly, there is some world-class pandering happening here, but it just doesn't take more than two seconds to realize that the idea is just plain dumb.  The tax is something like 18 cents a gallon.  All of that goes to highway and road construction.  So where would that money come from if the tax is gone?  Hmmm, I guess we can put that one on the national credit card...  as for Hillary's idea of taxing the oil companies to pay for it, any guess as to whether Bush will sign that law?  Uh huh. 

Another part of the stupidity of this idea is something that republican McCain is supposed to understand - supply and demand.  One of the main reasons why oil is so expensive is that there is too much demand, and not enough supply worldwide.  When price goes up, one is taught by economists, the demand goes down until there is an equilibrium.  So we should expect that after a period of $4 a gallon prices, people might start thinking about trimming fuel use.  Most people can't go out and buy a new Prius tomorrow, but they might think about it more when it is time to trade in the Chevy Suburban in a few years.  The idea is that gas is somewhat an in-elastic commodity in the US.  People need to get to work, and our urban environments are built around cars and cheap gas.  Changing those patterns and building a public transportation infrastructure take time and money.  The only way those individual and collective investments are going to happen is if high fuel costs are sustained over the long term.  I'd be willing to bet that gas isn't going under $3.50 a gallon ever again.  So with all that in mind, dropping the gas tax isn't going to help anything, it is going to make things worse.  If the slightly lower price stops people from conserving even a little bit, it will keep demand high, and cause the price to go up with a tight supply.  Furthermore, it will divert resources which could be going to other non-carbon based energy research and development into making up the fuel tax revenue.

Take a look at a great article in The Guardian on Sweden's experience with a carbon taxes:

Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.

Under Kyoto, Sweden was even told it could increase its emissions by 4% given the progress it had already made. But "this was not considered ambitious enough," explains Emma Lindberg, a climate change expert at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

"So parliament decided to cut emissions by another 4% [below 1990 levels]. The mindset was 'we need to do what's good for the environment because it's good for Sweden and its economy'."

The main reason for this success, say experts, is the introduction of a carbon tax in 1991. Swedes today pay an extra 2.34 kronor (20p) per litre when they fill the tank (although many key industries receive tax relief or are exempted). "Our carbon emissions would have been 20% higher without the carbon tax," says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren.

So basically, what we should be doing is raising the gas tax, not eliminating it.  By making the public pay the costs of the externalities of oil use, we will allow people to make more environmentally-friendly choices.  We have distorted the market in that we don't make anyone pay the full cost of using carbon-based energy sources.  Once the true costs of it are factored in, and people have to pay for it, they will be more likely to act in their economic interests and choose energy which is cleaner for the environment.  The demand for those energy sources will allow for sustained R&D in the least polluting energy sources.

One of the lower profile parts of the US Attorneys scandal which was in the news awhile ago was the role of Pete Domenici, the republican Senator from New Mexico.  We all know about how Alberto Gonzales worked as a loyal Bushie to politicize the Justice Department.  We know how Karl Rove worked to install croneys there, and at all Federal government agencies, and use them to republican political advantage.  What many people are not aware is that one of the incidents which started the whole ball rolling of getting this in the news was when Sen. Domenici directly called a US Attorney, and pressured him to begin a bogus investigation of Democratic politician in the middle of an election.

One would think that this is really, really, a criminal abuse of power.  A sitting Senator, directly calls a US Attorney, and puts major pressure on him to use the courts to smear an opponent.  No real question right?  Well, in this topsy-turvey Bush black is white and white is black world, you'd be wrong...

Ooh, that must sting. For ringing up his state's U.S. attorney at bedtime to interrogate him about whether that high-profile corruption case against a prominent state Democrat will result in an indictment before the election, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) has been branded with the dreaded QA: that's right, qualified admonition.

The Senate ethics committee says it left no stone unturned in coming to this conclusion, including interviewing "current and former executive branch officials and attorneys," but that the "Committee finds no substantial evidence to determine that [Domenici] attempted to improperly influence an ongoing investigation." The key word there being "substantial."

The U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, who was of course fired a little more than a month after Domenici's call, testified that the call made him sick. And so the committee says that Domenici "should have known" better -- that such a call would create an "appearance of impropriety." But appearance of impropriety aside, maybe the good senator was just looking for an update. You know, just ringing up the local prosecutor at home to see how things are going.

Get the full story from TPM here.

I'm trying to look past the Democratic primary to the general election.  Now, there are some people who say that McCain wouldn't be that bad.  I'm here to tell you that this is a gravely mistaken assumption.  Here's one in a long list of reasons why McCain would be just as bad as Bush...  Equal pay for women.

A Republican minority in the Senate has thwarted attempts to repair the damage done by a bare majority of the Supreme Court in Ledbetter, which determined that companies should be able to engage in pay discrimination without the threat of punitive damages as long as they're able to to keep employees in the dark about it for 180 days after it starts. John McCain, although he didn't show up to the vote, applauds the Senate's decision to help companies pay women unequal wages:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

In other words, McCain favors women's rights...as long as they can't actually sue to enforce them. People who, affected by the bitterness of the primary, are tempted to think that the parties are indistinguishable may want to consider the votes in both the Senate and on the Supreme Court.

So McCain would like to support the retrograde republican-appointed Supreme Court which came to the tortured logic that the law regarding pay equity doesn't permit anyone to actually enforce it.  The Ledbetter decision is so patently ridiculous, that I almost feel embarrassed for the Justices who signed on to it.  It may be embarrassing, but sadly, it is not surprising.  These jack-holes never saw a law limiting the ability of our corporate overlords to exploit us which they didn't like.  With McCain, we'll get another generation of idiots like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas... and seemingly reasonable, but stealthily nasty corporate apologists like Roberts.

One thing I can promise is that with a President Obama (or Clinton), the next Justices will look nothing like that losers that Bush appointed...

Lambert

My buddy Steve just got interviewed on NPR about one of his ongoing projects, the Anti-Advertising Agency.  It is a pretty good interview.  You can hear it here.

The Anti-Advertising Agency

You have got to read this front page story in the NY Times today.  This just borders on farce, if it wasn't the Bush administration, I wouldn't believe that it was true... but sadly, it is only too true.  I can tell you, the Joseph Heller's of the future will have no shortage of material to write the 21st century Catch-22...

22-year old war profiteer

How does a 22 year-old get a $300 million defense contract to supply arms to the Afghan army? First, make sure you're not zinged with a felony when police find your fake ID. Then hire a licensed masseur to be your VP. Find some shady arms dealers, make the lowest bid and voila -- you're in business with the Bush administration.

As the Times found out, AEY fulfilled that contract by dealing with a variety of shady arms dealers (one Czech, one Swiss) to get their hands on ammo stockpiles in the old Eastern bloc. And as far as ensuring the quality of the munitions? Here's how it went in Albania:

Albania offered to sell tens of millions of cartridges manufactured as long ago as 1950. For tests, a 25-year-old AEY representative was given 1,000 cartridges to fire, according to Ylli Pinari, the director of the arms export agency at the time of the sale.

No ballistic performance was recorded, he said. The rounds were fired by hand.

Not surprisingly, the Afghan army has been unhappy with the product. AEY shipped the decades-old ammo in cardboard boxes -- apparently to save money on shipping charges. And the Times reports that the boxes arrived in Afghanistan spilling out of the boxes, "revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966." It's illegal to deal in Chinese arms.

[T]he company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.

It just keeps getting better though... the story goes into the dude's the 22 year-old CEO's personal life, and it is just insane.  He was under 21 when he started defense contracting, and was going out with a fake ID, and was caught.  He only avoided a felony charge for fraud by doing a diversion program.  It should be noted that the felony conviction would have made him ineligible to contract with the Defense department.  He was also involved in numerous domestic disputes with various girlfriends which got the police called on him, including stalking, and physical violence.  Wow, an incompetent asshole, sounds like a good fit for the Bushies!

I have not been posting much lately, mainly because I have been very busy... but a lot has been going politically on which has gotten me riled up, I just have not been able to blog about it.  I'm just bursting to be able to discuss the injustice of the Bear Stearns/JP Morgan bailout, but I'll save that for another day.

However, for today, you might want to read this article about how there is essentially no chance for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination.  I've been reading shadows of this argument for a few weeks now, especially in reading through the lines in various NY Times articles... however nobody has really come right out and made the argument like I've seen it here. 

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

But even some of Clinton’s own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him.

Simple number-crunching has shown the long odds against Clinton for some time.

But let’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

That means Clinton would need either some of those pledged delegates to switch their support — which technically they can do, though it would be unlikely — or for the white-dominated group of superdelegates to join forces with her to topple Obama.

To foster doubt about Obama, Clinton supporters are using a whisper and pressure campaign to make an 11th-hour argument to party insiders that he would be a weak candidate in November despite his superior standing at the moment.

“All she has left is the electability argument,” a Democratic official said. "It’s all wrapped around: Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?”

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

What has to irk Clintons’ aides is that they felt she might finally have him on the ropes, bruised badly by the Wright fight and wobbly in polls. But the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters.

Check out the article...