Christians Good? Understanding? Tolerant? NO!
Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It
In certain corners of the right-wing world, an odd definition of Christian charity prevails: if you don't believe as its denizens do, your death is an occasion for their judgmental disdain. Apparently, they don't trust their own justice-meting God to do the job.
Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday, has not yet been buried, but that hasn't stopped some from attacking her for being true to her personal theology even to the very end: a theology that does not include the concept of Christian salvation. They're using a column I wrote three years ago to make their case in a most uncharitable manner.
Essentially the argument made by Donald Douglas of the right-wing blog American Power ("Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to") is that Edwards was a bitter nihlist. Why? Because she failed to mention Douglas's big, bad God in her farewell Facebook message. Douglas's post might have disappeared into the abyss of mean, stupid things said by internet cranks -- until the august Christianity Today, representing the respectable, serious side of the religious right -- picked it up. And that's just nasty. Or bitter. Or nihlistic.
Complicated people are always fascinating and sometimes maddening, and Elizabeth Edwards was surely both. But there's no denying that she was a woman of singular courage, not simply for how she faced her illness, but for violating Thomas Jefferson's advice to public figures: keep your most heartfelt religious views to yourself.
Like Edwards, Jefferson was a Deist -- someone who believes in a supreme being, but not in a God who intervenes in the affairs of humans. So, while I was no fan of her husband, when Elizabeth Edwards spelled out her beliefs for a roomful of bloggers, my respect for her soared. In fact, I was stunned by the courage she displayed at the annual BlogHer conference. Here's what I wrote for The American Prospect Online:
Asked by Beth Corbin of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to explain how her faith beliefs inform her politics, Elizabeth Edwards gave an extraordinarily radical answer: She doesn't believe in salvation, at least not in the standard Christian understanding of it, and she said as much:
I have, I think, somewhat of an odd version of God. I do not have an intervening God. I don't think I can pray to him -- or her -- to cure me of cancer.
After the words "or her," Mrs. Edwards gave a little laugh, indicating she knew she had waded into water perhaps a bit deeper than the audience had anticipated. Then she continued:
I appreciate other people's prayers for that [a cure for her cancer], but I believe that we are given a set of guidelines, and that we are obligated to live our lives with a view to those guidelines. And I don't that believe we should live our lives that way for some promise of eternal life, but because that's what's right. We should do those things because that's what's right.
Wow, I thought. That sounds awfully like, "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try..."
Elizabeth Edwards will be remembered for many things, but probably not for what may prove to be the most important one: opening the door for political figures whose spiritual beliefs do not conform to the dictates of traditional Christianity or Judaism. It will be a while before an actual candidate, which Elizabeth Edwards was not, can take that risk, but by setting the standard for spiritual authenticity, she did her country a great service.
FYI, here's Elizabeth Edwards's final Facebook post, via National Journal:
You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces -- my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren't able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn't possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.
Palin Is The Essence Of Puke; Eau de Puke
Adam Sorkin, Playwright, screenwriter and television writer.
In Her Defense I'm Sure The Moose Had It Coming
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."
You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go **** ourselves now.
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.
I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.
So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)
And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.
(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)
I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.
Fair And Balanced? Only If You Are An Ideologue.
Fox News Boss Willfully Slanted Healthcare Reports
A high-up Fox News editor told his employees to substitute the phrase “public option” with “government option” in order to skew the public's notion of the health care debate to the right. And while Fox's ultra-conservative slant is nothing new, this revelation pokes truth-sized holes in their persistent argument that they are “fair and balanced.” The evidence: a leaked email from Fox managing editor Bill Sammon:
From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."
3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.
And lest this sort of truth-skewing seems arbitrary, here is how it affected Fox hosts––and, by proxy, millions of Americans who were willfully uninformed:
On the September 3, 2009, Special Report -- three weeks after Luntz told Hannity to call it the "government option" -- Baier discussed the potential inclusion of a public option during the show's nightly commentary segment.
During the segment -- after Baier himself had referred to a "public option" -- NPR's Mara Liasson also referred several times to the "public option," prompting Baier to interrupt her to clarify that it is the "government-run option of health insurance."
As the conversation continued, The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes both used "public option." When Liasson mentioned a "triggered public option," Baier again interrupted, asking, "Should we say 'government option,' by the way?"
"Government option, OK," replied Liasson.
"Everybody gets it," Baier explained
Incoming GOP Financial Services Chairman: Washington's Role Is "To Serve The Banks"
During the financial reform debate, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) — who will become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in the 112th Congress — continually criticized the reform effort. He falsely characterized the legislation that ultimately became the Dodd-Frank financial reform law as creating “permanent bailout authority,” and he staunchly opposed the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Now that he’ll be taking the Financial Services committee gavel, Bachus has telegraphed his intention to weaken some of the bill’s most important sections, including derivatives reform and rules meant to prevent banks from making risky trades with federally insured dollars.
In an interview with The Birmingham News, Bachus made it clear why he opposed stricter regulations for banks in the wake of a huge financial crisis largely caused by Wall Street excess and a lack of prudent regulation. In Bachus’ estimation, the government’s role is not to protect consumers and the wider economy through regulating financial activity, but to simply “serve the banks”:
Bachus, in an interview Wednesday night, said he brings a “main street” perspective to the committee, as opposed to Wall Street. “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,” he said.
According to the article, Bachus later tried to clarify that what he meant was “regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.”
As The Wonk Room explained, Bachus is far from the only Republican on the Financial Services Committee who feels that consumers and regulators should be subservient to the banks. But rarely has a Republican lawmaker laid out so starkly just whose interests he believes Washington is supposed to be protecting.
Back in October, Bachus told a crowd of 100 financial services industry lobbyists that banks should really be making campaign contributions to Republicans, because Democrats “hammered” the banks by enacting the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law. The banks responded by giving more heavily to Republicans than Democrats in the home stretch to November’s election. And it seems that Bachus is now fully prepared to give them what they paid for.
By Pat Garofalo | Sourced from ThinkProgress
Yep, it's what they do! That's why they are repukes.
Wall Street Journal Wrong Again on State Migration
The editorial pages have always been pukes; there are developing stories that since Murdoch purchased the paper the overall quality is changing - and not for the better. I'm shocked!
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial yesterday suggesting that a state income tax increase caused up to 10,000 wealthy taxpayers to flee the state of Oregon. A new report from ITEP explains why this claim is completely false, and highlights two other glaring factual errors in the Journal's editorial.
Dear Wall Street Journal: No Need to File a Missing Persons Report
Oregon’s High-Income Taxpayers Have Not “Vanished”
The Wall Street Journal recently published an editorial suggesting that a 2 percentage point
increase in Oregon’s top income tax rate caused up to 10,000 wealthy Oregonians to flee the
state. In support of its claim, the Journal points to new data showing that 10,000 fewer
Oregonians were affected by this tax increase than the state’s Legislative Revenue Office (LRO)
had originally anticipated.
But there is a much simpler explanation for this discrepancy, and it’s made clear both in the LRO
data and in its analysis of that data. These 10,000 taxpayers earned less than the LRO expected
in 2009 as a result of the economic recession, and therefore fell below the income threshold at
which the new brackets took effect.
The Oregon tax increase in question was adopted by the legislature in 2009 and approved by
voters in early 2010 via Measure 66. It took effect at the beginning of tax year 2009. Measure 66
raised the state’s top income tax rate from 9% to 11% for married couples with taxable income
over $500,000 per year (and for single filers with over $250,000). It also created a new 10.8%
bracket on taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000 for married couples (and between
$125,000 and $250,000 for single filers). In 2012, these two brackets will merge to create a 9.9%
tax bracket on taxable income over $250,000 ($125,000 for singles).
Unfortunately, the economy was weaker than the LRO realized at the time this plan was enacted,
causing them to
yield by $50
million. As the LRO
explained to the
was driven in part
by overly optimistic
estimates of how
would earn enough to be affected by the new tax rates. Specifically, the LRO noted that many taxpayers have been
“driven down the income distribution because [of lower than expected capital gains income], and
they move from the affected category to the unaffected categories.”
As indicated by the chart on the previous page, (see link) LRO originally estimated, for example, that
almost 216,000 Oregonians would earn over $100,000 in 2009. It turns out they overshot by
about 34,000 — only 182,000 Oregonians actually earned this much. As a result, LRO also
overestimated by 10,000 the number of Oregonians that would be affected by the tax increase —
a fact which the Journal has spun as “evidence” that 10,000 Oregonians have fled for states like
Texas, which lacks an income tax.
But the Journal ignores the fact that the number of Oregonians earning under $100,000 shot up by
60,000 relative to the LRO’s initial projections — a jump more than large enough to explain a
34,000 decline in returns earning over $100,000. Furthermore, over 26,000 more tax returns
were filed overall than the LRO originally anticipated, which flies in the face of claims that taxes
are driving people from the state. It’s unclear why the Journal would immediately begin looking
for Oregonians as far away as Texas, when the LRO data (and the LRO’s explanation of that data)
strongly suggest that they’ve simply moved to a lower tax bracket. It’s also unclear why the
Journal would assume such a large exodus occurred in 2009, when final approval for the tax
increase wasn’t given by voters until January 2010.
In addition to ignoring the impact of the economic recession (or, to be more accurate, dismissing
it without explanation), the Journal’s recent editorial includes two other glaring factual errors:
In claiming that Oregon’s situation is an “instant replay” of recent developments in
Maryland, the Journal asserts that one-third of Maryland’s millionaires “vanished from the
tax rolls after rates went up” on millionaires in 2008. This is completely false. The Journal
originally made this claim in May 2009, and ITEP debunked it shortly thereafter. By
March 2010, even the Journal had abandoned this talking point when it confessed that
most of these people had simply become less rich.5 At that point, the Journal then claimed
that only one-eighth of Maryland’s millionaires were actually “missing.” ITEP pointed out
in a letter to the editor that the real number of millionaires who filed a tax return in 2007
but not in 2008 was 6.8% (not much different than the average 5.6% decline seen in
previous years due to normal migration patterns and deaths), but the Journal chose not to
publish that letter. Nonetheless, the Journal itself has already demonstrated that it
understands the “one-third” claim is bogus.
The Journal also argues that a 2 percentage point increase in Oregon’s top income tax rate
will prevent wealthy Oregonians from selling their stocks: “Successful entrepreneurs like
Nike owner Phil Knight don’t get rich by being fools with their money. They don’t sell
tens of millions of dollars of assets when capital gains taxes go up.” Amusingly, however,
Knight did exactly that. The Portland Business Journal reported that in October 2009 (four
months after the tax increases were approved by the legislature and were then pending
before the voters) Knight sold $185 million in Nike stock.7 Apparently Oregon’s
“successful entrepreneurs” think about factors other than the state’s top tax rate when
deciding how to conduct business.
The Journal’s recent editorial is both misleading and factually inaccurate. It takes the same
boilerplate language it used in arguing against Maryland’s “millionaires’ tax” and attempts to
apply it to the situation in Oregon. But even a cursory examination of the evidence reveals that
the Journal has been extremely sloppy in doing so. Even one of the Journal’s own employees —
blogger Robert Frank — has begun to criticize the Journal’s brand of spin, describing claims of
“tax-driven wealth flight” as “exaggerated,” and noting: “That demographics and economics
matter more than taxes in increasing and retaining wealth may seem like an obvious point. Still,
it is one that seems to get lost in the increasingly emotional debate over taxing the wealthy.”
If you read the WSJ, as I used to, you know that the editorial page has been HYSTERICALLY conservative forever. Robert Bartley was the editor for a long time and responsible for the tone. Since his death nothing has changed except the ownership, now Murdoch.
This piece tells a story that typifies the lies that the WSJ editorial page has trafficked in forever.
If you read the paper, never trust the opinion pages without checking less ideological sources.
Strong conservatives, those without respect for objective truth, the ones that compose the current congress are ALL PUKES.
Sources and a graph are here.
First Responders Bill Finally Passes
-- Conservatives Who Exploited First Responders Stayed Silent.
I see that there appears to be a deal to get the Zadroga bill through Congress:
The deal to pass the 9/11 health bill is done, the Daily News has learned.
Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand met with other senators' staff and staff from Rep. Carolyn Maloney's offce until well after midnight, cutting a new deal and trimming the package to care for 9/11 responders to $4.3 billion, sources close to the deal said.
They reached final agreement at about 11:30 this morning after the New York Democrats met for an hour with the prime GOP opponents, Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Majority Leader Harry Reid is said to have joined the talks at the end, and agreed to try for quick passage.
... Besides cutting the price for the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act from $6.2 billion, the time span was also significantly limited to five years each for the health treatment program and the reopened 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund....
The Zadroga bill originally had a cap almost twice as high -- $8.4 billion -- and a much more generous time limit; it was originally paid for by closing a tax loophole for foreign companies doing business in the U.S., though it's now paid for by an excise fee on foreign companies that receive U.S. government contracts. In other words, if you're a Republican, it was once an evil commie piece of legislation, and now it's marginally less commie. I'm sure the Baby Jesus will personally thank Senator Tom Coburn in one of their regular chats.
The New York Times says:
...Republicans backed down after facing a barrage of criticism -- not just from Democrats, but also from traditional Republican allies, including former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, and conservative news outlets like Fox News.
Yeah, Rudy came around on this -- eventually -- as (eventually) did some on Fox, mostly thanks to Jon Stewart's tireless efforts and the efforts of responders themselves. (They had to be SHAMED into doing what is right. Atypical)
Notice who didn't say a word, by the way? The first guy ever to exploit 9/11 first responders for personal gain. The guy who's so proud of having been the first to exploit 9/11 responders for personal gain that, in his recent best-selling memoir, he printed a huge double-page photograph of himself doing the exploiting -- a photograph he deemed so important to his act of promoting itself that it appeared before the title page, before the dedication, before the table of contents, before any of the text:
Those are pages ii and iii of George W. Bush's
Can we hear you now, George? Well,
1.75 million copies of your book
featuring that photo have been sold, but on the subject of the Zadroga bill, no, we couldn't hear you.
By Steve M. | Sourced from No More Mister Nice Blog
Posted at December 22, 2010, 2:36 pm
For pictures - http://act.alternet.org/go/2584?akid...18.5g6CWH&t=33
Can you think of a greater hatred of regular people than this - the PUKES didn't want to help those that are ill from 9/11.
And Bush's silence.
These creeps deserve to be driven from office by a mob.
So Many Pukes - So Little Time.
As U.N. Probes Whether His Confinement is Torture, Bradley Manning Speaks
He allegedly leaked a video of U.S. soldiers killing civilians overseas.
Now he's kept in a miserable solitary confinement due to an alleged "suicide watch"--despite passing psychological examinations.
As the U.N. "special rapporteur on torture" begins to probe whether the brutal solitary confinement of Bradley Manning constitutes torture, the imprisoned "leaker" spoke to David House, one of the few people allowed to visit him.
House, who has been very concerned about Manning's "deteriorating physical and mental well-being" wrote on Firedoglake about the conditions under which Manning has been placed, offering strong first-person evidence against the Pentagon's positive spin.
It's a long and detailed post that deserves to be read in full, but some of the key findings include Manning laughing at the idea that he gets ample time to watch the news and exercise, and revealing the drudgery and discomfort of his daily life. Here are House's words.
On the availability of news:
Manning related to me on December 18 2010 that he is not allowed to view international news during his television period. He mentioned that he might theoretically be able to view local news, but his television period is typically from 7pm – 8pm such that no local news is playing in the Quantico, VA area.
Manning told me explicitly on December 18 2010 that he is not, nor has he ever been, allowed newspapers while in confinement. When I said “The Pentagon has stated that you are allowed newspapers”, his immediate reaction was surprised laughter.
On having time for exercise and recreation:
Manning stated to me on December 18 2010 that he has not been outside or into the brig yard for either recreation nor exercise in four full weeks. He related that visits to the outdoors have been infrequent and sporadic for the past several months.
Manning related to me on December 18 2010 that he does not receive any substantive exercise and cannot perform even basic exercises in his cell. When told of the Pentagon’s statement that he did indeed receive exercise, Manning’s reply was that he is able to exercise insofar as walking in chains is a form of exercise.
On the conditions of his bedding.
Manning related to me on December 19 2010 that his blankets are similar in weight and heft to lead aprons used in X-ray laboratories, and similar in texture to coarse and stiff carpet. He stated explicitly that the blankets are not soft in the least and expressed concern that he had to lie very still at night to avoid receiving carpet burns. The problem of carpet burns was exacerbated, he related, by the stipulation that he must sleep only in his boxer shorts as part of the longstanding POI order. Manning also stated on December 19 2010 that hallway-mounted lights shine through his window at night. This constant illumination is consistent with reports from attorney David Coombs’ blog that marines must visually inspect Manning as he sleeps.
The momentum to get better conditions for Manning is growing, thanks to the efforts of Glenn Greenwald and other media outlets.
Below is a post from 'Bud Wiser' a response to the above article. I agree with it. If Manning's alleged treatment is true, Obama, Holder and the military are PUKES!
The Commander in Chief, aka: President Obama, has authority to determine for himself if, or not, Bradley Manning is being held in fair conditions. It appears President Obama grants his approval of the conditions and the abuse imposed on this soldier by NOT intervening. Bush approved water boarding. Now President Obama approves a different form of torture, this time of an American soldier, also like the enemy combatants in Gitmo, held without charge or given an ability to defend himself before any court. This is NOT Change We Can Believe In.
The Puke Party of Corporate Shills Strikes Again
Lobbyist In Charge Of 'Trying To Kill' Financial Reform Hired By GOP Chair To Oversee Financial Regulations.
A few days ago, incoming Agriculture Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) announced the hire of Ryan McKee as the senior staffer to oversee the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. McKee is currently a lobbyist working for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s division dedicated to deregulating complex derivatives products. In her new role working for Lucas, McKee will be liaising with regulators in charge of implementing new rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to overhaul the over-the-counter derivatives market.
As ThinkProgress reported, the Chamber, which is funded by AIG, JP Morgan, CitiGroup, and other financial interests, took the lead role in fighting to defeat Wall Street reform efforts. Last year, the Chamber organized a conference call with other financial industry lobby groups and bank lobbyists to coordinate their efforts. As Tim Fernholz reported, McKee made clear that she was fighting to “kill” financial reform:“
"We want to make sure that we hold all the Republicans and are able to influence enough Democrats to have a working majority to kill this thing outright or modify it to the point where it’s palatable to the business community,” Jason Matthews, the Chamber’s director of congressional affairs, told the callers. Ryan McKee, a senior director at the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets, was even more direct in response to a question from an caller: “We’re fundamentally trying to kill this,” she said.
To undermine the new rules created by the Dodd-Frank law, the Chamber recently launched a new website dedicated to smearing the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo has noted that Lucas and other Republicans on the Ag Committee have already signaled that they will seek to delay implementation of new derivatives regulations. Republicans raised eyebrows recently by proclaiming that they intend to “serve the banks” rather than regulate them. By hiring bank lobbyists like McKee to oversee reform, it’s clear Republicans plan on fulfilling that promise to undermine reform.
By Lee Fang | Sourced from Think Progress
Posted at December 26, 2010, 2:10 pm
Here is a post after this article. Can't add anything - it's accurate. And to think someone else beside me feels this way. Holy crap!
True to form - if rethuglicants are unable to kill legislation or oversight agencies outright then they resort to weakening them by defunding them or by simply staffing them with ideologues sympathetic to their anti-regulation agendas who will then fail to enforce the laws or actually enable the industries to get around laws that were put in place for them to enforce.
Sickening but absolutely true.
Rethuglicants are the best government corporations can buy.
Holy Crap! It's Starting to Rain Puke.
New Science Chair Ralph Hall Praises ‘Tremendous’ BP Spill, Plans To Subpoena Climate Scientists
Incoming science chair Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) plans to put big oil back in charge of his committee. In an interview with the Dallas News this month, the climate zombie declared his intention to use the House Science and Technology Committee to investigate the “false statements” of climate scientists, and “subpoena” those who don’t appear willingly. Hall also explained why the BP disaster “didn’t dampen his enthusiasm for offshore drilling.” He sees the BP explosion that killed eleven men, injured dozens, and led to the despoilment of the Gulf of Mexico as a “tremendous,” “blossoming” flower of energy:
As we saw that thing bubbling out, blossoming out – all that energy, every minute of every hour of every day of every week – that was tremendous to me. That we could deliver that kind of energy out there – even on an explosion.
Hall has received $14,500 in campaign contributions from BP. In an extensive report today, the New York Times describes the explosion differently:
The worst of the explosions gutted the Deepwater Horizon stem to stern. Crew members were cut down by shrapnel, hurled across rooms and buried under smoking wreckage. Some were swallowed by fireballs that raced through the oil rig’s shattered interior. Dazed and battered survivors, half-naked and dripping in highly combustible gas, crawled inch by inch in pitch darkness, willing themselves to the lifeboat deck.
It was no better there.
That same explosion had ignited a firestorm that enveloped the rig’s derrick. Searing heat baked the lifeboat deck. Crew members, certain they were about to be cooked alive, scrambled into enclosed lifeboats for shelter, only to find them like smoke-filled ovens. Men admired for their toughness wept. Several said their prayers and jumped into the oily seas 60 feet below. An overwhelmed young crew member, Andrea Fleytas, finally screamed what so many were thinking:
“We’re going to die!”
Under the leadership of Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the science committee approved legislation to champion scientific innovation, prevent and respond to oil spills, and create a National Climate Service. Although the oil spill and climate initiatives were killed by Republican filibusters in the U.S. Senate, the science innovation legislation was finally passed last week.
A post after this article by 'acritic'...
Ralph Hall is another a-hole who has been put in charge of a committee on an issue he knows nothing about. A typical GOP move.