Wednesday

Wednesday May 13, 2009

. . . .Wherever you live in the country you were outright screwed on Wednesday. The Senate rejected a limit on credit-card interest rates. The corruption in Washington is nothing short of disgusting, and while most of the focus is on the White House, the "business" of running the country is handled in the Senate and the House, and they outright screwed us on Wednesday, with the lobbyists and representatives of the credit card companies and banks watching the vote closely. Courtesy of the U.S. Government's website, here is the vote breakdown, with a "yea" vote indicating that your Senator was one of the 30 who voted for it, with the "nay" votes being those Senators who voted to strike down any limit on credit card interest rates:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Sanders Amdt. No. 1062 )
Vote Number:	191	Vote Date:	May 13, 2009, 04:24 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Motion Rejected
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 1062 to S.Amdt. 1058 to H.R. 627 (Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose:	To establish a national consumer credit usury rate.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	33
	NAYs	60
	Not Voting	6

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---33
Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Grassley (R-IA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI)	McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---60
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 6
Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT)	Mikulski (D-MD) Rockefeller (D-WV)	Voinovich (R-OH) Whitehouse (D-RI)

. . . .Contact your Senator using Congress.org, and let them know, by e-mail or calling their office how you feel about them jobbing you this badly.

. . . .On the subject of the Senate and House being completely corrupted by lobbying, fundraising and special interests, Robert Borosage, of Our Future:

"And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place"

That was Sen Richard Durbin, the powerful Senate Democratic whip, irate as the banking lobby, with foreclosures soaring across the nation, blocked a core reform for beleaguered homeowners that would give judges the right to modify mortgages in bankruptcy court.

But it isn't just the banks. Agribusiness is protecting its obscene subsidies. The insurance companies are deploying legions of lobbyists to gut the public plan in health care reform, the heart of President Obama's plan. The utilities are carving out exceptions for coal plants. Multinationals are clearly on the way to disemboweling Obama tax proposals. The military industrial lobby is a good bet to frustrate Defense Secretary Bill Gates' modest procurement reforms.

This isn't about America being a "center-right country," the myth that pundits still peddle about the American people. This is about Congress being bought and sold, pure and simple. Each night, Washington slurps on political fund-raisers. Each day, the deals get cut; the favors get done. Now with Republicans lining up lemming-like to obstruct anything Obama, Congress can be bought on the cheap. The lobbies have only to enlist (suborn, bribe, seduce, finance) a few of what the press insists on describing as "moderate Democrats" in the Senate to stop any reform they don't like.

What's often forgotten in this squalid exchange is that the very Americans the legislators preen to represent are the victims of their various corruptions.

In area after area, Americans are suffering from the accumulated corruptions of our moneyed politics. In the fifth labor of Hercules, an arrogant king tries to demean the hero by hiring him to clean out the Augean stables in a day. The stables, containing the largest herd of cattle in civilization, had never been cleaned. Hercules, with a little help from Athena, changes the path of two rivers and quickly washes out the accumulated filth. But no one is about to change the course of the Potomac to cleanse the backrooms and lobbies of Capitol Hill. The only current strong enough to do that is an aroused public angry enough to sweep away those who stand in the way. Despite rumblings, despite growing awareness of the damage wrought by a sordid and selfish era, we aren't there yet.

. . . . .Total television heaven. Lost finished it's 5th (and next to last) season tonight. Finally, after all this time, some viewer's patience is beginning to be rewarded. The first 3 minutes gave a clue that fans of the show have been waiting for now for a very long time, since the beginning, and it looks like it's shaping up to be what those of the philosophical bent thought a long time ago, that the island is a battleground for the eternal battle between choice, free will vs. rigidly imposed order; the balance between light and dark and ultimately, what human free will and choice have to do with that. Why is it that my favorite two shows of all time, Lost and Battlestar Galactica both in the end, dealt with those themes.

. . . .Tomorrow and through the weekend, we'll look at cognitive dissonance, synchronicity, chaos theory and just what the hell rock and roll has to do with it all.

. . . Today's playlist/podcast, more fun stuff. If there's something you want to hear, or just one song that you'd like me to build a themed playlist around, just let me know at any of the many available e-mail addresses or in a comment and I'll do it.

. . . . .Let me say right off the bat that I am someone who loves my country, and my flag very, very much. I am a patriot. That said, I've put up here repeatedly what the extreme Right wing (and they are not conservative, not Republican, and not pro-America) has continually tried to do, undermine this Administration, undermine and sabotage the President, and in so doing, in this hour of crisis that this country faces, undermine America, undermine us, and watch us fail. Those actions are traitorous, there is not other word for it. Let me be deliberately clear, I use language very, very specifically. I am not calling these people traitors, I am calling their actions traitorous, and they need to rethink their public words and deeds very, very quickly lest it undermine the country that they live in as well.

. . . . . From Jacob Heilbrun, the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons:

The Cheneys were at it again yesterday. On Tuesday, daughter Liz, who served in the Bush State Department, undiplomatically denounced President Obama on Fox News for agreeing to release photographs of Americans abusing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's become "fashionable,' she said, "to side, really, with the terrorists."

Right.

For good measure, Pops jumped into denounce Obama's plan for helping the ailing auto companies. And according to the Washington Post, he's going to address the American Enterprise Institute, his stomping grounds before he became George W. Bush's vice-president, on May 21 on how to keep America safe. Presumably, he won't be praising Obama's efforts in Afghanistan, as Max Boot, a genuinely insightful neocon, does today in a superb column in the Los Angeles Times. According to Boot, "If anyone is up to these difficult tasks, it is the A-team that the Obama administration has assembled."

Both Cheneys aren't simply trying to defend the Bush administration's record from being besmirched by lily-livered liberals. One theory is that Papa Cheney has simply lost it, that, as the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson put it, he's a crazy old coot who needs to be shipped out to Wyoming, where he can go fishing with his corporate buddies and leave everyone else alone. But there may be more to it than sheer craziness.

Both Cheneys are also seeking to lay the groundwork for a "Who Lost America?" debate should there be another terrorist attack during the Obama presidency. Just as the right fulminated about liberals "losing" China in the early 1950s, so the Cheneys are ginning up the hard Right to denounce Obama and his advisers as traitors.

Ultimately, though, their snarling has less to do with the Democratic party than the GOP, which is at war with itself. On the one side are the movement conservatives such as the Cheneys. On the other side are cooler heads on the right such as David Frum and David Brooks who recognize that Obama may leave the GOP stranded in the wilderness for decades. For now, the former holds the upper hand as the GOP wallows in its self-righteous indignation about being toppled from power.

But it's already clear that the Cheneys will be active for years, even decades, to come, as Liz profiles herself as the rising star of the party. She's the anti-Meghan McCain -- truculent, strident, abrasive, a zealot. The acorn has not fallen far from the tree. So, friends, whom do you despise more, Dick or Liz?

. . . .From Paul Begala, prominent Democratic strategist:

If 3,000 Americans had been killed on your watch, in an attack that could have been prevented, perhaps you'd be a little hesitant to accuse anyone else of endangering America. And if you had advocated torture, and the torture produced false information that you used to mislead America into an unwise, unjust and unwarranted war, you might be a tad sheepish about defending the use of torture.

Not Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney has stepped up his attack on Pres. Obama's security strategy, telling CBS's Bob Schieffer that Obama's refusal to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture) endangers American lives.

The truth is the Bush-Cheney policies did not keep us safe, and Mr. Cheney is not a credible spokesman on issues of national security.

First, this awkward fact. When it came time to risk his hide to serve our country during the Vietnam War, Cheney got five draft deferments. He later told the Senate, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." John Kerry did not. Nor did John McCain. Nor Gen. Colin Powell, nor Gen. Jim Jones, nor Gen. Wes Clark, nor Jim Webb. These warriors - and so many others - strongly oppose the use of torture. They were willing to die to protect America. It is insulting for a doughy draft dodger like Mr. Cheney to suggest they would endanger us today.

Indeed, the public record offers evidence that torture has endangered American security. Not only by breeding more terrorists, but by producing false intelligence - which Mr. Cheney and President Bush used to mislead America into invading Iraq.

The case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is instructive. Al-Libi was a senior al Qaeda operative captured trying to make his way out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. In US custody, he initially said he knew of no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, and, according to Newsweek, "he had difficulty even coming up with a story about the relationship between the two." An FBI agent urged that al-Libi be read his rights and be treated with respect, "as a shining example of what we feel is right." There was a practical, as well as moral, reason not to torture al-Libi: veteran interrogators believe establishing a rapport with a prisoner is the key to obtaining actionable intelligence. There are reports that, after hours of bonding with his FBI interrogator through discussions of religion, al-Libi provided useful information about alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker" who was arrested just before 9-11.

But even after the bonding experience, al-Libi continued to deny a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. He was rendered to Egypt, where he faced certain torture. "You're going to Cairo, you know," a CIA agent reportedly told al-Libi at the airport. "Before you get there I'm going to find your mother and I'm going to f*** her."

So much for building rapport.

In Egypt, al-Libi was placed in a coffin-sized box for 17 hours, then beaten. Al-Libi cracked. He gave the information Cheney and his crowd most wanted: a direct link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Al-Libi, (who reportedly died this week in Libya), said Iraq had provided al Qaeda with training in the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Bingo! Vice President Cheney and others cited the information to justify the war in Iraq. Trouble is, it turned out to be false. As early as February, 2002 - just two months after al-Libi's "confession" -- the Defense Intelligence Agency reported to the White House and the National Security Council that it had doubts about al-Libi's charge. The DIA's Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary (DITSUM) all but destroyed al-Libi's credibility. The report said, in part:

"However, he (al-Libi) lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

"Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." (Emphasis added.)

The timing here matters. In December, 2001 al-Libi, under torture, claims Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. Two months later, the Pentagon's intelligence agency says he was probably lying. And yet on September 25, 2002, Condoleezza Rice continued to spread the myth, telling PBS's The News Hour, "We know too that several of the (al Qaeda) detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush and several other leading Administration officials kept banging the al-Libi drum.

In January 2003, the CIA joined the chorus of skepticism about al-Libi's claim that Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons, noting al-Libi "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

More than a year and a half after al-Libi's claim was discredited by the DIA, and nine months after it was poo-pooed by the CIA, Dick Cheney was still sighting it as Gospel, appearing on Meet the Press on the week of September 11, 2003 and telling Tim Russert, "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW [biological weapons] and CW [chemical weapons], that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved."

It may well be that torture was used to advance the Bush-Cheney march to war in Iraq rather than to obtain intelligence about al Qaeda plots against the American homeland. A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue told McClatchy Newspapers, "Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies." Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

Next, consider this inconvenient truth: 9-11 happened on Mr. Cheney's watch. Tom Kean, the Republican co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, has said the attacks could have been prevented. He's right. That fact ought to weigh heavy on Mr. Cheney's conscience. As should these:

• Before they took office, senior Bush administration officials were briefed repeatedly about the al Qaeda threat. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.''


• Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Clinton and Bush, presented the new Bush-Cheney administration with a plan to roll back al Qaeda. He briefed Dr. Rice on the plan. Nothing. In February, 2001, he briefed Vice President Cheney on the plan. Nothing. Time magazine has reported, "Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "'was a Clinton proposal.'" If true, Bush and Cheney were allowing partisan politics to endanger America.


• On May 8, 2001 - three months after being briefed by Clarke - Cheney was instructed to chair a task force on terrorism. It did not meet before the 9-11 attacks.


• The FBI asked the Bush-Cheney Justice Department for58 million to beef up its domestic counterrorism capacity by hiring more translators, more field agents and more analysts. The Bush-Cheney Administration told the FBI no.


• Congressional Democrats sought to shift 800 million in the Pentagon budget from Star Wars (the Bush-Cheney faith-based missile defense system) into counterterrorism. The Bush-Cheney administration threatened to veto the entire defense budget. Congressional Republicans sided with Bush and Cheney, and blocked the Democrats from transferring the funds.


• In July, 2001, an FBI agent in Phoenix reported that Middle Eastern men - possibly al Qaeda - were taking flying lessons. He suggested that al Qaeda operatives might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. His warning was not acted on.


• On August 6, 2001 Pres. Bush received a classified briefing, the President's Daily Brief. On that day, the headline blared: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, Bush told the briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Dick Cheney, who has called the President's Daily Brief "the family jewels," presumably received the same briefing. Neither Bush nor Cheney acted on it. The "family jewels" were pearls before swine.

And the attack came. Over three thousand Americans were killed. In the heartache and rage that followed, Bush and Cheney instituted their "enhanced interrogation techniques." Uncovering a pending plot against the homeland was, doubtless, an important motivator. But the al-Libi case is a cautionary one. Rather than finding a ticking time bomb, the al-Libi torture may have been used to build a spurious case for war - a war that has weakened America.

Perhaps what's most galling about Mr. Cheney is how, without irony, humility or apology, he holds himself out as someone who has protected America when in fact he shirked his responsibility before 9-11 and misled us into war after. The closest Dick Cheney has ever come to fighting for America is when he shot his lawyer in the face.

. . . . .From Politico, Roger Simon, their chief political reporter, reports on the most startling development yet in this dramedy, the Republican party, as far as I can tell from this one, is officially getting ready to jump off a cliff and commit suicide (cue Jim Morrison singing "The End"):

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”

Which pretty much sums up the attitude some members of the RNC have toward their chairman these days.

Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a (rare) flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”
Two other resolutions — to urge Republican lawmakers

to reject earmarks and to commend them for opposing “bailouts and reckless spending bills” — are also on the agenda, but language that would have denounced Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican turned Democrat, and Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting for President Obama’s stimulus package has been dropped.

Steele didn’t want the special session to be held at all. The RNC will hold its regular summer meeting in July, and all matters could have waited until then. But the special session is being viewed by some in the party as a “comeuppance” for Steele and an implied criticism of his performance and behavior in his first 100 days in office.

Exercising a rarely used party rule that allows any 16 RNC members from 16 different states to demand a special meeting, conservatives in the party forced Steele’s hand, and now the special meeting will be tacked onto the end of a previously scheduled meeting of state party chairmen that will convene next week at National Harbor outside Washington.

A further comeuppance — a vote of “no confidence” in Steele — is not being contemplated, I am informed, because Steele’s opponents in the RNC have already won a major victory by forcing him to accept greater controls on how he spends party funds.

Also, while there has been some talk about replacing Steele, few consider that likely, at least in the near future. “Without a Republican

president to decide on that change, that won’t happen,” the RNC member said.

But Steele is not a popular chairman within the RNC, and his recent statements that appeared to attack Mitt Romney and the Republican base have undermined his popularity even further.

Steele was elected to a two-year term as party chairman on Jan. 30 on the sixth ballot, but instead of quietly trying to consolidate power within the party and build up his image, he embarked on a publicity tour that included statements that some in the party considered baffling at best and incendiary at worst.

“He has a tin ear,” the RNC member told me when I asked him to name Steele’s worst problem. “He has a tin ear when it comes to the building (i.e., the RNC staff), the RNC and the party.”

Last Friday, when Steele was guest-hosting conservative pundit Bill Bennett’s radio show, a caller suggested that Romney would have been a stronger candidate against Barack Obama than John McCain but that liberals and the media had pushed for McCain to win the Republican nomination.

The caller was, perhaps, not making the most intellectually rigorous of arguments, but in his answer Steele seemed to outdo the caller.

“Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life,” Steele replied. “It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitt because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about.”

Steele, who himself has said that abortion is a matter of “individual choice,” was opening old wounds not only by attacking Romney but also by suggesting the Republican base is bigoted when it comes to Mormons.

“His job should be to get everybody to sit down and focus on a message for the party and then get them to be the messengers,” the RNC member told me. “Steele wants to do the right thing, but he is clueless as to how the RNC really runs.”

. . . .I linked and copied all 3 of these in whole mainly so that I cannot be accused of parsing, nor of lifting what I want from them. What they mean to me is simple, there is an all out assault on our government happening, and we cannot stay silent, we cannot afford that at all. This goes beyond praying for them or sending good intentions their way, it is important, now more than ever, to stand our ground, to speak the truth and to defend our country, our flag and our President, there are dark, evil forces at work that would see him fail, and in so doing, see us fail. There are different ways to voice dissent, and the extreme Right seems to choose not to follow those ways, and when someone you know sends you an e-mail, or speaks out with some garbage, stop them, and point out the facts.

. . . . . . .Bill Clinton basically laughed Dick Cheney off on Wednesday saying "it's over" and "wishing him well" and that he "hopes he gets more target practice before he goes out again"

. . . .I support President Obama's decision to block the release of photos showing the abuse of detainees. It happened, of that there is no doubt. It does no good to satisfy this country's voyueristic need to see something sensationalistic and privately get some sort of ghoulish enjoyment from it. Revisiting that past, and that abuse will do no good and will not serve to move us forward. I also support his stated decision to not pursue legal prosecution of members of the former administration, this would set a dangerous precedent for any other future administrations, don't like what the guy before you did? Prosecute him. Unh-unh, this is not the way to go and will not help, again, further us towards a progressive, populist society and representative government.

. . . .From reader Kay M. she sends this one in, a letter that she sent today to the Senators of the State of Michigan:

My Senators and Representatives,

In great pain, I wrote my President today about the plan to shut down auto dealerships here in the States while allowing GM to sell autos made in China as their own, and his statement that the "few individuals" that have been identified as involved in publicly disclosed torture have "been dealt with" and there is no need for further investigation or public disclosure about America's use of torture. I have blind copied everyone in my address book on this email - even my business sources - because I am strongly inviting them to demand some accountability from Washington DC and the President.

First let me say that I am a registered Democrat. I voted for the Obama/Biden ticket, I contributed financially to this campaign and to the Democratic party at both the State and Federal levels, and I made phone call and knocked on doors for Obama. So it pains me greatly to say that I have lost faith in him. He is not keeping his campaign promises - nor his word during prior press releases - about the auto industry, federal transparency, and the issue of America using torture.

1) GM plans to import >17,000 cars to sell in the US from China by 2011, and >51,000 by 2014. In a press release on March 30th 2009 the President is quoted as saying "If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always." I don't know how he can make this statement while allowing (requiring?) small &/or franchise GM & Chrysler dealers to be closed. Many dealers fitting Chrysler's criteria for closing are rural, located far from urban colleagues to which their local populations would have access. With the high cost of everything, lower wages and high unemployment, I'm not sure the President and his Auto Industry Task Force have considered that a significant portion of the rural population will not be in a position to take advantage of his quoted guarantee of service and repair for Chrysler & GM vehicles when there is no dealership in their area.

The closing of 1000-1200 GM franchise dealers and 800 or more Chrysler dealers will leave a minimum of 28,000 out of work. If GM closes the dealerships quoted previously, these numbers will be even higher - up to 42%, or 2,940 dealerships (based on 7,000 total current dealer estimate in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688631448632421.html?mod=article-outset-box). Because they are no longer protected by their state's laws, closed dealerships will not be able to pay debts already on the books, which means their suppliers will not be paid either. As the suppliers go out of business, the costs associated with their unemployed will add to the financial burden, as will the costs incurred as the former employees are no longer able to pay bills or make house payments. In addition, almost 20% of a state's sales taxes typically come from auto dealerships.

Franchise dealerships do not directly cost auto companies anything. The cost of having more dealerships than a particular area needs is indirect. The cost of closing dealerships is direct. The market takes care of closing dealerships that do not offer reasonable prices or good service. We do not need a mandate for this - we need to allow the market to correct itself. All closing dealerships is going to do is reduce competition among dealers, leading to higher costs and lower repair standards due to the lack of competition.

2) My second rant has to do with this whole business of not publicly and transparently reporting on those who have committed torture. The world (and the US) needs to know that we are accountable as a nation and, therefore, trustworthy. This means public committees exploring the issue, and public trials of those found suspicious of committing the crime. If anyone was given an order to do so, their superior should be placed on trial - NOT them. Soldiers follow orders or they get court martialed. Their commanding officer is the one who should be charged for any criminal conduct sanctioned or ordered by them. If any of these behaviors were legal at the time, nobody involved in these should be questioned at all, though I do hope we become more transparent and accountable about the current rules of engagement.

"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/#cnnSTCVideo

I think we all know that individuals were NOT responsible for torture policies. His stance and statement smells like obsfucation to me.

Write everyone you know. Blog about this. The current White House is beginning to look no less fascist to me than the prior one right now. They are just better at selling it. Tell Obama's administration that we expect them to hold up their end of the deal - Change toward a more accountable and transparent government FOR the people.

. . . .And in the continuing series from NPR on upgrading the national electrical grid, Part 5 - Getting Constant Current From Fickle Winds:

Like lots of other farmers and ranchers in the northern Plains, Joel Keierleber has been flirting with wind power developers for years.

He knows his grassy slopes near Winner, S.D., have world-class wind, but there's always the same hitch: There aren't enough transmission lines to carry the electricity from rural areas like his to the big cities where the electricity is needed.

If the country is going to meet President Obama's ambitious green energy goals, the transmission system has to link up the places that offer the best chance of producing lots of clean energy, such as the sunny Southwest and the windy Plains.

Keierleber's property is considered Class 6, or "outstanding," for a wind farm, but it's bone-chilling for people. Even on an early spring day, it feels like it's in the low teens. In the winter, with the wind chill, it can be 80 degrees below zero.

"Your face will be numb before you get 10 steps," Keierleber says. "And if it hits you just right, you won't be able to breathe for a little bit. It will take your breath away."

Because of all the wind, Keierleber has to feed his cattle more, and his neighbor can't keep siding on his house.

"That's why you want to see wind towers. Then you'll at least see some good out of it," he adds.

In Keierleber's large kitchen, he unfolds a map that shows lots of properties near Winner that have been optioned by one wind developer or another. He says one reason ranchers here are so eager is that this place has never been good for farming. He only makes a profit three years out of five.

The latest wind developer to come courting is Scott Conant, from a small Wisconsin company called Prelude Wind Farms.

As recently as last fall, Conant had never heard of Winner, but after about 18 trips, he's learned the contour of the land, the speed and consistency of the wind, and the desire of local residents to host wind farms.

"I think that there's no doubt this area could be a 1,000-tower project, and maybe more. The whole package is right here," Conant says.

The Wind's There, But The Power Lines Aren't

Well almost. The only thing it lacks, Conant adds, is transmission lines.

One evening last month, Conant and another wind developer joined a couple hundred farmers and ranchers at Winner Middle School to hear a pitch from a transmission company called ITC Holdings Corp.

For more than a decade, wind developers have been salivating over windy places like this, but balked at building turbines without transmission lines. And utilities wouldn't string the lines without the wind farms. ITC wants to break that impasse, with a $12 billion transmission project.

"Who comes first, the generation or the line? That's been the problem that's probably plagued the transmission industry for the last 30 years. And that's why no transmission has been built," says Joe Dudak, a vice president of ITC, which is based in Novi, Mich. "We think you build it first, and you're there the same time the wind energy is there."

ITC's project would carry 12,000 megawatts of electricity from the northern Plains to Chicago and points east. That's enough electricity to power about 4.5 million homes. Dudak says the current grid is not up to the job of bringing green power to millions of homes and businesses — it's a patchwork of transmission lines strung decades ago by utilities — mostly connecting big polluting power plants to local customers.

"There is no superhighway system, and there's not enough room right now. The system is terribly constrained right now," he says.

Dudak hopes that concerns about climate change and new laws that mandate clean power will translate into a green light. "It's possible we can be breaking ground in two years," he says.

Jumping Hurdles To Wind Development

ITC already passed its first hurdle with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but it still needs lots of money and federal and state approvals to build its piece of a transmission superhighway, which it calls the green power express.

ITC is also awaiting an analysis from the Midwestern Independent Transmission System Operator, which is like an air traffic control tower for the electric grid in 13 states.

At the Midwest ISO's control room in Carmel, Ind., talk of a major increase in wind power sends chills down the spine of Rob Benbow, a grid manager. Before dawn on a spring morning, Benbow and a few dozen grid operators are shouting electricity jargon at each other in front of a massive curved screen that's 20 feet high and 150 feet long.

As people in the Midwest wake up and turn on coffee makers and hair dryers, the operators make sure enough power is being generated to match the surge in demand. A warning signal alerts them that a power plant has unexpectedly turned off. This time, it is someone else's problem. But Benbow worries that when wind power makes up a significant portion of his grid's electricity, managing it will cause him frequent problems.

Unpredictable Wind Makes Power Management Tough

"My biggest fear is if you see 20 percent wind on your system, and then it comes off at a time period where you don't have resources to replace it — that's going to, could, result in a blackout situation," he says.

Wind power is not predictable. That morning, the wind is steadily producing about 3,000 megawatts — about 5 percent of the total power being used in the region. But Benbow says he's seen wind power become increasingly variable as more wind farms come on line. And grid operators can't order wind plants to produce like they can other power plants.

"If the wind is not blowing, you just don't have that resource available," he says. And when the wind is blowing, it can be hard to make wind turbines shut down. "A lot of these plants are not manned — if we need to turn them off, we have to send a person out to actually do that," he says.

Lots of other things about wind frustrate the Benbows of the world — wind blows hardest at night when electricity demand is lowest, there currently aren't ways to store wind for later use, and you can't count on it on hot summer days when you need it most.

"You can put all that wind in, but I still need to have all this other generation that I need to have available — all my coal, nuclear, all the gas — for my peak load day," Benbow adds.

So when Benbow thinks about the new wind turbines and new transmission lines carrying their energy toward his control room, he sees more than clean energy. He also sees a lot of headaches coming his way.

. . . .Outta here. Kiss your kids, tell the ones you love out loud that you do, seize the precious moments before they pass through your hands. This rodeo is a one-way ticket, and no one gets out alive, so it's not about yesterday or tomorrow, it's about right fucking here and now. This ain't no dress rehearsal.
Got your back, out there in the night somewhere.

The Desolation Angel
[where: Hell, Michigan]