Obsidian Wings

The Shores They Don't Stay Blond this Year

by Eric Martin

Pretty Much.

Having said that, I just don’t know what the administration is supposed to do. What can be done? That, I think, is the real lesson from this- that we can’t really do anything about this sort of disaster, and i think the administration has done a really shitty job of getting that message out.

I hear screams to “take over” the operations from BP. And do what? Is there some secret naval division that handles deep-sea drilling that we have not deployed? Does the government have some elite unit with better equipment than BP? I’m as pissed at them as anyone and want the government to make them pay for every penny of the clean-up, but I have to believe that all the people with experience fighting these things and all the equipment to deal with this sort of thing is already there with BP. And that if we “took over” from BP, it would still be the same people.

In short, I just don’t know what kind of federal response there really could be to this kind of disaster. In Katrina, the reason fro anger was clear- there were people who needed food, shelter, water, and medical treatment, things we have a lot of all over the country, and we just dropped the ball getting it to them. But with this- what are we supposed to do?

I suppose if someone can point to millions of feet of boom stockpiled in a government warehouse somewhere, or some sort of equipment the government has but is not using, then I could understand screaming about the federal response. But other than that, what do we expect them to do? FEMA and the Coast Guard don’t drill oil wells 5,000 feet underwater. As I said to JSF last night, this is like one of those disaster movies where we have to come up with some plan to explode the comet before it hits the earth, except in this case, the comet has already hit the earth and Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman are fresh out of solutions.

And again, that is a real thing team Obama could do right now. Stop issuing permits, because until industry can demonstrate they can handle this sort of thing, we should just presume it is unsafe. Period.

But "Drill, Baby, Drill" was such a catchy slogan. 

Other than putting the brakes on the issuance of more permits (for deeper drilling operations even), reviewing existing operations and making sure BP pays the full bill for this tragedy, that pretty much runs the gamut. 

Which is why we shouldn't be doing very much of this until we know that we have some form of at least partially effective damage control. 

They were the Shrewdest Unit-Movers So their Bosses Got 'Em Tours of the Countryside

by Eric Martin

Government should just get out of the way of big business, de-regulate, allow self-regulation, lax oversight, ignore capture, etc.:

Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil — and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general’s report to be released this week.

The report, which describes inappropriate behavior by the staff at the Minerals Management Service from 2005 to 2007, also found that inspectors had accepted meals, tickets to sporting events and gifts from at least one oil company while they were overseeing the industry.

Although there is no evidence that those events played a role in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the report offers further evidence of what many critics of the Minerals Management Service have described as a culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry.

The report includes other examples of troubling behavior discovered by investigators.

In mid-2008, a minerals agency employee conducted four inspections on drilling platforms when he was also negotiating a job with the drilling company, a cover letter to the report said.

And an inspector from the Lake Charles office admitted to investigators that he had used crystal methamphetamine, an illegal drug. Investigators said they believe the inspector may have been under the influence of the drug during an inspection.

The report was provided to The New York Times by a person familiar with the investigation who is not authorized to speak to reporters. Previous inspector general investigations of the minerals agency have focused on inappropriate behavior by the royalty-collection staff in the agency’s Denver office.

The new report describes similar activities and improper relationships with industry representatives in the leasing and inspections staff in an agency gulf region office in Louisiana.

The report found that employees from the Lake Charles office had repeatedly accepted gifts, including hunting and fishing trips from the Island Operating Company, an oil and gas company working on oil platforms regulated by the Interior Department.

Taking such gifts “appears to have been a generally accepted practice,” said the report, written by department’s acting inspector general, Mary L. Kendall.

This latest report is consistent with prior reports investigating the same agency - though perhaps less salacious in certain respects.  As I'm sure many recall, this article from 2008 details other, more lurid abuses:

As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes.

“A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo.

The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch. [...]

The investigations are the latest installment in a series of scathing inquiries into the program’s management and competence in recent years. While previous reports have focused on problems the agency had in collecting millions of dollars owed to the Treasury, and hinted at personal misconduct, the new reports go far beyond any previous study in revealing serious concerns with the integrity and behavior of the agency’s officials.

In one of the new reports, investigators concluded that Ms. Denett worked with two aides to steer a lucrative consulting contract to one of the aides after he retired, violating competitive procurement rules.

Two other reports focus on “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity” in the service’s royalty-in-kind program. That part of the agency collects about $4 billion a year in oil and gas rather than cash royalties. [...]

...Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, suggested that Congress should not lift its ban on offshore drilling — a hot-button issue in his state — because of the problems identified.

The report says that eight officials in the royalty program accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game.

The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

The investigation separately found that the program’s manager mixed official and personal business. In sometimes lurid detail, the report also accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine.

A free-for-all of libertines and libertarians.

Love Vigilantes

by Eric Martin

Although I am a little late in getting to this, allow me to go on record in saying that this is a travesty of justice, and a gross violation of human rights:

A Malawian couple became the latest gay rights activists to face a judicial backlash for their public stand on sexuality this week, when they were sentenced to 14 years hard labor for "gross indecency." Western governments and human rights campaigners around the globe, including 1980s gender-bending pop icon Boy George, have leapt to the couple's defense.

Malawian authorities arrested Tiwonge Chimbalanga and his partner, Steven Monjeza, on Dec. 26, 2009, after the two participated in a traditional engagement ceremony. Judge Nyakwawa Usiwa-Usiwa sentenced the pair on Thursday, following their convictions on charges of "gross indecency" and "unnatural acts."

"I will give you a scaring sentence so that the public be protected from people like you, so that we are not tempted to emulate this horrendous example," the judge told the couple during sentencing, according to the BBC.

What makes this sentence, and similar legal wrangling in Uganda, particularly odious is that they are undertaken in the name of religions that, ostensibly, celebrate transcendant compassion, tolerance and love.  Or at least, when the purveyors of those relgious beliefs aren't perverting the message.

Jesus FAIL.

Open Thread...

by Eric Martin

Mondays.  Discuss.

IOKIYNAM*

by Eric Martin

Poor Matt Yglesias is perplexed:

Apparently there was a terrorist attack on American soil earlier this week. What’s more, though fortunately nobody was killed in the attack, unlike in the much-hyped Underpants Bomber or Times Square plots, the perpetrator actually managed to build a working bomb [EM: and detonate it!]. But somehow this attack, despite its greater technical sophistication, hasn’t obtained nearly the same level of media attention. And I just can’t figure out why.

Duh, Matt, the answer was sitting right in front of you had you just read the excerpt that you, yourself, provided:

FBI officials in Jacksonville, Fla., say they have found the remnants of a pipe bomb used in a possible hate crime at a mosque during evening prayers.

Along with local police, the FBI launched an investigation after an explosion shook the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida at 9:35 p.m. Monday, when approximately 60 people were inside praying. No one was injured.

Since it was likely a non-Muslim who committed this attack, the bombing, by definition, cannot be "terrorism."  Newsweek's erudite editors/senior writers told me so - around the time that same crew was putting the final touches on the magazine's last throes. 

It will be interesting to see how the anti-rights Right reacts to the fact that suspects in this bombing could be presented with Miranda warnings, obtain legal counsel, actually get to stand trial (in civilian courts - which is the same as releasing suspects in our backyards!) and, you know, not get tortured and stuff.  If not interesting, at least predictable: see, above, re: the definition of "terrorism" and the implicit double standard. 

*(It's OK If You're Not A Muslim!)

With Your Head Down in the Pig Bin Saying, "Keep on Digging"

by Eric Martin

Why should we bother oil and gas companies with the nettlesome requirement to get environmental permits and the like?  And why shouldn't we trust industry to regulate itself and look after the public interest in general?

In its 2009 exploration plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, BP PLC states that the company could handle a spill involving as much as 12.6 million gallons of oil per day, a number 60 times higher than its current estimate of the ongoing Gulf disaster.

In associated documents filed with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the company says that it would be able to skim 17.6 million gallons of oil a day from the Gulf in the event of a spill.

But let's make sure we keep that cap nestled tightly on the well BP's liability lest we discourage more reckless behavior responsible oil exploration!  Drill baby drill!

(via)

The Supreme Court Says

--by Sebastian

The Supreme Court says that as a matter of Constitutional law the United States can lock you us indefinitely without trial after you have served the time the jury and judge sentenced you to for a crime you did commit on the basis of future crimes it predicts you might commit, and that no judge or jury may impose the sentence of life without parole on a 16 or 17 year old on the basis of crimes (short of murder) he actually has committed.

I'll have more to say on both cases later, but preliminary thoughts:

A) Much of the Court in Graham has finally abandoned the pretense (maintained for example in Roper) that its "Cruel and Unusual" jurisprudence has much at all to do with actual changes in the moral understanding of the country at large and seems ready to embrace the idea that *even formally* it is just whatever 5 judges of the Supreme Court says it is and legislative outcomes be d@#mned.  

B) This is only step 2 in the Roper line.  It has set the stage for step 3, that life without parole cannot Constitutionally be instituted for 16-17 year old murderers.  There is not good evidence that the evolving standards of decency of the populace of the United States would outlaw that either, but I predict the Court will do so anyway within the next 5 years.  

C) These cases are fascinating together.  Not just for their substantive outcome, but also for their judicial pose.  In Graham, the judges appear to have completely usurped the role of legislatures, administrations and popular opinion in determining what counts as "Cruel and Unusual".  This is justified apparently by the vagueness of the phrase.  In Comstock, the judges appear to have abdicated almost entirely to the legislature "Necessary and Proper", apparently because that phrase has almost no ambiguity whatsoever?  

D) Comstock is a case where the facts are about sexual predators.  But the reasoning of the RULING is not.  

E) The ruling in Comstock says that the power to effectively *and retroactively* extend someone's sentence indefinitely after the original sentence that the jury and judge imposed is finished, is part of the necessary and proper power of Congress in maintaining a penal system.  This is not limited to sexual predator crimes, and is not a step the government should be allowed to take.  

I'm Miss World, Watch Me Break and Watch Be Burn

by Eric Martin

The Eds comments on the recent conservative uproar over the fact that a, gasp, actual Muslim American (who also celebrates elements of the Christian faith) won the Miss USA pageant:

Rock-ribbed American conservative foreign policy savant Daniel Pipes uses his entirely not-creepy knowledge of beauty pageants to uncover a pattern of liberals pandering to the Islamofascists.  Michelle Malkin points out that she obviously won because she supports birth control.  So, to sum up – wingnuts hate when Muslim women wear revealing outfits, express political opinions, and have open discussions about sexual health.  And they superhate the new Miss USA.  Miss UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  How very interesting.

Don’t let it bother you, Miss Fakih.  They hate you for your freedom.

Adam Serwer adds:

Professional Islamophobe Daniel Pipes combs the internet for other instances in which Muslim women have won beauty contests, and concludes there's some kind of "an odd form of affirmative action" going on. Because how could anyone choose a Muslim over a "real American" in a beauty contest?

I'm not really a fan of beauty contests, but the tone and substance of the fever swamp's reaction to an Arab-American winning a beauty contest is at least useful for pointing out how some people's political opinions aren't based so much in questions of policy as anti-Muslim animosity. The level of anger is just so plainly disproportionate to the matter at hand as to be self-implicating. These people aren't worried about terrorism -- they're offended by the idea of Muslims being integrated into the most mundane and banal aspects of American society.

The United States has thus far fared better than Europe in terms of discouraging its Muslim citizens from joining terrorist groups, as well as in garnering cooperation from its domestic Muslim population in connection with rooting out violent Muslim extremists when they do emerge.  This relative success is based, in part, on the assimilative nature of American culture. 

What is clear from the profiles of those that pervert Islam by pursuing terror is that a sense of alienation coupled with harsh encounters with racism are frequently part of the combustible mixture that can radicalize otherwise ordinary individuals.  In addition, fear and alienation can deter Muslims from actively participating with law enforcement when suspicion arises within their community.  To date, America has done a decent job of staving off the widespread feelings of persecution that would create an environment conducive to radicalization - and the subsequent reluctance of indigenous groups to cooperate with investigators. 

Given that, it is particularly discouraging to see such naked bigotry on the part of so many conservative pundits and opinion makers.  Racism is a vile enough phenomenon as is, but in the current context it also serves to undermine counterterrorism efforts.  And all that because of a beauty pageant win?  Really?

Open Thread: Buoyancy and Related Issues

by Eric Martin

Appropos of nothing in particular, I was scrolling through my iPod and it occurred to me that I hadn't listened to Sinead O'Connor in quite a while.  After remedying that lapse, it then it occurred to me what an amazing song this is.

Also, too, while on the topic of female singers I've been neglecting lately, Homogenic is a pretty awesome album:

Professionals Talk Logistics

by Eric Martin

Brian Katulis is one of the smartest wonks in the game, and it is admirable that he is still trying to get the attention of policymakers in Washington with respect to the fundamental questions about Afghanistan policy that he emphasizes in this piece (excerpted below).  But the fact that he is reminding the relevant players of the need to address these issues at this late date is a testament to just how far adrift Afghan policy has wandered.  To state the blaringly obvious, these questions should be answered in clear, defined terms many months before committing the proverbial boots to the applicable ground. 

The fact that there are no clear answers outside of vague maxims some 8+ years on in a campaign is not merely evidence of gross negligence on the part of the policymakers involved.  The overriding reticence is also a very good indicator that no suitable answers are available - suitable, at least, in terms of grandiose goals set before a rigorous analysis of the achievability of such goals.  So, the questions might have answers, but not the "right" ones.  Such truth-telling in the service of compromise and blurry outcomes can be a political liability and, thus, is rarely rewarded.

Perhaps if the stark and uncompromising challenges of remaking Afghanistan in our image were confronted, analyzed and processed at the onset, and the limitations of our Afghan mission were enunciated, "settling" for something less than a radical reordering of Afghan society wouldn't appear like such a defeat to Obama administration officials.  But since Obama has chosen to double down in pursuit of the unattainable, we'll continue to muddle on to nowhere in particular out of an inability to find acceptable answers to questions that won't yield any.    

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to Washington this week offers Barack Obama's administration an opportunity to address one of the weakest links in its Afghanistan strategy -- the lack of a coherent plan for what the United States and its Afghan and international partners aim to leave behind in Afghanistan.

Nearly nine years into the war, we lack clear answers to two fundamental questions: How does this war end? What is the desired sustainable end state in Afghanistan?

Recent briefings, meetings, and congressional testimony with officials in the Obama administration and visiting Afghan officials have left me not much clearer about the answers to those two questions -- and this week is an excellent opportunity for the Obama administration and visiting Afghan officials to answer these two questions.

During the past month, I asked Obama administration officials and Afghan government representatives direct questions such as the estimated cost to completion for Afghanistan,  general estimates on how many Afghan government personnel will be needed to fill the various levels of Afghan institutions to make them viable, and how progress will be measured. Instead of clear answers, I usually heard general restatements of the basic principles of counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine: that the United States is trying to build up Afghan governing institutions as part of an overall strategy centered on the notions of "clear, hold, and build" -- clearing areas of insurgents, holding those areas, and building institutions. For the most part, few concrete details have been offered -- like a religious creed, COIN mantras were repeated, but vague answers to the crucial implementation questions on institution-building remain the norm, which is a dangerous proposition.

After spending a historic amount of money in Afghanistan, the United States is still in search of a sustainable governance strategy that will leave behind something of consequence in Afghanistan. On the reconstruction front alone, the United States has appropriated more than $50 billion, and the Obama administration has requested an additional $20 billion. With these new requests, the United States will have spent in Afghanistan more than double what it spent in postwar Germany from 1946 to 1952 and more than four times what was spent in Japan (inflation adjusted), according to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service. Despite all this money, it seems that in many parts of Afghanistan, the United States is starting from scratch and the gap between what is said is being done on institution-building and what is actually being done is significant.

Case in point -- take the infamous "government in a box" idea put forth by Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the recent operation in Marjah. McChrystal said that a central part of the operation was to bring in a local Afghan administration aimed at getting services working and delivering aid. But as many observers and journalists noted, when that government in a box was opened, there wasn't much inside. In advance of Kandahar operations this spring, U.S. military officials have emphasized the centrality of promoting good governance. In putting so much emphasis on governance in their strategic communications, the United States risks remaking the same mistake it made in advance of last year's flawed presidential election -- overpromising on something that may be difficult to deliver... [...]

...This year alone, the United States is planning to spend upwards of $100 billion in Afghanistan in operations, almost 10 times the amount of Afghanistan's GDP of $12 billion. These figures do not include what other countries are spending. These large figures raise the question of sustainability and whether what the United States is building with its partners will be able to stand on its own.

This one quote from Katulis is a concise summary of the problem, if a bit understated:

What troubles me is the lack of clarity about the implementation plan for getting the job done in Afghanistan -- if we don't know precisely want we want to achieve, then we risk open-ended involvement.

This is more a description of a near-decade long malady than a warning about what the future might hold.