Daily Kos

Website: http://kevinmullaney.com
Email: none@none.com

Actor, teacher, school administrator, activist.

The "Obama is breaking the law" meme

Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM PDT

On Friday, Obama met with Democratic Governors in Chicago. It was a fairly straight forward meeting about economic manners, but there seems to be some people throwing a fit about the graphic that was placed on the head table in front of Obama.

The graphic is reminiscent of the Presidential Seal, with a bald eagle holding 13 arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other. It seems rather insignificant, but some bloggers seem to be making a big deal about it. Many are insisting that his use of the seal is illegal.

Bush on Wilderness: Open for Business

Mon Oct 25, 2004 at 09:39:29 AM PDT

With all the focus on the Al Qaqaa story, I want to make sure this story from the LA Times (c/o Yahoo) doesn't get lost either.

In 1999, the federal government acknowledged the unique character of the area, where 150 million years of the earth's geologic history unfolds and the forces of nature continue to shape the rugged landscape. The Bureau of Land Management put more than 440,000 acres off-limits to industrial development.

The protection was short-lived.

Within four years, the area was opened to oil and gas exploration. Under the Bush administration, 2.6 million acres of Utah land that had been shielded from development were suddenly open for business.

Frankly I've been surprised that the environment has not been a bigger issue in this election. No where is it more clear to me how corrupt this administration is than in their handling of the environment.

Bush handling of Iraq = incompetence and hubris.
Bush handling of Environment = corruption.

Working the phone banks for ACT

Mon Oct 25, 2004 at 01:32:25 AM PDT

Last night, I finally got directly involved in the campaign. I worked a few hours on the phone banks for America Coming Together. ACT has been working hard registering new voters in swing states and finding volunteers to get out the vote on election day.

For some time, I've been registered as a volunteer on the Kerry site, but I've been unable to attend any functions. I signed up to help in PA, but I was a little baffled on how to actually do anything and was disappointed that I didn't get any messages from the campaign beyond the mass emails notice that arrive every couple of days.

Then a couple of weeks ago, I checked out ACT's website after reading about them here. I finally found a phone bank session that fit my schedule and signed up. Here's what happened on my first night.

Clean Air: "a giant step backwards"

Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 11:32:25 AM PDT

On last night's Dateline, Stone Phillips interviewed Bruce Buckheit who was until recently head of the air enforcement division at the EPA. Under the Clinton administration, he used the New Source Review rules to get electrical utilities to clean up their emissions. His tactics were working, at least in one case where a Tampa utility invested nearly a billion dollars to upgrade their plants, dramatically reducing dangerous emissions and improving the air quality in Florida. Although costly, the company was able to absorb the costs partly through "increased productivity at his new natural gas plant and company-wide efficiencies".

So naturally when the Bush administration came in, they saw a program that was working and reinforced it. I mean Bush cares about the clean air. He must, right?

Well, not according to the head air enforcement:

Last year, during a visit to one of the nation's largest coal-burning power plants, President Bush announced that New Source Review had been overhauled. The new rule encourages utilities to make improvements to their old plants to increase their efficiency, while relaxing the requirement to add those expensive pollution controls. the change was made in spite of a 2001 memo from former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to Vice President Dick Cheney, warning:  "we will pay a terrible political price if we undercut or walk away from the enforcement cases. It will be hard to refute the charge that we are deciding not to enforce the Clean Air Act."

While the energy industry applauded the rule change, more than a dozen state attorneys general appealed it, asking the federal courts to reinstate New Source Review as a necessary enforcement tool. Buckheit says it was the hammer that helped him forge that landmark agreement in Tampa...

Phillips: "What's the biggest enforcement challenge right now when it comes to air pollution?"

Buckheit: "The Bush Administration. An opportunity to reduce pollution just as we saw in Tampa is being foregone."

Phillips: "Are you saying this administration just doesn't care about air pollution?"

Buckheit: "Yes. I'm saying this administration has decided to put the economic interests of the coal fired power plants ahead of the public interests in reducing air pollution."

Phillips: "That's a pretty serious allegation."

Buckheit: "Well, I was the head of the air enforcement division up until a couple weeks ago and I watched it happen."

Before he retired last December, Buckheit was ordered to shut down further New Source Review investigations at other utilities.

Buckheit: "We had several dozen investigations."

Phillips: "Ongoing."

Buckheit: "Ongoing. Strong cases, where I had to tell the regional engineers and lawyers, stop.  Put your documents in the box, so that hopefully we can get back to it someday.  But otherwise, you know, stop your investigation."

Hen House Guard of the Day: EPA's Jeffrey Holmstead

Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 12:59:31 PM PDT

One common theme for the Bush administration is that  it seems that many (if not most) of their appointments to head regulatory bodies are former lobbyists, advocates or executives for the industries that they will regulate. Today's example of this is Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, EPA.

I first noticed him referenced in stories about the current flap over proposed new mercury emission rules coming from the EPA. According to the LA Times:

Mercury was on the agenda at a staff meeting last spring at EPA headquarters presided over by Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer who represented industry interests on air-pollution issues before Bush appointed him to run the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Several of the staff members said they expected to discuss plans to carry out comparative studies of proposals to reduce mercury emissions. The studies, which had been requested by the federal advisory panel, were designed to examine the impact of mercury regulation on energy markets, electricity prices and public health.

But William Wehrum, a senior adviser to Holmstead who also represented industry clients before joining the Bush administration, told the dozen or so employees that comparative studies would be postponed indefinitely.

"I was floored," one participant said. "We pointed out that the studies were required ... that the data runs were promised to a federal advisory committee."

Holmstead did not respond to the expressions of concern, participants said. "There was an awkward silence," one recalled.

After the meeting, two staff members said, Holmstead informed them the studies would not be conducted partly because of "White House concern."

So who this guy? Here is a bio from Mother Jones:

From 1993 until his appointment to the EPA, Holmstead worked at the Washington law firm Latham & Watkins, representing the American Farm Bureau Federation in a case against the EPA, as well as Montrose Chemical and the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy. According to his official White House bio, Holmstead's work at the law firm "included a number of environmental issues--including many arising under the Clean Air Act." In fact, Holmstead represented chemical companies and industry groups seeking looser pollution standards.

From 1989 to 1993, he served as associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, advising him on environmental policy. Holmstead also served as an adjunct scholar for Citizens for the Environment, a libertarian group founded and funded by oil giants Charles and David Koch.

Holmstead is overseeing the administration's overhaul of Clean Air Act rules, which will allow industrial plants to expand without installing better pollution controls. When EPA scientists came up with data indicating that the administration's "Clear Skies" proposal would increase pollution, he reportedly replied, "How can we justify Clear Skies if this gets out?"

More on the Mercury Outrage

Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 11:56:25 AM PDT

The St. Peterburg Times ran an editorial today about the new proposed mercury rules.

Science or politics?
Published April 12, 2004

Is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Leavitt going to bring professionalism back to the regulatory process or be a Bush administration puppet? His decision on mercury pollution could provide the answer.

Even Leavitt seemed surprised to learn that, before his appointment, EPA had bypassed the usual scientific method in adopting mercury abatement rules. Instead, the agency borrowed whole paragraphs from suggestions by the utility industry, whose coal-fired power plants produce most mercury pollution. When Leavitt discovered those shortcomings, he ordered more analysis and insisted he wanted the regulation process "done right."

The threat is real. According to EPA experts, as many as 630,000 infants born during the 12-month period studied could have unsafe blood mercury levels. Airborne mercury ends up in the nation's lakes, rivers and coastal waters where it accumulates in fish. Even a small amount of contaminated fish in a pregnant woman's diet can threaten her fetus and lead to developmental delays. Older children and adults can also suffer neurological damage from ingesting too much mercury.

The Bush administration is required to have rules in place by the end of the year to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, but a curious thing happened along the way. EPA staffers were told to postpone studies that would have provided a scientific rationale for choosing among regulatory alternatives, according to the Los Angeles Times. Then a federal advisory panel that was supposed to use that data to make a recommendation had its meetings canceled. Panel member John Paul, a Republican, concluded that EPA officials chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach."

The official who made those decisions is Jeffrey Holmstead, head of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. He was a utility industry lobbyist prior to his appointment. Staffers told the Los Angeles Times that Holmstead cited "White House concern" as his reason for ignoring the established rulemaking procedures.

I've added the bold for emphasis.

Update on Proposed EPA Mercury Rules

Sun Apr 11, 2004 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

The proposed new rules for mercury emissions are a clear example of how the Bush administration is undermining environmental regulations. Here is news round up about the situation:

Note: If we are going to defeat Bush in November, I think we need to get focused on some issues beyond Iraq and the War on Terrorism. We need to focus people on issues of education, environment, health care and the deficit--all areas where Bush is very vulnerable.

Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

The Center for American Progress was well prepared for Condi's opening statement. Check out their rebuttals on their website.

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Check out their site for the full list of lies.

Industry Lobbyists Write EPA Regulations

Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 02:25:30 PM PDT

Lobbyists give money to Bush campaign. Bush gets elected. Bush impedes, rewrites, dismantles regulations that lobbyist doesn't like. Sound familiar? Sounds way too familiar to me.

Paul Krugman's latest NY Times Op-Ed is about Bush's new policies on mercury polution.

Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and infants -- which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore tuna, that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of American women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe.

During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that mercury is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff estimated that enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this determination and proposed a "cap and trade" system for mercury that it claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer...

So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously wrong on the science?

The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse. The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most key environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously made his living representing polluting industries (which, in case you haven't guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the administration didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

Baby Seal Hunting is Back!

Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 01:27:03 PM PDT

The New York Times ran a story yesterday about the resurgence of clubbing baby seals to death.

Now, Canada has lifted the quota to a rate unheard of in a half century, buoyed by new markets in Russia and Poland, and changing environmental calculations. A recovering market has turned into a quiet boom.

Here on ice patches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the hunt looks nearly as brutal as ever. For as far as the eye can see, dozens of burly men bearing clubs roam the ice in snowmobiles and spiked boots in search of silvery young harp seals. With one or two blows to the head, they crush the skulls, sometimes leaving the young animals in convulsions. The men drag the bodies to waiting fishing vessels or skin them on the spot, leaving a crisscross of bloody trails on the slowly melting ice.

The article quotes Rebecca Aldworth, an antihunt advocate with the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I decided to look up her organization and I found their site. There is a link on the home page about a senate resolution calling on Canada to end the practice.

Support US Senate Resolution 269 - Call for an End to Canada's Seal Hunt

On November 20, 2003, Senator Carl Levin introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on Canada to end the commercial seal hunt. The resolution condemns the hunt as a commercial slaughter that fails to adhere to basic animal welfare regulations, and asks the Canadian government to put an end to the hunt.

Anyone know if this resolution is still on the table? Probably not after 5 months, but perhaps the NYTimes article will raise the issue again.

Bush administration covered up one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history

Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 11:32:03 PM PDT

A veteran government bureaucrat with 30 years experience blows the whistle on the Bush administration by appearing on 60 minutes. No this isn't about Richard Clarke. It's about Jack Spadaro. He's an engineer from National Mine Health and Safety Academy (MSHA), a branch of the Department of Labor.

"I had never seen anything so corrupt and lawless in my entire career, what I saw regarding interference with a federal investigation of the most serious environmental disaster in the history of the Eastern United States," says Spadaro.

"I've been in government since Richard Nixon. I've been through the Reagan administration, Carter and Clinton. I've never seen anything like this."

What he's talking about is what he calls a government cover-up of an investigation into a disaster 25 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

The disaster itself cannot be blamed on the Bush administration. But we can blame Bush for crippling the investigation and levying appallingly low fines. You see, company is a big campaign contributor to the Bush.

During the investigation carried out by Spadaro and his colleagues, it came out that there had been a previous spill in 1994 at the same impoundment. The mining company claimed it had taken measures to make sure it wouldn't happen again, but an engineer working for the company said the problem had not been fixed, and that both he and the company knew another spill was virtually inevitable...

The investigators were going to cite the coal company for serious violations that would probably have led to large fines and even criminal charges.

But all that changed when the Bush administration took over and decided that the country needed more energy -- and less regulation of energy companies. The investigation into Massey Energy, a generous contributor to the Republican Party, was cut short...

Originally, Spadaro says his investigating team wanted to cite the company for eight violations. But in the end, Massey Energy was only cited for two violations, and had to pay approximately $110,000 in fines - not a lot for the fifth largest mining company in America.

There's much more to the story including a subsequent botched investigation, a demotion for the whistleblower, and flouting of laws concerning open bidding for contracts.


::