Disenfranchised Citizen

And now, a word from our sponsors…

Arson Anthem – Kleptomania

The hidden subtext?

Obviously…    It ain’t jazz, but it’s still New Orleans…

Support Housecore Records.

Have a nice day.

PS…when mainstream music labels wither from the vine…the rest of the grapes’ll all be better off…

Goldman Sachs Headquarters...first, one must recognize the tyrant...second, one must...

So, our economy is in recovery now, did ya hear? Good news for Wall Street, bad news for everybody else but when it comes to our politicians let’s be honest, beyond Wall Street is there really an America?

Ask homeowners facing foreclosure.

Ask the people who are unemployed, who still aren’t getting hired.

Ask the people trying to get loans, who’ve been turned down by the banks who received all the TARP funds, designed in part to increase their lending but in fact, did nothing of the sort.

Hell, just ask anyone who isn’t politically or financially connected to that fiscal top 1% of our country and they might give you another story, just don’t ask the Republicans who are to blame for this whole mess, because they keep trying to tell anyone who’ll listen that the trouble with our economy is the pensions, wages and benefits of state unions, not the banks and investment firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, those same cesspools from which the past three administrations have extracted their financial cabinet types.

So, wanna know how we got into this mess, who should have done something and didn’t or who did something when they shouldn’t have? All the people who are responsible for the trashing of your finances, your predatory home loans, who glad handled policies that made money for their financially elite friends, whose banks then still failed, only to turn around and then design a TARP bailout that gave your money to all their friends and past co-workers, again? 

From Washington’s Blog…(website with outstanding economic analysis and commentary) here is a summary of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s report on the, you guessed it…causes of the financial crisis:

The many causal factors highlighted in the FCIC report via Barry Ritholz:

• Alan Greenspan’s malfeasance — his refusal to perform his regulatory duties because he did not believe in them — allowed the credit bubble to expand, driving housing prices to dangerously unsustainable levels; Greenspan’s advocacy for financial deregulation was a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” and “the prime example” of government negligence;

• Ben S. Bernanke failed to foresee the crisis;

• The Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” — saving Bear, but allowing Lehman to crater — “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”

• Bush Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. wrongly predicted in 2007 that subprime meltdown would be contained.

• The Clinton White House, including then Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, made a crucial error in “shielding over-the-counter derivatives from regulation [CFMA]. This was “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”

• Then NY Fed President, now Treasury secretary Timothy F. Geithner failed to “clamp down on excesses by Citigroup in the lead-up to the crisis;” Further, a month before Lehman’s collapse, Geithner was still in the dark about Lehman’s derivative exposure;

• Low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession “created increased risks” but were not chiefly to blame, according to the FCIC (I place some more weight on Ultra-low rates than they do);

• The financial sector spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with the industry made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions. The impact of which an incestuous relationship between bankers and regulators, Congress and bankers, and classic regulatory capture by the industry.

• The credit-rating agencies “cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.”

• The Securities and Exchange Commission allowed the 5 biggest banks to ramp up their leverage, hold insufficient capital, and engage in risky practices.

• Leverage at the nation’s five largest investment banks was wildly excessive: They kept only $1 in capital to cover losses for about every $40 in assets;

• The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency along with the Office of Thrift Supervision, “federally pre-empted” (blocked) state regulators from reining in lending abuses;

• The report documents “questionable practices by mortgage lenders and careless betting by banks;”

• The report portrays the “bumbling incompetence among corporate chieftains” as to the risk and operations of their own firms:

-Citigroup executives admitting that they paid little attention to the risks associated with mortgage securities.
-AIG executives were blind to its $79 billion exposure to credit default swaps;
-Merrill Lynch top managers were surprised when mortgage investments suddenly resulted in billions of dollars in losses.

Yeah, something like that...

Continue reading:

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Slams Greenspan, Bernake, Geithner, Paulson, Summers, SEC, Rating Agencies and Big Banks for Causing Crisis

Have an inexpensive day.

Just waitin' for the return on a $20 billion dollar investment...

I’ve been writing  a lot over the past few months about Kenneth Feinberg and the failings of the GCCF. Some might even say I’ve become obsessed, but no, not really…it’s just that it’s become increasingly apparent that the Gulf Coast Claims Facility is the third tragedy in five years to hit the Gulf Coast, after Katrina and the Army Corps of Engineer’s levees and after the explosion of British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon, the ensuing oil flow and their ill-advised use of Corexit dispersant.

So much has gone wrong that didn’t need to. So many promises were made by Feinberg and his ilk that have not had the necessary follow through, and so much of it done from an opaque shell where transparency, when it should have been the rule in any sort of arbitrator’s methods, has been a rare exception.

I’ve commented often that many officials should do something about Feinberg and his claims process, from the Justice Department to Congress to Barack Obama…but, I’ve been forgetting someone, or something. Call me crazy, but…wanna know who really has the power to see to it Feinberg makes fair and just payments to anyone directly and indirectly harmed by this spill, to make sure the payments are truly fair enough to keep people out of the courts?

Simple.

British Petroleum.

Yeah, I know…why would a company who has been conveniently using Feinberg as the fall guy to hide behind suddenly step up and do anything to improve the claims process?

Good question.

How about…because that is what they promised to do, made commercials to show they were doing, spoke about in press conferences, in interviews, to anyone who would listen…a promise to make things right.

British Petroleum could make sure everyone who needs it gets adequate health care. They could make sure subsistence claims are paid, that it is easy for people to understand forms. British Petroleum could make sure interim payments and final payments err on the side of being generous, that the process is completely transparent, that everyone has enough to eat, that nobody has to lose a business, a house, a family.

British Petroleum has the power to do all of this, and they said they would when they made their famous PR promise.

Now, I don’t write this because I expect it to happen. Please…I’m way too cynical and we’ve all witnessed way too much damage done over the years in the name of corporate profit to believe that when BP made this promise they meant anything other than making things right, enough. Just enough ’til the media goes away, ’til the pressure stops, ’til we can find someone for everyone to demonize instead of us.

I also don’t write this to give Ken Feinberg a break…he’s been a clusterphuk of his own for a number of months now, and too many people are paying the price for his off the cuff, kinda sort apologies about delays and everything else.

No, I simply write this to remind those of us, myself included, who forget for even a second that the real villain here is the corporation that stands behind Feinberg and the GCCF, and says nothing.

And that would be Robert Dudley and British Petroleum.

With a phone call, they can initiate the repair of the claims process to ensure that not one person or family falls through the cracks in this mess they created…but for the sake of their bottom line, they won’t even consider picking up the phone.

Lest we forget, the curtain needs to pulled aside, or better yet to be set on fire so nobody forgets for a moment… British Petroleum is not living up to their promises or their responsibilities to the Gulf Coast.

Have a nice day.

On Capitol Hill yesterday, this guy and lots of other people, they said a lot of words...and those words, they were important, to them.

So, Feinberg went to Capitol Hill yesterday and did the congressional version of his town hall tour where he promised to post the methodology of how the GCCF will determine interim and final payments to the GCCF website on Tuesday of next week, and then also promised to begin making interim payments on Feb 18th. For all the claimants disappointed by denials or low payment amounts, he maintained that people who want to appeal their denial can do so by one of two ways. If their claim is worth more than $250,000 dollars, they can appeal it to the GCCF, but if their claim is less, they have to appeal to the Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center.

He also said:

1. He is doing the best he can.

2. He acknowledged shortcomings in the process and is trying to improve the GCCF’s transparency.

3. He’s neutral and independent; didn’t you get the chance to read the letter written by his friend that says so, the one his friend was paid to write by British Petroleum, and defended as accurate by British Petroleum’s lawyers?

And that’s not all…under questioning by the likes of Sen. David Vitter and Sen Mary Landrieu, he mentioned the reason he has never come through on his previous promises of posting the calculation methodologies is because he feels the need, “to get this right.” His job is complex and hey, did you know that he has referred over 7000 fraudulent claims to the justice department? Those are the kind of things that are just gumming up the works. Sen Vitter expressed his concern about the quick payments, and how it would appear that the GCCF is spending the majority of their time handling those easy cases while the people more directly impacted by the spill have been forced to wait for much needed money.

Feinberg agreed with this assessment.

Feinberg was gracious throughout the testimony.

Feinberg spun his testimony like nobody’s business, and why not?

What Feinberg knew, and what any self-aware Senator at this hearing yesterday knew was simply that Feinberg is not accountable to Congress, and he would appear to feel he is not accountable to residents of the Gulf Coast, either. A lot of questions were not asked yesterday, and also far removed from much of this equation was a great deal of context.

For those who haven’t been following the story, allow me to explain:

1. The methodology he plans to post on the GCCF website on Tuesday does nothing to help the 80,000 people who have accepted quick payments. They’ve already signed away all their rights. It could also be argued that this late in the game, whereas it will be interesting to know how the GCCF will be coming up with their numbers for interim and final payments, this information should have been posted much, much earlier so the residents damaged by BP’s catastraphuk could have been making informed decisions all along. It’s kind of like having to take finals for a college course, two weeks before the semester even begins. Now, this information will be beneficial to some, but over 400,000 people have been involved in this claims process with 66% of them denied from the get-go, so it would have been far better to have everyone informed from the beginning.

2. In explaining the appeals process, he gave the impression to Congress that people have recourse to their dissatisfaction with the claims process, but this is only true if that recourse actually helps anyone. Whereas the numbers about people who have appealed to the GCCF are hard to come by, as are most details to what the GCCF is doing (hence the complaints about lack of transparency) when people have appealed to the Coast Guard board, the numbers are in. There have been 507 appeals made and so far, 200 have been heard. All have been denied.

3. In bringing up the fact that he has sent 7000 claims to the Justice Department to be prosecuted for fraud, apparently using this as some indirect justification for the slowness of the process, well that doesn’t hold up at all and when you look at the averages in fraud cases after disasters, this also makes the people of the Gulf Coast look exceptionally honest. In any post disaster reparations period, the average amount of fraudulent claims tends to be ten percent, so when Feinberg receives 480,000 claims and he only finds 7,000 of them to be potentially fraudulent, that isn’t even two percent.

4. When it comes to subsistence claims, Feinberg has very little to say, but the numbers speak for themselves. The GCCF has received 16,000 subsistence claims, or claims by people who have been living off their catch more directly through trade within their community, eating their catch…etc. Of the 16,000 claims, the GCCF has paid only fifteen.

5. When it comes to the quick payment, much can be said. Feinberg’s stated plan for the quick payment was to clear the rolls of people who would have a hard time proving further loss by giving individuals $5000 dollars and business $25,000 dollars to essentially sign away all their rights and go away. Sen. Vitter expressed his concern that this is what is gumming up the works and keeping the people hardest hit by the oil spill from getting their claims paid. Okay, true and Feinberg almost acknowledged it in saying “I agree, commercial fishermen, shrimpers, have waited too long for the final payments and interim payments.” But what appears to left out of this is that while Vitter and Feinberg were congratulating the process and trying to deflect criticism that people are not taking the quick pay out of desperation, generally, the estimate of the people who shouldn’t and have taken quick payments is 3,000 claims. Three thousand people, many of them with families who have taken the quick money because they quite possibly were feeling desperate, because they saw no other choice, three thousand people who quite possibly felt the need to take this claim because of the slowness in the entire GCCF claims process. No matter how you look at it, that is simply three thousand people too many. Period.

6. Finally, it would appear that nobody wanted to talk too much about the fact that all these people accepting quick payment claims and those who will accept final payment are signing away their rights to sue British Petroleum and a hundred other companies. Again, forcing people to make a present day decision based on unknown futures, when their culture, their professions, and due to the ongoing sickness in the Gulf, their very lives may be at stake is simply wrong. It only benefits British Petroleum for them to do so, and British Petroleum is the primary cause of this entire mess…so why do they get the free pass, while everybody else has to take the risk of being screwed in the future?

When will somebody in the GCCF, or Congress, or the White House finally answer that question?

And on another note, when Sen. Charles Schumer recommended for some inexplicable reason that Feinberg should be put in charge of the new 9/11 first responders compensation fund, Sen. Vitter tried to get Feinberg to pre-emptively turn it down, lest it take away his focus from the Gulf of Mexico, Feinberg said he wouldn’t rule it out.

It’s good to be the king. God help ya, New York.

Have a nice day.

Master of disasters...yeah, sounds about right...

After a less than successful southern swing through the Gulf States, today Ken Feinberg’s GCCF disaster tour will be on Capitol Hill to answer questions from the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, chaired by Senator Mary Landrieu. The questions are expected to be aggressive, tough and the demands will be high. Rep Steve Scalise from Jefferson Parish set a preemptive tone this week by issuing a letter calling for the GCCF to change their ways:

“The people of Louisiana deserve transparency throughout the claims process and Mr. Feinberg has refused to adapt the process to better suit the needs of the people affected by the BP disaster,” Scalise said. “The GCCF’s opaque nature detracts from its credibility and adds to claimants’ frustration as they try to understand why their claim was denied or underpaid, and Mr. Feinberg has acknowledged this problem in the past but has failed to modify the GCCF’s approach. As a result of this, many claimants have fallen through the cracks, and can’t get answers to basic questions about their claims. Mr. Feinberg must be held accountable to the victims of this disaster, and I eagerly await his response to my request.”

Mr. Feinberg is expected to answer this today by saying he is…

1. Doing the best he can.

2. Promising to be more transparent…again…

3. Denying accusations he is not neutral…again…

Rep. Scalise, in his letter, questioned why Feinberg would consider pulling 150 local people out of the claims offices at a time when few claimants can get an answer to their questions, especially considering Feinberg’s previous commitments to keep local people in those offices, as it would seem more people are needed to help the GCCF complete their task, not less. Beyond this, Scalise would like to know details on who is being paid and why and maybe even more importantly, who isn’t and why not. He is also seeking information regarding the formula for how payments are calculated, the total number of people employed by the GCCF, and the number of unprocessed six month emergency claims and justifications for why these claims remain unpaid.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to answer this today by saying he is:

1. Doing the best he can.

2. Promising to be more transparent…again…again…

3. Denying any accusation he is not neutral, because he has a letter stating so, written by a friend of his who was paid $950 dollars an hour to do so, paid with BP’s money.

Meanwhile:

The Attorneys General of the Gulf Coast States continue to weigh in on all matters GCCF with Mississippi AG, Jim Hood requesting that US District Court Judge Carl Barbier appoint someone who would have oversight over the operations of Ken Feinberg and the GCCF, and determine whether Feinberg’s no-sue clause is overly broad. Hood says Feinberg continues to deny the state’s attorneys access to the GCCF database that would provide details on the claims payments. Feinberg, despite saying that when then claims process is over this same information will be given to British Petroleum, has told the attorneys he is unwilling to compromise the privacy of claimants.

Meanwhile:

Plaintiff’s attorneys have submitted a petition to US District Court Judge Barbier stating their belief that all claims Feinberg and the GCCF are making about their ability to act independently of BP is both “inaccurate and misleading.”

Highlights of the petition include:

“A recognized standard of accuracy is whether the statements are materially misleading considered as a whole, which is the modern definition of fraud,” UC law professor, Geoffrey Hazard chided in his 10-page statement.

He contends that the claims on behalf of the facility’s impartiality “portray GCCF procedure as more just and fair than that in the ordinary tort system.” Hazard said such notions are belied by conditions on claims payouts, such as requiring claimants to sign away their legal rights to sue BP or other liable parties at a later date, regardless of future harm to their health or financial well-being arising from heretofore unknown consequences of the spill.

“The GCCF procedure requires claimants, in order to receive final payment, to release BP from types of damages … that are not being considered by the GCCF,” Hazard wrote. Additionally, Hazard insists that there’s no way the Feinberg-run fund can maintain objectivity when BP is paying all of its expenses — including the $800,000-per-month fee charged by Feinberg’s law firm. “GCCF is not entirely independent because its operating expenses, which are substantial, come from BP,” Hazard wrote. “The GCCF is not a mediator, according to ordinary understanding of that term, because it was established unilaterally by BP and not with agreement of opposing claimants.”

Mr. Feinberg is expected to answer this by saying he is:

1. Doing the best he can.

2. Okay, really, I promise I will be more transparent…ASAP.

3. Seriously, read the letter my friend wrote, it cost BP well over a thousand dollars…

Meanwhile:

An expert tasked by the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee to review aspects of the operation of the GCCF has also found many problems with the claims made by Feinberg about his ability to act independently. Edward F. Sherman, Professor of Law at Tulane University addressed the operation and role of the claims facility in his five page declaration to Judge Barbier’s court, and through this declaration he reports he is concerned by the following conclusions:

- Feinberg and BP, while maintaining that Feinberg is independent, the arbitrator in fact consulted with BP about the standards for payment of claims, and the fee arrangement, paid by BP was not publicized and most claimants would not have known about it and should have, in order to take this into account before accepting a payment offer from the GCCF.

- That Feinberg, while maintaining his “independence” indicated to claimants they would be better off settling their claims with the GCCF rather than litigating.

- Claimants should be made aware who is paying the bills of the private attorneys hired by Feinberg in helping claimants determine their best options.

- Finally, “The kind of release required by the GCCF in order for a claimant to receive a final payment also raises question as to how independent the GCCF is…”

Professor Sherman gives his opinion that the court should limit or clarify the GCCF’s communications with claimants and in their public announcements, so the claimants can be said to have made informed choices.

But of course, BP has a different opinion on the matters raised by Professor Sherman: Attorneys for BP have filed a motion in opposition to a recent plaintiff filing asking that U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier supervise communications between defendants and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) in the Gulf oil spill litigation. BP attorneys…point to a letter by New York University legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers to Feinberg as ethical counsel on the matter. Gillers wrote that the plaintiff’s “suggestion that you are not independent because you are BP’s lawyer is wrong. You are not BP’s lawyer.”

Feinberg is expected to add:

1. See, I told you I had a letter saying I was “independent,” written by a friend, paid for by British Petroleum and now defended as accurate and legitimate by British Petroleum’s own lawyers.

2. What do you mean, conflict of interest?

3. I’m neutral damnit, and didn’t I say I was going to be more transparent, really, I promise…again…and again…and again…sometime, really, in the near future, the transparency is so close I can taste it…

Meanwhile:

Gulf Coast residents have had several tastes of the claims facility’s operations and promises, and they taste like shit.

So what happens when Ken Feinberg goes to congress and is grilled by congress type people? Well, as indicated on Tuesday evening, the President is MIA on this one, and the president is one of the few people who can apply pressure on this situation. Attorney’s, local, state and federal politicians, the Justice Department have been making demands for months with little to show for it but more mea culpas and promises from Feinberg and the GCCF, all for naught. So, I’d love to say that this little congressional session will make Feinberg think, will make him take a step back, will result in him appearing more neutral, but my hopes are slim at best…

Though not a fan of litigation, it would seem that it is in claimants best interest to hire lawyers, after all, Feinberg is one, and has many at his disposal, and so does British Petroleum and everyone else at fault in this whole mess. Much as Feinberg strove to keep this all out of the courts, it is his very tactics in the claims process that is driving more and more people there, seeing it as their only means of making things right.

Then again, what do I know…I’m just a social worker.

Have a nice day.

And as your president, I promise to always stand strong for all 46 states of our great Union...

Barack Obama gave his State of the Union speech last night and did his best George W Bush impression by not mentioning Louisiana and coastal restoration. He also did his best to avoid such a foreign concept as global warming, and when it came to Ken Feinberg’s GCCF and that oil spill, that whole British Petroleum thing that happened down there in the Gulf, well…

It would appear that was so last year.

Too bad that for the people of the Gulf Coast, it remains so today, so right now.

From Florida Oil Spill Law:

“Really Alarming” No baby oysters being found in most productive areas of Louisiana – “Scientists are baffled.”

“All the fish are dead” Trout now washing up on beach near Galveston, TX.

Bumble Bee Seafood shuts down processing plant near New Orleans, moves to Thailand – Official blames oil disaster.

And then, some congressional democrat had to further go and screw up Obama’s lack of mention by bringing up a few e-mails to point out that the Fed’s whole response, or lack of response can be blamed in part by, you guessed it, public relations and politics:

A Democratic congressman wrote a scathing letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama accusing the White House of valuing public relations over science when it made public pronouncements about the effects of the BP oil spill and the government’s role in fighting it. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a liberal conservationist and avowed opponent of expanded offshore drilling, charges that spin control won out over scientific reasoning during discussions late last summer about how much oil remained in the Gulf. The congressman went so far as to liken Obama’s handling of scientific information to that of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, often accused by Democrats of placing his political agenda ahead of science.

Who, Obama?

Didn’t he pledge to do precisely the opposite?

Many scientists supported Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 which culminated in the promise to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inaugural address.

Course, then the science got a bit inconvenient to poll numbers, public perception, and the new narrative that all is well in the Gulf…reported on national television by the now resigned, Carol Browner.

In one e-mail cited by Grijalva, a NOAA official complained about getting “strong pushback” from the White House regarding scientists’ plan to announce that the total amount of oil spilled might be higher than the official government-endorsed figure of 4.9 million barrels. The final report stuck with the 4.9 million barrel figure, which was near the high end of the scientists’ estimate of 3 million-5 million barrels spilled.

Another e-mail sent July 31 from Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe warned that it would be a mistake to present the exact percentage of the oil broken down by chemical dispersants, a controversial part of the government’s response, because the numbers were only “rough estimates.” But he was overruled and told the White House wanted a “communication product” that would highlight the success of its spill-fighting efforts.

And just as interesting, turns out one of the “independent” scientists who assisted in the review of the infamous oil budget that stated half the oil was gone, was a British Petroleum official whose name was removed from later drafts and not included in the final version of the report.

To which, Representative Issa expresses the obvious concern:

I am concerned not only about any changes BP may have suggested to the report that were not publicly disclosed, but about how a report of this magnitude can be considered independent when the company under investigation had a staffer review a pre-publication draft.

And this brings us all back to last night’s State of the Union address.

The SOTU highlights an agenda, the presidential agenda and it attempts to set the agenda out there for the American people and the mainstream press to follow, to report on, to discuss. When the science doesn’t support the narrative that the Gulf is okay, when the facts don’t support the idle dream that the people in the Gulf are being taken care of or British Petroleum is owning up to its responsibility, this president who promised to bring science back into the fold and not ignore the Gulf Coast, did what the previous president did, and many of the presidents did before him, he simply left the problem off the agenda, dismissed it from the speech altogether and in doing so sat idly by while the whole issue of the spill, the claims process and coastal restoration is left to drift further from the minds of the average American.

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida had a chance last night to be put back in the spotlight as they rightfully should have been. British Petroleum had the chance to have the scrutiny placed back onto their promise to “make things right.” Ken Feinberg had the chance, two days before his appearance at congress, to be put on notice that the White House wants answers.

But instead, Barack Obama gave nothing, no mention, just like George W Bush before him during Katrina’s aftermath. It took a congressman from Arizona of all places to raise the question of politics in the Gulf Coast response.

And today, the Gulf Coast still waits for Obama’s answer.

Have a nice day.

Just another commodities market...

My fellow Americans…

I come before you today to say that the era of rationality is dead.

What do I mean?

Simple…

Being rational has led to hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes. Being rational has led to the hyper-inflated salary of CEO’s such as Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America. Being rational has led to crumbling infrastructures, the failings of the levees in New Orleans and the abandonment of Charity Hospital in favor of a huge medical complex that takes even more of your money and destroys a residential neighborhood. Being rational has led to the privatization of water supplies, the destruction of health care, your schools and local business. Being rational has led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Politicians, they love when the American public is rational, so does Wall Street, the insurance companies, and your local police department.

Let me give you an example…

In San Francisco a number of years back, on the anniversary of one of those wars, there was quite the large to-do. Thousands of citizens engaged in a march and rally against the war. The organizing groups applied for the proper permits, stated the appropriate times when it would begin and when it would end. The San Francisco Police Department ushered the crowd along, down Market Street on the pre-planned parade route from the Embarcadero Plaza to the Civic Center in front of City Hall where music was played, vendors sold food and you could even buy the T-shirt to say you were there…

It was entirely rational and everybody was happy, festive, engaged and…nothing.

Nothing happened, a bit of television coverage, and nothing else.

The wars went on, the people went out to dinner, to the bars, home to try to see themselves on television that night.

But here’s a different kind of example…

In Chicago a couple of years back, at Republic Windows and Doors, this factory was set to close down. The employees were all issued their walking papers, they were told to leave, they were given nothing…and they went nowhere. They occupied the factory, they said they weren’t leaving, not until their demands were met, demands that included severance pay, health care…options. The community of Chicago rallied behind them, brought them food, made a spectacle and five days later each employee walked out with severance pay and extended health care.

Those employees were not being rational.

Another example…

Couple of years ago during a May-day parade, again in the city of San Francisco…there was a hidden group amongst the marchers heading down Market Street and they had a plan. They told nobody about their plan. They didn’t ask for permission. They didn’t apply for permits. At the right time, and the right place, while the SFPD were occupied elsewhere, they stole into the business district, took advantage of the street layout, blocked traffic by rolling dumpsters into the street and began smashing the windows of the GAP, Urban Outfitters, Pottery Barn and several others. They then dashed back to the downtown alleyways, changed back into street clothes and walked away. The news media was all over it. It was a story for days. People talked about it at home, at work, both negative and positive. None of the activists were ever caught, and over time they have become legends inspiring hundreds of other people into active participation, either other activists or the hundreds of tourists who watched their movements and went back home, across the country and perchance, dared to ask why it happened?

These people were not being rational.

So, rationality or irrationality…which methods make the difference?

Well, was Ghandi being rational? How about Martin Luther King or Malcolm X? How about our founding fathers, were they being rational? How about the union members and activists in Seattle who shut down the meetings of the World Bank, were they being rational?

When those thousands of people marching in protest to war in San Francisco those years back, what if they had suddenly turned right and headed off the pre-planned parade route, would that have been rational? What if they had not stopped at the lawn before City Hall, what if they had gone straight through the door and occupied City Hall, would that have been rational?

Nope, but it would have been more interesting, inspiring and done more for people and their belief in their own power than just buying a t-shirt and having a story to tell…a boring story.

These are not rational times, and they are not rational times because the American people have been cowed into rationality by economic and terrorist fear, fear for their families, their homes, that last bit of the American Dream that Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, that James Gorman, CEO of Morgan Stanley have so far been unable to take away from you…oh, but they’re trying and yes, they are winning… for in the White House, in the Commerce Department and in the Federal Treasury sit their co-workers and former employees, all busy at work trying to find a way to help them do it, to you, right now.

You didn’t vote for them. No, you voted for change, for the Audacity of Hope and what did you get?

You got proposed austerity cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy. You got the state of Arizona denying life saving medical procedures to people who have since died. And why did they die? Because they couldn’t afford the required medical procedure to live.

So how about you…can you afford to live?

Can you afford to be irrational?

What does being irrational even mean?

What does it mean to me, a disenfranchised citizen, now…today?

That doesn’t matter. What does matter is, what does irrationality mean to you? And in coming up with a definition, what can you dream up, alone, in your communities, in your families…and then what will you do about it?

Because the people of rational belief…oh yeah, they’re doing it, twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, even as you read this, while none of the powers that be are doing much, if anything to stop them. America is a fire sale and every last one of you, every last one of your kids is on display, on the shelf, discounted, and the rational are greedy and they are buying wholesale in the store that don’t close, ever.

Not unless you close it down, irrationally.

Dream it up, and do it…we’re left with little choice because the rational, both democrats and republicans have set the social contract on fire and the only thing that can put out the flames are you.

God bless, America and…

Have a nice day.

Don’t know, but today I’m gonna investigate, try to find out…

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History

Have a nice day.

Only if I'm re-elected...maybe.

As told before, but it bears repeating, the LEAN network released the blood test results from 12 Gulf Coast residents that were sampled in September, November and December and here’s the results:

Benzene: 4 blood samples, 11.9 to 35.8 times higher than the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Educational Survey) 95th percentile.

Ethlybenzene: detected in all twelve blood samples, all in excess of the NHANES 95th percentile.

m,p-Xylene: Eleven blood samples detected levels higher than the NHANES 95th percentile.

Hexane: All twelve samples had hexane in their blood.

2-Methylpentane: Again, all twelve samples.

3-Methylpentane: All twelve.

Isooctane: Eleven of the twelve.

And what do these twelve people get for playing?

The possibility of contracting anemia, leukemia and other forms of cancer, ovarian shrinkage, damage to hearing and the ear, dizziness, kidney and liver damage, respiratory distress…etc…

Why?

Certainly, it could be oil spills, chemical exposures and dispersants.

From Cherri Foytin – co-founder of the grassroots group Gulf Change when speaking to the president’s oil Spill Commission:

“Today I’m talking to you about my life. My ethylbenzene levels are 2.5 times the [NHANES] 95th percentile, and there’s a very good chance now that I won’t get to see my grandbabies.”

It should be noted, promises have been made to reopen the health issues at the White House. It should also be noted that British Petroleum has been promising for seven months to “make things right,” and Ken Feinberg, arbitrator of the GCCF has been promising greater transparency in the claims process. But unless BP has found a cure for cancer and Feinberg has found a cure for legal obfuscation…perhaps we shant hold our breath on the White House, who appears very busy lately, working with large-scale banks and corporations to divide up the rest of this country, while cutting payroll money to fund social security.

Oh, and of course we should note that Feinberg continues to beam with pride about his quick pay settlements that over 60,000 Gulf Coast residents have taken…and if they get sick, will now have no recourse to sue BP and a hundred other companies as a result.

Concern for the Gulf?

Hardly.

Make things right?

Nah…

The only people concerned about the Gulf of Mexico are the same people BP, the Feds and the GCCF trinity of negligence are desperately trying to forget about, leave behind, push out of the news cycles…and that would be the people who live there, who are suffering there, who are trying to put their lives back together after being forgotten by the federal government, again…

Rosina Philippe, an Atakapa tribe member from the bayou says she won’t feel safe “until things stop dying.”

Here’s hoping the White House gets a fucking clue soon because when the mainstream press started taking pictures of all that oil covered wildlife, the country freaked out and his approval ratings dropped. Okay then, how about pictures of residents dying in hospital beds while you offer condolences, and apologies that when it was necessary you did and said, nothing.

Or is that just a problem for some future administration?

Have a nice day.

And now a word from our sponsors…

Jucifer – Fleur de Lis

The hidden subtext?

Obviously…     A much overdue thanks to all the friends – old and new – who helped confirm a more New Orleans risky wisdom.

Have a nice day.