Disenfranchised Citizen

...abandon you, your ideas and ideals, your hopes and dreams and stuff...

On ABC’s This Week, White House Political Director David Plouffe said:

“This isn’t about playing on a Republican playing field. This country, our economy, has to reduce the deficit, we have to live within our means. And if you’re a progressive, there’s a powerful case for deficit reduction. Things like college loans, college scholarships, spending on things like roads and bridges that put construction workers to work, if we don’t reduce the deficit in the not too distant future, we’re not going to have room to do any of that. So we’re going to have to live within our means…”

David? Barack? All of you who would pump up your own credentials on the backs of the poor?

Those of us out here in this country who tend to believe we are all in this thing called the United States together are not children. We don’t need to be lectured. We understand what it looks like when politicians take compassion and bastardize it for their own benefit. We understand what it looks like when rich complain about private jet traffic jams getting their kids to summer camp in Maine, while a Democratic President allows Medicare cuts. We understand what an enormous tax break for the wealthy looks like, while the poor get screwed.

We do.

And so do the wealthier ones:

Why the Wealthy Are Afraid Of Violence From Below

We understand, Barack, that a cuts only budget deal with some half-baked promise of the potential for maybe…we’ll see, and think about later loophole closures, is good enough for you and your Republican friends.

Friends like Warren Buffet who said,

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Warren Buffett, the world’s third-richest man, said in 2006, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Buffett had done the math and realized that he paid far less, as a fraction of his income, than the secretaries in his office.

We get it.

And we agree, this country does have to reduce its deficits. Many of us tend to read economists though, a whole lot of economists who almost as a rule say austerity cuts, especially in a recession are a bad idea. Shit, ask Britain how well their version of austerity (cuts only, no revenue) isn’t working.

It’s actually pretty simple…follow along:

Budget cuts lead to lost income for many, many people. When people lose income, they don’t spend. When other people see people lose income, they don’t spend either. If nobody spends, businesses don’t make money. If businesses don’t make money, the economy doesn’t grow. If there’s no growth, no new jobs are created. No new jobs leads to lost income for many.

And we’re back…

Want to know what else we read?

We read articles like this:

Poll Numbers Show Public Prefers Revenue Solutions To Cuts, But All of Them Have Been Abandoned

Why the Wealthiest Americans Are the Real ‘Job-Killers’

Top Reagan Advisors: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

We also read:

If McCain Had Won

So, don’t lecture people who care about others, believing they don’t understand the deficit, how we got here, or that we don’t really understand what it means to the future. We do. We just think you either can’t read or don’t listen to economists or the American people…or maybe your self-interest outweighs your compassion and ability, your necessity, to fight for the people you made all those promises to, and now see fit to lecture.

Either way, the poor and middle class are getting screwed, again, by a Democratic President…on a Republican playing field.

So…fuck you.

Have a nice day.

Call the doctor...

Ain’t just Washington DC Republicans and Democrats wheeling and dealing with austerity cuts to harm the people of this country, their health and the environment, (gotta keep that spending and revenue down so them wealthy job creators can keep on job creating) Feinberg, administrator of the GCCF is doing his part too, assisting British Petroleum and their $5 billion dollar plus profit this quarter by making austerity cuts to any sort of health claims people might direct towards the GCCF, as opposed to  the less restrictive work he did with the 9-11 and Agent Orange funds.

In a new report, released by AEHR, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, it’s demonstrated how Ken Feinberg has changed his ways when it comes to the health of those so harmed by tragedy, in this instance, all the people who live along the Gulf Coast, helped clean it up or just happened to be visiting at a really unfortunate time.

According to Feinberg, he has received roughly 200 health related claims, but has rejected them all because they failed to show “proof,” by way of medical documentation, documentation…documentation!…that the illnesses were related to toxic exposure from the oil spill.

This standard of medical proof should be compared to his previous, less restrictive requirements:

The Agent Orange Settlement Fund:

No proof was required for medical causation. All that was necessary was for the claimant to show they were in an area where the herbicide, Agent Orange was sprayed and that they had a related medical diagnosis.

That’s all.

The 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund:

Feinberg also did not require proof of medical causation. Approximately 80-90% of the claims he received were due to respiratory illnesses caused by exposure to toxic air pollution. Again, all the claimants needed to show was that they were in the vicinity, rescue workers or civilians and they had a medical diagnosis.

But now, things have changed…

These are the times of austerity, cutting back, living within our means, tightening our belts, etc…so GCCF claimants must now have proof. From the report:

“By requiring medical proof of causation, Feinberg has effectively denied the human right to health for people suffering from illnesses associated with the BP oil disaster toxins, but who cannot provide medical proof that their specific illnesses were caused by specific exposures to the hazardous substances. Furthermore, given the inconclusive state of scientific evidence that a specific toxic exposure caused a specific physical harm, Feinberg’s requirement that GCCF claimants provide medical proof of causation is outrageous.”

So, that means all the people who had the misfortune of living in the area, or were trying to clean-up British Petroleum’s catastraphuk, and are now sick or at risk of getting sick in the future…well, sorry ’bout that.

Making people whole, making things right…

To a point.

After all, some of this making whole stuff is really expensive, and haven’t you heard? There’s still a recession on…and we here at BP only made five billion dollars last quarter, so, you know, be reasonable. Do you understand how many people might make health claims if they thought we’d pay them? Neither do we, and we’d like to thank Feinberg for helping to keep it that way.

Read the report:

The Human Right to Health Denied: Feinberg’s Rejection of BP Illness Claims Breaks with Past Practices

Have a nice day.

Yeah, $450 dollars!?! and you got problems...

Last year, I was walking down the street when a police car jumped the curb and hit a garbage can. This receptacle flew through the air, striking myself and three others, knocking us all through a plate-glass window of a downtown ice cream shop. Well, of course all four of us sued the city. The cop was texting at the time and not paying attention to the road and we all felt entitled to certain damages. I felt the payment of medical bills and lost work time was reasonable for a total of $11,000 dollars. My friend Davis asked for twelve (he makes more than I do). The other two people, one was unemployed and just asked for seven to cover his medical bills while his buddy, well…he asked for $93,000 dollars.

No, not sure why.

In any case, the city gave us each $450.00 dollars and told us if we didn’t like it, we could appeal it to City Hall. We all did. We were all denied. So, I got pissed and called the local news to explain my plight, and a certain Dan Rather went to the Chief of Police…

The important part begins at 1 minute, 39 seconds…

Dan Rather:

“Some say they’ve only received a small fraction of what they are owed, without any explanation, does that happen?”

Ken Feinberg:

“I don’t think that’s happened very often. I think its very common, that people receive a fraction of what they ask for. You’ve got to understand, that one claimant filed a claim and asked for all 20 billion….another claimant, he asked for ten billion.”

So there you go…those two claimants screwed it up for everybody. If it weren’t for those two claimants, everybody else would have been paid more fairly…that is, if it weren’t for bad documentation, documentation, documentation!

Yes, an exaggeration, but I do find it rather disingenuous in this interview for Feinberg to:

1. Still claim he is independent of BP, and then use as his rationale that BP not only pays him, but pays the GCCF (duh, his staff) and also, BP pays the claimants themselves…thus somehow equating all three of their positions. Interesting, but if they are all equal in the eyes of British Petroleum, it would seem only proper a whole lot of claimants deserve a nice raise.

2. Feinberg is sure people only receiving a fraction of what they are owed hasn’t happened “very often.” One might argue if it has happened once, its way too many times.

3. Most importantly, Feinberg marginalized the thousands of people who say they’ve been financially screwed in this claims process by dismissively equating them with two yahoos who asked for such ridiculous amounts, thus implying those thousands of other claimants are being foolish, because as he goes on to say…they may feel they deserve more, but can’t prove it.

Well, I guess that’s why were having that audit then, huh?

On a side note…Mr. Rather? Its plain to see why you are no longer on the networks, you know, because the people you’ve been interviewing must have complained rather harshly to your network bosses about your tough, follow up…er, questions?

Also new on the Feinberg is a disingenuous type of gentleman front:

Gulf oil spill victims weary of wait for payouts – USA Today

Good article, discusses the tale of Robert Campo, an oyster fisher who a year after the spill, received less than one-third of what he asked for and Kenny never told him why…probably because he asked for 3 billion dollars. Also there’s a Mr. George Barisich who showed tax documents and other receipts showing he lost $200,000 but the GCCF only offered him $25,000. Perhaps he is one of those exceptions Ken previously mentioned.

“It’s not perfect. People will complain,” Feinberg says. “But I think the program has worked as intended.”

Yeah, this writer is pretty sure of it too…stalled claims, short claims, dismissed claims…yeah, the claims process has worked just as intended.

Also of late, claimants would like a “Special Master” to oversee the oil spill fund, and have filed legal papers requesting such because…

There are 407,754 individuals and 103,424 business that have filed claims against BP claimants. Of these combined 511,178, more than a third were settled by way of the BP “quick pay” program. The program gave them a flat $5,000 check (or $25,000 in the case of businesses) in exchange for their signature on release waiving their right to file future claims against BP and all the other defendants involved with the spill. “It was kind of like a pressure signing. If you’re hungry and someone offers you something to eat, it’s hard to say no,” a quick pay recipient and Alabama seafood business owner was quoted as saying in the brief.

This, according to the brief, is against the law.

Read the articles:

Spill Victims: BP Fund An “Abject Failure” In Need of Oversight

Special master sought to oversee oil spill claims

Those pesky interim claims, the ones where people receive damages and retain their rights to sue BP. Those claims seem to be getting stalled much more than the claims where people are required to waive their rights. Ken’s probably sure he’ll turn around one of these days and find like, hundred of people who put in requests for $10 billion dollars and that would just be a waste of time, so get it over with already…go for the final, sign the form!

But more important than any of this stuff:

So the guy who sued the city for $93,000 dollars?

Yeah, that’s why the rest of us all got screwed in our claims process.

That’s why I only got like 10% of what I lost. Well…that’s what I have to think because when I asked to see the documents, get some kind of explanation as to why the city’s offer was so low, at first nobody would return my call, then about a month later when they did, the person on the phone told me he didn’t know why and I had to call this other guy who works for the county. Two months after that I finally got that guy on the phone, but he says they lost all my documentation: the missed work hours signed by my boss and the medical bills.

I had to start all over again, and I finally got everything to them – again – last week…and just yesterday, I get a call from somebody at an investigative agency who says he wants to meet me, and he wants me to be able to prove I am who I am. He also suggested I not muddy the waters by bringing a lawyer…

Not bring a lawyer? WTF?

And that meeting is at 2pm this  afternoon…

So now, I wait.

Have a nice day.

Nice place for a family picnic...GOP style

Seriously?

“The House of Representatives, led by anti-environmental Republicans, are sharpening their knives to gut key health and wildlife protections that could benefit millions of Americans,” Marty Hayden, Vice President of Policy and Legislation at Earthjustice, said in a statement. “These are no small cuts; this is a complete butchering of environmental safeguards. Riders attached to the EPA spending bill decimate protections for air, water, lands and wildlife,” he continued. “Even before this bill reached the House floor for a full debate, Appropriations committee members attached 38 riders that shred our safety net for protecting against pollution in our air and water, saving imperiled wildlife, and protecting iconic places like the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.”

In its current form, the legislation would prevent the EPA from regulating a number of pollutants by gutting the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The bill would restrict EPA’s authority to regulate coal ash disposal, exempt the timber industry from pollutant discharge permit requirements, allows pesticide applicators to spray chemicals directly into waterways, cut off funding for EPA to implement limits on mercury and other air toxics from power plants, and restricts the scope of “Waters of the U.S.” protected by the Clean Water Act. The bill would also blocks EPA oversight of mountaintop removal mining.

Remember: they did it to you, responsibly...so whatever you do, don't respond in an irresponsible way towards them, their institutions or the industries and high finance that props them up...

Responsibility and irresponsibility to whom, a people, a political party, a pledge…

As we’ve sat back, watching this debt ceiling debate rage on, I continue to be struck by what Democrats and Republicans deem to be okay, what they consider to be responsible.

It is responsible for both parties to give three trillion dollars in tax breaks to the richest people in this country, under the pretense this will create jobs…but it won’t. It didn’t when Bush first gave these hand-outs to our country’s wealthiest and since Obama renewed the tax cuts…nope, no jobs yet.

It is also responsible to call Social Security and Medicare “entitlements,” even though they aren’t. I’m paying for them now under the understanding I get them back later…how about you? But, it is responsible for both the GOP and the Democratic President to take this money away from you, to reduce a deficit the GOP created with those tax cuts for millionaires and a few odd wars. It is responsible to bail out banks who caused the recession that led to a drop in revenue, while at the same time leaving the middle class and poor to suffer even more by not helping them with their foreclosures, which are being done fraudulently by the same banks the government bailed out after causing the recession…and it is responsible for us, the American people to ignore this cycle.

Oh, and it is responsible to sign  pledges to help oneself get elected to office, despite the fact these pledges keep one from being free to exercise conscience when it is needed most.

Also, it is responsible to play politics and tricks while the economy inches closer to a crash, displaying loyalty not to your country, but to a political party. It is responsible to do a short debt ceiling deal so each party can take another crack at the narrative, all over again, and during an election year when politicians are always known to be at their most responsible. Why? Because it is responsible for everybody to distort and misrepresent facts (lie) for the party’s political gain.

It is responsible to preside, willingly and knowingly, without attempting any sort of change, over the greatest separation of wealth in any industrialized country, by far, just as it is responsible for both parties to allow the deregulation of commodities markets which drive the prices up on food and oil, thus allowing financial institutions to  make even more money on the extra money you pay and place it directly into their already burgeoning vaults.

And through this debt ceiling debate, it is responsible, as the people’s representatives to blatantly ignore what every poll of the American people has to say: make a deal built on balance: tax the rich and cut spending). Why? Because it is responsible to place more importance on a pledge to one man (Grover Norquist) than to the populace of your nation.

Essentially, the White House, Republicans and Democrats are deciding it is responsible to cut programs for the poor that help keep people from destitution, while at the same time keeping programs for the wealthy to help those with a great deal of money, get even more and most importantly…it is the responsiblity for us, the American citizens to sit back and accept what they decide is in our best interest, the politicians, the financial institutions, their lobbyists…all because we will have the chance to engage later in very responsible acts, such as voting.

Yes, it is the height of responsibility for us to accept our political representatives utter disregard for what we, the people of this country feel is most important.

Why is that?

Perhaps because truth in fact, Democrats and Republicans in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court know little to nothing about responsibility and irresponsibility…to us.

A demonstration perhaps?

Simple, all one need do is take a look at what these elected leaders would consider irresponsible, should we, as Americans decide their responsibility is anything but…responsible.

They would consider it irresponsible for Americans to, on the same day, suddenly withdraw all funds, save the minimum at the following banks: Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Chase, because crashing the banks that crashed our economy would be the height of irresponsibility.

They would consider it irresponsible if we demanded these corporations, lending institutions and investment firms begin to at least pay the same tax rates we have to pay, because those same corporations, lending institutions and investment firms find it responsible to stop lending and to defraud investors, while the corporations cut the jobs they are supposed to be helping create.

They would consider it irresponsible to consider, there might be a better way to manage our affairs then a one party system that is equally corrupted by high finance, these same institutions that place profits over Americans well-being, confidence and security…

They would consider it irresponsible to take protests personal, to the homes of every CEO involved in causing the recession, and every politician who did nothing to prevent, stop or fix it.

They would consider it irresponsible to shut down Wall Street by demonstrably large protest…every day, after day, after day…

They would consider it irresponsible for Americans to be upset over the fact that if a debt ceiling deal is not reached, while Social Security checks, Veterans Benefits and the like may not go out, Congress will continue to receive their salaries.

They would consider it irresponsible if demands were made to actually take care of the elderly, the disabled and the sick.

They would consider it irresponsible for American citizens to start demanding justice, and stop being content with platitudes and condescension, especially if we demanded jobs programs through infrastructure repair, or that rather than defunding the EPA and Planned Parenthood, we demanded they defund the insurance industry and oil and natural gas companies.

They would consider it irresponsible to begin considering laws optional, much in the same way Wall Street and politicians do, everyday.

They would consider it irresponsible to imagine a Robin Hood scenario being played out in every town and every city across this country, just as they would consider it irresponsible to stop paying for food, and it would be especially irresponsible if people tried to align with the police to defend us against political and financial encroachment.

They would consider it irresponsible to engage in widespread, community meetings, and begin to have conversations about how everyone can help take care of each other, especially if your community organizations start linking up with other community organizations to the point we started to do it ourselves, for ourselves…and if successful, should any politician try to step in and take some sort of credit, it would be irresponsible to marginalize their presence the way they marginalize our hopes.

They would consider it irresponsible for American citizens, as a rule, to interrupt and sabotage any live remote news coverage by any major news channel, especially by pointing out that each of these news channels are owned by the same set of corporations that profited and continue to profit on your suffering, just as they would consider it irresponsible to start engaging in selective, but mass property damage on a nationwide scale…again targeting the institutions that made it possible for this country to default, for you to lose your job, for your pension to have suddenly been disappeared.

Why?

Because they would really consider it irresponsible if people watched less television, consumed less and had a lot more conversations about just how responsible politicians and their supporting industries were being, and also about what the people might do about that sense of responsibility.

They would consider it irresponsible if politicians were no longer able to go out-of-doors anymore without having to clean off the spit once they’ve returned back indoors, or for me as a social worker who works crisis lines to point out how many more calls I am getting from people who are unemployed, out of options, and the places they would normally go to for help, either are out of funds or no longer exist anymore because wealthy people didn’t have enough money to create the jobs they forgot to create.

A few politicians would also find it irresponsible to point out Ayn Rand was not an American icon, she was a parasite who fed off the government she claimed to both detest and find obstructive, and she deserved to be disappeared, just as quickly as the financial institutions disappeared your savings.

Oh yes, and one party would consider it the height of irresponsibility for their constituents to wake up and realize gay discrimination and God won’t keep their jobs from being outsourced, their health care rates from going up and their future options being undone, while another party would consider it equally irresponsible for their constituents to wake up and realize how they no longer represent the middle class and working people because they need the same campaign contributions the other party does, and how they have been coasting on legacy since the Carter administration…and financial institutions would consider it irresponsible for either parties constituents to wake up…

…Ever.

Especially if citizens should, when they wake up, consider their notions of irresponsibility and responsibility to have been in error, and consider that now is as good a time as any to make the institutional predators of this country very uncomfortable.

And some might wonder, would doing that be irresponsible, or responsible?

Hard to say for sure…

Have a nice day.

I'm sorry, fairness? Right...working on it...

On Wednesday, US Attorney General announced via letter that he and Ken Feinberg had agreed to an independent audit of the GCCF’s claims process, and whereas this audit was perceived to be a welcome idea, one whose time is long since due…there remained some concerns.

Writing two days ago, I expressed a number of questions about how encompassing this audit might be, about the fairness involved and frankly, when it comes to all things oil spill, is the Federal government really to be trusted to appoint an independent auditor? Perhaps the affected states should be involved in the selection and/or otherwise.

Well, whaddayaknow?

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood in a statement said, “It is a shame we had to file a lawsuit to try to force Mr. Feinberg to do the right thing, I plan to speak with U.S. Attorney General Holder to ensure this audit is truly independent and in the best interest of the residents of our Gulf Coast.”

Also weighing in was Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Atwater who said in an e-mail response to the Pensacola News Journal, “It’s about time, they need to work quickly and look with strict scrutiny at the claims-paying practices at GCCF.”

And more tellingly, Atwater added:

“Feinberg is a presidential appointee, and an audit conducted solely by the federal government is not going to dispel legitimate concerns about the transparency and fairness of the claims process. Florida needs and deserves representatives in this process, and that means including auditors from my team at the table looking on behalf of Floridians. To leave Florida out of the process, he said, “would be a continuation of the cloak of darkness that has surrounded this process from the outset.”

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Both men are right…this audit will be used to either persecute or vindicate Ken Feinberg and the GCCF’s claims process. It will be key in establishing the narrative regarding the GCCF’s fairness and the way claimants unhappy with this process will be perceived. All four affected states should have a hand in this, and should not leave it to the Federal Government and Feinberg to establish the way this audit will be conducted, if for no other reason than Feinberg wants his vindication and the Federal government wants political cover. After all, they appointed Feinberg to this position and it would seem that to leave the parameters of this audit in the hands of the two entities who will benefit most from a positive outcome…

That will only leave one more process in dispute, and that will help nobody.

Have a nice day.

What? I've been saying all along an audit would be a good idea, you missed that?

Well, it’s about time…Ken Feinberg and the GCCF will undergo an independent audit by the end of the year. US Attorney General Eric Holder  announced the audit in a letter sent yesterday to Feinberg which reveals the two men held a closed door meeting on July 7th. Apparently at this meeting, Holder told Feinberg of the complaints he heard from claimants while in Mobile, which led to talks of the independent audit.

Many claimants, along with local and national politicians have expressed concerns about the speed, fairness and transparency in the claims process, including Holder, who stated after his talk with Alabama residents on June 30th, “My voice has not been as loud as maybe it should have been. There are issues here, legitimate issues, that have to be discussed. Things have to be done better.” In the letter, Holder both praised the progress made by the GCCF and expressed his concerns regarding its transparency while stating the audit will hold the GCCF, “to the highest standards of efficiency, consistency and customer service. “

No date has been set for its start, but Holder has advised he doesn’t want the processing and payment of claims interrupted.

Feinberg, in response to the letter wrote, “I welcome Attorney General Holder’s letter and thank him for his supportive words of encouragement. We will do what the Attorney General requests — and it is something we have always considered we would do — regarding an independent audit that will begin this year…”

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, one of the most vocal critics of the GCCF welcomed word of the audit, “It is good news for the people of Alabama that someone other than BP and Kenneth Feinberg will finally be able to peer into the inner-workings of the GCCF.” Feinberg has repeatedly promised the claims process will become more transparent, but has continually failed to improve the transparency with which the GCCF handles claims. “For far too long,” Strange continued, “The GCCF has hidden behind a veil of secrecy when denying compensation to victims of the Gulf oil spill. I applaud this outcome due to the efforts of Attorney General Holder and Alabama’s own local and Congressional leaders, who have refused to back down after constant rejection. The announcement today of an independent audit marks another step forward in making sure that all victims of the spill may at last be treated fairly and promptly.”

Well, this certainly is a turn of events, and surprising to say the least. Holder and Feinberg have a meeting and Holder tells Feinberg how a whole lot of claimants think the GCCF claims process whole lot of sucks, and Feinberg suddenly agrees to an independent audit, saying an audit, “is always something we’ve considered we would do.”

It is?

Okay, then perhaps Feinberg might explain how the complaints he heard from Holder were any different from the complaints he heard himself at his many town halls, except for the fact it was now Mr. Holder expressing these complaints. I’d also like to hear  him explain how an audit was such an unconscionably stupid idea when Luther Strange spent months suggesting one, but when it is proposed by Mr. Holder, it rapidly becomes something he has always considered. Feinberg has spent the past many months defending himself as the decision maker on GCCF operations, that nobody had any right to impugn his authority, be it BP (ha-ha), Judge Barbier, Claimants, Congress, Gulf Coast Mayors and Governors…essentially anyone paying attention to how something doesn’t seem right with this process.

Previously, according to Feinberg, anyone suggesting claimants weren’t being paid enough, were only getting pennies on the dollar, they were wrong.  Questioning the strictness of his documentation requirements? Well, they obviously didn’t see what Feinberg was seeing in the claims. The waiver forms are too encompassing? Wrong. Subsistence claims getting shafted Wrong again, those people so critical of his process simply don’t have the facts and boy, he would love to share the facts, but these things are confidential you know.

And then along comes the US Attorney General, someone who maybe has the authority to do something about Feinberg’s obstinance in the face of all criticism and suddenly: “…and it is something we have always considered we would do…”

This sudden agreement, made behind closed doors makes one wonder…how did those talks really go? Why did Holder suddenly get the keys to the kingdom, something many others have tried and failed to accomplish.

Keeping that in mind…some questions about this audit:

1. How encompassing will this audit be?

2. Over 300,000 claims were denied outright, what will be the process involved in auditing the fairness involved in these denials and/or will they be looked at, at all?

3. When it comes to the federal handling of all things oil spill, honesty has not always been paramount…so how about some state involvement in this audit?

The temptation is to not ask any questions, to just be happy this is finally coming to pass and this might be an understandable response, but it’s also important to understand the parameters involved. Who will be conducting the audit? How long will it take? If  examples of unfairness are found, isolated or systemic, what recourse might claimants have who have been found to have been unfairly denied or not paid enough?

Let’s just say…yes, the audit is good news but when it comes to optimism…proceed with caution.

Because, it is a learned caution that makes me wonder why, if the GCCF has been fair, if BP is trying to end all future claims since everyone is so on their way to being made whole…then why am I reading $1.1 million in grants will go to charities aiding families after spill. How is that necessary if Ken and BP are telling the truth?

So even when it comes to the possibility of an independent audit…caution, until the parameters of this audit become known.

Have a nice day.

You're welcome...

So then, according to the President, the best way to lead is to give up from the start?

From David Dayden at Firedoglake:

“…but there’s also a difference between the person who views those procedural blockages for what they are, and sees opportunities for pressuring those blockages through the court of public opinion, for making it difficult on those holding up progress to sustain themselves, for using elections as a lever to enable progress, and even for changing the fundamental structures to bring our democracy up to date to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and… Barack Obama. Because here he doesn’t just acknowledge the need for compromise. He glories in it. He sees it as “part of the process of growing up.” It’s juvenile to act on your own beliefs, to draw bright lines that cannot be crossed, to express core convictions. “Don’t set up a situation where you’re guaranteed to be disappointed,” Obama says. That’s the worst thing that could ever happen. He makes an enemy out of disappointment, when it can just as easily be a rallying point, an opportunity to show a better path next time.”

Man, life could have been so much easier if I’d only been different in two very important ways: if I believed in God, and if I also believed in giving the shaft to the disabled, the mentally ill, the elderly and the homeless…if only I felt more comfortable telling these people, well, you apparently needed to plan better, needed to just get over your issues, or find a job…if only I felt it really was that simple, that a Church and a bumper sticker slogan could solve every problem in this world. Then I could be a self-congratulating Republican beating the crap out of (someone else’s) Grandma with the heirloom family bible…sure, I might be an utter bastard, but I’d at least be content and going to heaven.

Who knew this president would be the powerful’s new BFF…and proclaim giving up on your beliefs is the new American way? Many kind of hoped he might change that…curses, foiled again!

Read the article:

Obama’s Last Lecture

And two more interesting pieces read recently:

Here’s what Matt Taibbi had to say about the very real possibility Obama never wanted a progressive budget at all, and the damage that has done to his bargaining position or lack there-of:

Taibbi: Obama’s not pretending. He doesn’t want a Progressive budget deal.

And one more, now that we know Obama has not ever really been about the middle and lower class, how could a McCain victory actually been to the benefit of all the people Obama was supposed to help, and didn’t:

If McCain Had Won – Fred Branfman

You might think if you’re a Democrat, having a Democratic president would mean he is on your side, but it appears increasingly clear, this president is on the side of himself, first and foremost, that, and getting re-elected.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, they got a big fan inside...huge, it'll blow away your bar napkins.

I used to know a bartender at Molly’s on Toulouse, small bar on Toulouse (duh) between Royal and Bourbon, and I loved the place…small, pool table, open windows to the street…old feel, and it was close enough to Bourbon and all the idiocy contained therein one could step outside for a smoke and look the half block up to watch fraternities, sororities, christianit-ies, stupidities and every other -ies, along with the more amusing level of criminalit-ies, without actually having to deal with any of it firsthand. A good distance, the kind of proximity that lets you watch it like a television show, harmless and unreal.

One of my favorites illegal scams was the stripper(s) at the Bourbon Street joint(s) who would entice the traveler to go to her place for something a little “extra” only to lead him down towards Burgundy or Rampart where her “associate” would be waiting to rob the drunken guy blind. Hey, live and learn, you wanna get that drunk and that stupid…well… Was a time I used to hang out, wait, and watch the unsuspecting be led away…I took a few of their pictures actually, just for the fun of it…

Anyhow, one day I was hanging out, slow Sunday afternoon and I heard a clamor, and being sporting enough I looked down that half-block to see what was the matter…this was back during the build up to the Iraq War, GW hadn’t officially thrown out the first pitch yet but he, Rumsfield, Cheney and all those other assholes had been throwing warm ups for weeks and brother, opening day was coming! Turns out though, there were a number of people worldwide who thought the idiotic invasion of Iraq was kind of well, idiotic and a number of New Orleans residents were no different. That day, they’d decided to march against the war (don’t get me started on the ineffectiveness of political marches, really, don’t) and for some reason, the planners of that march thought Bourbon Street was a good place for their parade to head on down…

It wasn’t going well.

You see, a lot of people on Bourbon Street were rather intoxicated.

And a lot of intoxicated people on Bourbon Street thought invading Iraq was a swell idea.

So, I left the front of Molly’s and ambled on over to the corner of Bourbon and Toulouse, cigarette and beer in hand.

It was hot, really hot that day and the sweat, well, you know how you can swim in it, so I was trying to see through perspiring eyes and the parade was loose, the people marching were having fun, but they were taking it from all sides. Being so soon after 9-11, this was a particularly patriotic time for the country and anger (fear) was at an all time high (remember the whole sealing up the cracks of your homes anthrax deal, in a French Quarter apartment…right!) Well, being a person who errs on the side of logic, has a lot of anger of my own and kind of thought this whole Iraq thing was a bit incorrect, I sidled up between a woman dressed in denim, big blonde hair and the reddest lipstick I’ve ever seen and a man who I assumed was her boyfriend, American flag t-shirt, cop sunglasses and a red bandanna wrapped tight round his sunburned head.

There appeared to be a conflict of philosophy going on.

The couple thought the protest marchers were incorrect in their belief system, felt they hadn’t thought it completely through and they were eager to help these wayward souls understand the error of their thought process… that, and implying they all must be homosexuals, or a specific part of the female sexual anatomy who apparently had lost their way somewhere between Moscow and Beijing…communists of some sexual kind. Being fairly new to New Orleans, a place I liked and like very much, I was always trying to make new friends so I felt I might have something to add to this conversation, and holding up my beer between them, which drew their attention long enough for them to hold up their beers as well, I let fly… “Hey you reds, go back to fucking Zaire!”

The couple liked that, the guy clapped me on the back and we grinned together and took another drink of our prospective beers and the woman, she turned to me then and said something about teaching men who apparently find it comfortable to wear towels upon their heads a lesson, oh yes…a very important lesson, a lesson patriotic as fuck.

I took that opportunity to make eye contact, directly and intense as I could muster, which apparently worked for she looked directly into mine when I responded, “Whatever man, I’m just very pro-death, so war’s cool and all, really, guns and such but for me it’s all about the blood, a whole lot of blood.”

She looked at me then, questioning, but I smiled again to put her at ease and raised my beer, “Blood!”

It was about this time she took two distinct steps to the left, away.

I laughed, raised my eyebrows, maintained the eye contact, shrugged my shoulders and added, “Bloody violent as fucking possible, blood, blood, blood…”

Then I laughed again, and I went for my cigarettes.

By the time I lit one, they were gone. So, the moral of the story? Ain’t one really…except I suppose, love it or leave it, when you ask anyone what they think of when one mentions New Orleans, especially if they have never been there, they almost always say “Bourbon Street.”

That and the fact that the town runs a great deal on tourist dollars so all these killings/shootings on Bourbon Street of late, they gotta stop. And since every time I read about another shooting I seem to invariably hear “100 block of Bourbon” or whenever a club is mentioned, I read “Bourbon Street Blues Club,” which round my parts with the people who know the town, BBB club is one big fucking punch line to violent stupidity, and since I keep reading these things, it would seem how a constant police presence at the corner of Canal And Bourbon, and also at Bourbon St, halfway between Canal and Iberville might be a good idea. Oh, and Serpas? You probably want to put a few out front of the Bourbon Street Blues Club as well.

It’s a thought.

Because when I mentioned being pro-death, I was just trying to creep out a couple of drunken tourists, but these shootings, well they’re creeping out a lot more tourists than I ever could and that ain’t a good thing. Having lived in a lot of tourist cities, the toleration of their species kind of goes with the territory. Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans, I can think of a number of days I swung open my gate onto Royal Street, took one look at all the people in t-shirts and sandals and said, “Oh, hell no, not today…” and the gate slammed as I went back upstairs to my apartment.

Anyways, speaking of tourist destinations…love it or leave it and the subtle war between tourists and locals…I offer the following, which is  just one of many songs mentioning places where tourists thrive, and where much of the locale might not want them to, but need them to anyway…New Orleans and San Francisco…and the tale of Operation Ivy’s end.

Rancid – Journey to the End of the East Bay

“Matty came from far away,
From New Orleans into the East Bay
He said this is a Mecca, I said this ain’t no Mecca man, this place’s fucked
3 months go by, he had no home, he had no food, he’s all alone
Matty said fool me once shame on you, didn’t fool me twice
He went back to New Orleans”

And if I told you how many times I listened to that song on Molly’s jukebox, beer in hand…you wouldn’t believe me. Okay, and please forgive me one more, for the sake of being momentarily egocentric…about the neighborhood in San Francisco I miss, a neighborhood I once worked and lived in…

Rancid – Tenderloin

Realize you’re dehumanized, you criticize your existence
It’s your demise when no sun arise, when you’re paralyzed by your lack of resistance

She know she is, she knows she’s going, down below where the fire’s glowing…
Tenderloin

The tricks she gets them she’s not a victim, she makes a list of them and reads them all alone
For money she’s walking down on Larkin’, in the TL they’re rocking all night long…

See you soon, friends of both regions…

And astonishingly enough…the war I mentioned earlier in this post…who’d a thunk the blood would still be flowing, almost ten years later.

God bless…and good luck.

Have a nice day.

Wouldn't mind seeing Bob and/or Ken's head on a slide...

Rep. Joe Bonner of Alabama, member of the House Appropriations Committee called for an independent audit of the GCCF this week, something many Gulf Coast residents have been wanting to see happen for some time now. Bonner made this request to the Justice Department, and the request has been included in legislation that was approved on Wednesday.

“As we approach the one-year anniversary of the creation of the GCCF, many South Alabama businesses and individuals are still complaining about unfair treatment of their oil spill damage claims by the BP-financed fund that has been tightly controlled by administrator Ken Feinberg,” Congressman Bonner said. “With BP now calling for the GCCF to wind down payments, it is imperative that an accurate accounting of Mr. Feinberg’s claims system be made public. Last month, I met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Orange Beach personally asking him to order an impartial audit of the GCCF. Today, the House Appropriations Committee also called upon the Justice Department to begin the process of an independent review of the claims process.”

And speaking of independent audits, can’t we also make a call for an audit of BP’s insistence that the Gulf is all good, that the businesses and people no longer need the assistance of future compensation? As most people are aware, British Petroleum recently requested the GCCF stop paying all future claims in the Gulf of Mexico because things have recovered so damned well…

Except, they haven’t.

As Bloomberg reports:

“Crude oil continues to wash ashore along the Gulf of Mexico coast a year after BP stopped the flow from its damaged Macondo well, which caused the worst U.S. offshore spill,” government officials said…submerged mats of congealed oil, often resembling a mousse, are a source of the tar balls, Hein said. The areas with the most oil are Louisiana coastal marshes…”

And speaking of those marshy areas:

“Reporting on the bayou outside of Hopedale, La, Eric Guzman, a shrimp boat captain says, “BP likes for people to think that the skimming got rid of all the oil,” he said. “They don’t want you to think about how most of the oil went down to the bottom. We were dead set against them using those dispersants but they didn’t listen and they did it anyway… Guzman said the shrimp business has been hurt because, even though there is shrimp that have not been contaminated by the oil, people are afraid to take the chance on buying them. Prices have dropped, despite the smaller supplies, and people are going out of business. A bait shop operated by a shrimp boat captain interviewed by the People’s World right after the spill is going out of business.”

Yeah, and let’s talk again about the seafood:

BP maintains the seafood is safe to eat, and this is part of the reason they also say claims should stop being paid, but despite the all clear by the FDA, something funny’s going on in the water as evidenced by ”…countless reports coming from up and down the Gulf Coast…the most troubling narratives come from local fishermen, crabbers and oyster harvesters – who are encountering not only dramatically smaller catches but also visibly sick, deformed and oiled seafood from Louisiana’s Grand Isle to the Florida panhandle. And we’ve got photos to prove it (see link).”

The reports include catches down 70%, businesses closing, copper colored stains, holes and burns in the crabs’ shells. A crab fisherman, Bruce Gerra reports: “Crabs have been coming up dead, discolored, or riddled with holes since last year’s spill. Now Guerra, and many of the crabbers that work for him, said they’re trapping 75 percent fewer crabs than they were pre-oil spill.”

Also recently, both Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Marco Rubio, both from Florida weighed in on how they feel about BP’s recovery estimations. Writes Sen Nelson: “BP doesn’t need to be protected from the citizenry.  It’s the other way around…BP made a commitment… People are still hurting.  And we don’t know what will happen in the future, plus there’re still claims in an appeals process and large claims that haven’t even been submitted yet.” Nelson said he thinks it could take years before the full extent of damages are known and based on that alone, BP should not be allowed to change the claims process.” Cue Sen Rubio, “BP, from a corporate perspective, is trying to get out of here as quickly as they can…they are trying to disengage from this process as soon as they can and I think it is incumbent on us policymakers to make sure that doesn’t happen and that BP fulfills its obligations to this region.”

Senator Rubio also held a recent meeting in Pensacola. Sixty people showed up to let him know just how badly things were going with a certain Mr. Feinberg. Bob Zales, president of the National Association of Charter Boat Operators summed things up rather nicely, “To many of us, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility is a massive failure,” he went on to say claims payments have been plagued by months long delays and “ridiculous offers.” Seconding this was Joe Gilchrist, co-owner of Flora-Bama Lounge and Package, who said many frustrations stem from a murky and inconsistent claims process, “A lot of arbitrary decisions are being made by people nobody can find or hold accountable.”

That sounds like those all too familiar GCCF transparency problems. 

But back to BP where the oil company is making those self-serving claims: all is well, steadily getting better, they actually use the words “remarkably improving,” to describe the Gulf Coast. Bob Dudley, CEO of BP had this to say about it, including their new plans for drilling safety, “BP’s commitment in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon incident is not only to restore the economic and environmental conditions among the affected areas of the Gulf Coast, but also to apply what we have learned to improve the way we operate.”

Making things whole, again…wonderful soundbite but poor in practice. Months ago, BP said claimants were being paid too much in damages and now, BP says claimants should stop being paid altogether, even while businesses continue to close as a result of this spill. And when it comes to statements about the safety of their drilling practices, be skeptical, be very skeptical. It’s a sure bet they were talking up their safety practices before the refinery blew in Texas City, killing 15 and injuring 170, just as I’m sure they were maintaining the safety of their drilling on the Deepwater Horizon before it exploded and killed eleven more.

Bob Dudley, like Ken Feinberg can say all he wants to, but the words just aren’t too credible, not yet, not by a long shot.

Now, it’s time for BP to prove a few things, prove they will do what they’ve been saying all along, spend more time making the Gulf Coast whole and their practices safe, less time making whole their profits. After all, from what I’ve read about the money made by the oil industry, they all got that whole profit thing covered by a mile…

Have a nice day.