Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92

The longest serving senator in U.S. history, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), died Monday. He was 92.

Byrd was admitted to Fairfax Inova Hospital late last week for dehydration and heat exhaustion. What was originally considered a minor condition, developed into other medical conditions throughout the week. Byrd had been in frail health for several years.

Byrd, a Democrat, was known as a fiery orator versed in the classics and a hard-charging power broker who steered billions of federal dollars to his state of West Virginia. He held his seat in the Senate for more than 50 years, serving as its majority leader for six of those years. He was most recently elected to an unprecedented ninth consecutive term in the Senate in 2006.

W.Va. Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, is expected to appoint a replacement.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal relieved of command in Afghanistan

A day after word spread about Gen. Stanley McChrystal being ordered to Washington to answer questions about insubordinate comments he and his staff made in a Rolling Stone Magazine article, the commander who had once said he could win the Afghanistan War, was relieved of his command of U.S. and N.A.T.O troops in the country.

President Obama said that McChrystal's remarks about administration officials "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

Obama has since named Gen. David Petraeus, the Central Command chief, to fill in for the lose-lip general. He also urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus quickly and reinforced that the change in command would not disrupt the Afghanistan strategy.

This wasn't the first time McChrystal locked horns with the Obama administration. He publicly shot-down a strategy based on fewer troops by Vice President Joe Biden last winter, causing him to be reprimanded by President Obama. McChrystal has also been very pushy with the administration as he made public comments that were aimed at pressuring President Obama into deciding on implementing a surge in Afghanistan, which he later did. McChyrstal was also surrounded by controversy in 2004, after he was accused of a cover up in the "friendly-fire" death of former NFL football player, Pat Tillman, by the soldier's mother  If you ask me it was only a matter of time before McChrystal or one of his staff members put their foot in their mouth around a reporter. And with all the baggage surrounding McChrystal, not to mention his blatant disobedience to civilian rule of the military, which has kept us free since our founding while other democratic nations have fallen under dictatorial rule, I think it was the right move for not only the administration but the war. It also didn't hurt President Obama to use the opportunity to flex his power as Commander-in-Chief.

While McChrystal's controversial comments about the administration left no other decision but for the commander to be relieved of his duty, I think any one can sympathize with a guy who talked shit about his boss, considering we all do it at one time or another. But this is not a private work place, this is the military. For this is a man commanding a war and we can accept nothing less than the utmost integrity and loyalty out of the man in charge of our troops in battle.

While the current strategy in Afghanistan was McChrystal's, Petraeus is a brilliant choice by the president, considering the universal respect he garners from both Republicans and Democrats. But while Petreaus is certainly the right choice to replace McChrystal as the commanding officer in the war, we are kidding ourselves if we actually think our country can win this war - for it's time to bring our troops home. And while that is not going to happen until at least July of 2011, this incident, if nothing else, has caused American's, and possibly the government, to refocus our attention on the war and our strategy moving forward.

Judge with financial ties to oil and gas industry overturns Obama's drilling moratorium

The Louisiana judge who overturned President Obama's six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday had number of investments in the oil and gas industry, financial disclosure reports show.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his decision to prohibit government officials from enforcing the moratorium until a trial is held: "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."

President Obama had imposed the six-month moratorium on any new drilling in the Gulf following the BP oil spill that has dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. The decision has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling on 33 exploratory wells until they can be deemed safe.

While Feldman's holdings in the oil and gas companies range from $15,000 to less than $1,000, many of the companies he has investments in would be affected by the moratorium. Theses companies include: Transocean Ltd., Provident Energy, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling Co., TXCO Resources; EV Energy Partners, Rowan Companies Inc., NCP Capital Resources, BPZ Energy, El Paso Corp., KBR Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corp., and ATP Oil and Gas Corp.

According to the Associated Press, Feldman is just one of 37 active judges in key Gulf Coast districts who have financial ties to energy industries, including oil and gas. Many of these judges have already disqualified themselves from such cases sighting conflicts of interest.

While it could be argued that Feldman's ruling is sound based on his argument, there is no way we can allow a judge, even with modest investments in oil and gas, to have such power in deciding such a critical issue at this time. To allow for more drilling in an area, when we know that safety reports filed on most of these rigs were done so by the companies who would be doing the drilling, would be foolish. It would also be foolish to allow companies to continue to drill without a full investigation into why the BP oil rig exploded, not to mention while millions of gallons of oil continues to spill into the Gulf.

Major oil companies say the moratorium is "unnecessary" and would cripple world energy supplies. But I say another oil spill in the Gulf would cripple the environment and the people who depend on the Gulf for their livelihood for a generation, not to mention the potential loss of life if another rig were to explode. As a nation we must consider what is in our best interest first, the world's second and big oil last - for they are the scum who put us in this position in the first place. Jobs are also a concern for some, but the $350 million contributed by BP to pay for those out of work oil rig workers due to the spill, should be sufficient enough to pay for any damages incurred. It is time that we stop worrying about big corporations and start worrying about the environment and people of America. For too long these bastards have been allowed to scare us into believing that without them we are nothing, but what they fail to see is that without the deep pocket books of the American people they are nothing. If you ask me, a six-month moratorium is not long enough. For we still have two months until the leak is potentially stopped and years until the mess is cleaned up.

But all hope is not lost yet as the Obama administration has vowed to appeal the decision, which many experts suspect they will win.

"We will immediately appeal to the 5th circuit the president strongly believes as the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice argued yesterday that continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense and... potentially puts the safety of those on the rigs and the environment in the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford right now," said spokesman Robert Gibbs following Judge Feldman's decision.

General McChrystal called to Washington over controversial remarks

General Stanley McChrystal, America's top military official in Afghanistan, has been summoned to Washington to answer questions about his mocking of top public officials over their counterterrorism strategy in a new Rolling Stone article due out Friday.

McChrystal was originally supposed to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan via video conference, but was later recalled in person after news of the controversial remarks became public.

The article written by Michael Hastings talks of McChrystal dismissing Biden during a question-and-answer session in Paris in April, after growing irritated with questions about a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered, which McChrystal had dismissed.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden?' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

Hastings also writes that President Obama and McCrystal had "failed to connect" from the time the president took office. Quoting an advisor to McChrystal, his first meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op... Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

McChrystal apologized for the remarks Tuesday. He is also said to have fired a press aide over the article.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

It is expected that McChrystal will tender his letter of resignation upon his return to the States. What this will mean for the future of the war and troop morale is yet to be seen, but it is said that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has defended McChrystal and wants him to stay on as commander. It is, however, hard to accept McChrystal's apology after President Obama gave him everything he wanted to continue a war that has become widely unpopular on both sides of the political isle.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing of his apology.

Obama negotiates $20 billion compensation fund with BP

Just a night after pundits ripped his first Oval Office address on the BP oil spill, President Obama has gained a major victory in the fight to ensure the British-based oil company pays for all damages incurred by the spill, when the two parties announced Wednesday that BP would set up a $20 billion major claims fund for those whose livelihoods are being ruined by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama promised to make the bastards at BP pay for the mess in the Gulf, and after four-hours of intense negotiations he was able to prove to the American people that he could deliver on his promise. Not only was he able to get BP to agree to creating a $20 billion fund without dragging it through the courts for years and even decades, he also got the executive swine from BP to agree to no cap on the amount they would pay. In addition to this the company also agreed to set up a $100 million fund for oil-rig workers, who have been laid-off due to the six-month moritorium the president has placed on drilling in the Gulf.

"What this is about is accountability," Obama said after his session with BP executives. "For the small-business owners, for the fishermen, for the shrimpers, this is not just a matter of dollars and cents. . . . A lot of these folks don't have a cushion."

So far, 66,000 claims have been filed, $81 million awarded, and 26,000 checks cut, according to accounts from the Coast Guard. And to ensure that all legitimate claims are honored, President Obama has appointed Kenneth Feinberg, the man who oversaw the $7 billion government fund for families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, as the administration's "pay czar" to oversee the payouts.

The fund is also not capped, so BP could still be on the hook for more money in terms of claims and that does not include the fines that the United States will certainly be levying against them once the spill has been capped.

While the announcement came at a great time for those who are losing their livelihood along the Gulf coast, BP executives continue to put their foots in their mouth. During the announcement of the agreement, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg apologized for the "tragic accident" and added "we care about the small people."

The comment was not well-received by the people along the Gulf coast who resented the foreign speaking dignitary's remarks that were perceived as talking down to the working-class people in the Gulf.

By night Svanberg was apologizing for the slip: "I spoke clumsily this afternoon, and for that, I am very sorry. What I was trying to say - that BP understands how deeply this affects the lives of people who live along the Gulf and depend on it for their livelihood - will best be conveyed not by any words but by the work we do to put things right for the families and businesses who've been hurt."

Obama talks oil spill response plan in first presidential address

In his first presidential address from the Oval Office, Barack Obama reassured the nation that the BP oil spill in the Gulf will be cleaned up, but did he inspire?

The 17-minute, nationally televised speech, mostly consisted of him describing the April 20 oil rig explosion, which left 11 dead and how he intends to make BP pay for not only the clean-up but the compensation of those who depend on the Gulf for their lively hood.

Obama said he will tell BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to, "set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness."

"This fund will not be controlled by BP," Obama said. "In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

While Republicans have bitched about Obama using the disaster to push his energy bill, he did not hesitate to boast about it during his speech. He called upon Congress to put aside partisan politics to end America's dependence on fossil fuels once and for all.

"the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now," he said.

Obama also outlined the response effort thus far, in an effort to curb the negative views by Americans - 52 percent don't approve of his handling of the oil disaster. Obama noted that the resources the federal government had poured into the area, including the 30,000 people working in four states to contain and clean- up the oil. He added that 17,000 National Guards members are available along the coast to be used as needed by the governors of the state's. 

While Obama was effective in bringing us up to date on the clean-up effort, what he missed in this speech was his ability to inspire. Not that I am a big believer that the president has to be emotional, but it just seemed very scripted, as I guess most presidential speech's from the Oval Office do. But people need to be comforted now. They need to be made to believe that this spill will be stopped and cleaned-up. While it remains to be seen wether or not the president will be successful in cleaning-up the Gulf, he was ineffective in settling people's nerves over the disaster on this night.

For more information, visit www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill/

Is BP oil disaster Obama's Katrina or Bush's second Katrina?

It has been close to two months since a British Petroleum's off-shore oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. While the biggest concern at this point is stopping the leak, there is also the issue of how this will play out politically for the Obama Administration.

Before we get into the politics of this issue and whether or not our federal government has done enough to remedy the situation, I first must say that I hope this spill is a wake up call to Americans who are on the fence in terms of off-shore drilling, including the thick headed "Drill Baby Drill" thugs and our president, who supports "safe" off-shore drilling - as if there is such a thing. Since the oil has started flowing up on the shores of four U.S. states, it has been heartbreaking to see the oil soaked birds, gasping for breath, not being able to move. It would be nice, if nothing else, we could take the BP executives, give them a good old fashion tar and feathering, and parade them down the streets of New Orleans, where they may or may not be stoned to death by onlookers. But in a capitalistic society, where the rich are protected by our elected officials, such an act of justice will never occur.

It is sad that due to our dependency on fossil fuels and capitalism and corruption within the Bush Administration, we have had to subject our people and environment to such pain. But we can't turn back the clocks now, so all we can do is move forward and fix the problem and clean up the Gulf.

While the oil continues to billow into the Gulf, the biggest question, aside from stopping the leak, has been, "has President Obama shown enough emotion?" Not, "has the government done enough?," which in many ways it has because the president has had the best scientists and engineers in the country working on fixing the leak since it started - hell, he was even ahead of BP and the media in terms of responding. But the media is more concerned with how unemotional the president is, as if they are just now realizing that Obama is a thinker and not one that wears his emotions on his sleeve - we all know how that worked out the last eight years. This question of course is not necessarily a concern of the people, but rather some creation of the media, both on the left and right. I mean what do these bastards want, for Obama to fall down to his knees on the beaches of Louisiana, gripping oil soaked sand in his fists and screaming and crying at the heavens "Die BP Die!" I mean really people, the guy is more like Ghandi, and less like Randy Marsh. And maybe it is just me but I prefer a level headed leader, instead of some drama queen. But in a world ruled by reality television, it is no surprise that we now need crying and temper tantrums for our president to prove that he is upset over a specific event. And just because I don't expect the president to be someone he is not, does not mean I wouldn't like to see more pressure put on BP to fix the spill and clean up the mess. But we also can't lose sight of the fact that our president is dealing with a number of pertinent issues right now, including but not limited to: two wars, an unstable economy, high jobless rate, Iran's nuclear program, a potential civil war between North Korea and South Korea and Israel's strangle hold on Gaza.

But as the oil continues to pour into the Gulf, pundits are asking, "is this Obama's Katrina." While others, like Time Magazine columnist, Joe Klein, have pointed out that this is actually "Bush's second Katrina." While I would like to blame the spill on Bush, which would not be a long shot considering his utter lack of regulation over his friends in the oil industry, this is in fact President Obama's problem, even if it was the policies of the previous administration that paved the way for such a disaster to occur. And while the spill might in the end effect as many or more people's lives than Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 combined, to correlate an environmental disaster with the death of thousands to me is a long shot. The fact is Obama does not have the capabilities to stop the leak, only the oil companies, who possess the technology and research to contain such a spill, can fix the mess. While we can all sympathize with the 11 workers who died in the off-shore rig explosion that caused the spill, in reality it is incomparable to the loss of life we witnessed during Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. In the end the real victims of this disaster will be the animal life living in the Gulf. And while it is a great shame that so much animal life will die, and as painful as the images are to watch on TV, in the world in which we live, the mass loss of animal life and human life is incomparable. Because when 3,000 people die we mourn, hold candle light vigils and feel the pain of the loved ones they left behind. When 3,000 birds die, we say, "what a shame," and ask, "what's for dinner, chicken?" Like it or not, it's the truth.

In the end it may take decades to restore the Gulf to what it was prior to the spill, but it will be how the president responds to the clean up that will determine his fate in history, not the fact that the spill is still occurring or how he emotionally responded.

Currently, BP has made some progress at capping the leak, but it is now looking like it wont be stopped until August, when the relief wells are scheduled to be drilled. Earlier this week, the company successfully put a "top hat" over the leaking pipe and collected 11,000 gallons of oil in the first day, which they suspect is only one-third of the oil billowing out of the pipe. 

And while we would all like to see an emotional leader, we cant ask for someone to be something they're not. But what we do have in our president, if nothing else, is a thoughtful leader who I trust will do everything in his power to clean up the mess BP made once the spill is finally capped. And in the end that is what matters most. Well that and creating jobs.