According to an Associated Press report published in both the Anchorage Daily News and the New Orleans Times-Picayune, among other sources, a methane gas bubble escaping from the drill site triggered the explosion which killed 11 and ultimately led to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Officials now estimate that more than 3 million gallons of crude have poured into the Gulf (Skytruth previously estimated 12.2 million gallons, but has provided no new estimate). This is also impacting Alaskan oil operations; the Interior Department has given Shell Oil until May 18th to provide more information about the company's exploratory drilling plans this summer in the Arctic Ocean. Shell will also fall under the temporary halt to all pending U.S. offshore drilling proposals, putting the company's summer Arctic drilling plans in limbo.
The Times-Picayune has a page of related stories HERE, which include reports about progress installing the containment box. View full-size graphic of the latest extent of the oil slick HERE.
The source of the information is from interviews provided by Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who serves on a National Academy of Engineering panel on oil pipeline safety and worked for BP PLC as a risk assessment consultant during the 1990s. He received them from industry friends seeking his expert opinion. Ironically, seven BP executives were on board the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20th celebrating the project's safety record. They were about to get one hell of a wakeup call, as far below, the rig was being converted from an exploration well to a production well.
As the workers removed pressure from the drilling column and introduced heat to set the cement seal around the wellhead, the chemical reaction created heat, destabilizing the seal and allowing a gas bubble to form inside the pipe. USA Today reports that Halliburton is under fire for possibly removing a mud safety barrier prematurely before a final cement plug was place in the well, which would have weakened emergency measures to control the powerful blowout caused by pressurized natural gas. As the gas bubble rose up the drill column from the high-pressure environs of the deep to the less pressurized shallows, it intensified and grew, breaking through various safety barriers. Up on the rig, the first thing workers noticed was the seawater in the drill column suddenly shooting back at them, rocketing 240 feet in the air. Then, gas surfaced, followed by oil. When the gas flooded into an adjoining mud room with exposed ignition sources, the first explosion occurred. Next to the mud room was the room where the BP executives were celebrating. The executives were injured, but survived. But out on the rig floor, nine rig crew and two engineers died.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Ethics Complaint Against Hispanic Anchorage Judge Richard Postma May Be A Witch Hunt, But Postma Undermines Public Support By Playing The Race Card
Update June 3rd: Updated story in the Anchorage Daily News. Postma officially responds to complaint, but no new information forthcoming.
When the story about the ethics complaint against Anchorage District Court Judge Richard Postma first broke on May 5th, 2010, I was wondering whether or not it was actually driven by an intra-office power struggle which got out of hand. Although the complaint alludes to the possibility of mental illness, citing the fact that an independent mental health expert determined he has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of duties and is or may become permanent, it didn't seem like the other specifications necessarily rose to the level warranting immediate removal from the bench. Furthermore, the complaint does not charge him with acting inappropriately in court or question his decision-making on the bench. You can read the four-page complaint HERE.
And on May 7th, the Anchorage Daily News reports that Judge Postma is fighting back through his mouthpiece, Thomas Van Flein, who is also Sarah Palin's attorney. According to Van Flein, Judge Postma says ethics accusations against him stem from an internal personnel dispute within the judicial bureaucracy started by his own allegations that he is discriminated against because he's Hispanic, despite the fact that there's no hint of racial discrimination spelled out in the complaint. On Page 2, there is the phrase "From February 2009 to April 2010, Judge Postma, in response to perceive inequities in his case assignments and other administrative matters...", but nowhere is there any hint that the perceived inequities were based on race or ethnicity.
So by suddenly playing the race card, Judge Postma has actually undermined his case with part of the community. A number of people have already posted comments criticizing him for racializing the dispute. Judge Postma does have his supporters, though; one person wrote, "I've known Richard Postma for nearly a decade. Those that question his fitness for this position are simply wrong. He is intelligent, thoughtful, witty, professional, and highly ethical".
What makes this ethics complaint difficult to dismiss out of hand is that it was not filed by a self-anointed crusader like Andree McLeod who could be portrayed as an obsessive crank. Instead, it was filed by the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct, which consists of three judges, three attorneys, and three ordinary members of the community deemed to have sufficient interest and expertise in judicial matters. How likely is it to get nine seeming "pillars of the community" to all sign off on a witch hunt against Judge Postma disguised as an ethics complaint? Not likely, so I must conclude there is some substance to this complaint. The real question may be whether or not Judge Postma's behavior merely warrants sanctioning, or outright removal.
Judge Postma gets the opportunity to fight for his reputation and position. He gets 20 days to deliver a response, which means that since the complaint is dated April 30th, he must respond no later than May 19th. After the Judicial Commission holds a hearing where Postma is allowed to defend himself, they will forward a recommendation to the Alaska Supreme Court, which will make the ultimate decision on his disposition. But even though Wendy Lyford, area court administrator for the Third Judicial District, acknowledged that there's no reason to question his prior decisions, Judge Postma has been placed on paid administrative leave until the issue is resolved.
Even if Judge Postma saves his job, his reputation will be tarnished, and could potentially affect the outcome of the retention election he's being subjected to this year. The overwhelming number of judges standing in retention elections are approved by the voters, usually by 60 percent or more. Only one judge in recent memory has been rejected, former Kenai District Court Judge David Landry. In 2006, charges were filed against Landry after he was accused of making inappropriate sexual comments and allowing suspects to escape prosecution by delaying their trials. Voters ousted him in 2008 before the issue was resolved, but the Alaska Supreme Court later barred him from holding any judgeship in the state.
When the story about the ethics complaint against Anchorage District Court Judge Richard Postma first broke on May 5th, 2010, I was wondering whether or not it was actually driven by an intra-office power struggle which got out of hand. Although the complaint alludes to the possibility of mental illness, citing the fact that an independent mental health expert determined he has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of duties and is or may become permanent, it didn't seem like the other specifications necessarily rose to the level warranting immediate removal from the bench. Furthermore, the complaint does not charge him with acting inappropriately in court or question his decision-making on the bench. You can read the four-page complaint HERE.
And on May 7th, the Anchorage Daily News reports that Judge Postma is fighting back through his mouthpiece, Thomas Van Flein, who is also Sarah Palin's attorney. According to Van Flein, Judge Postma says ethics accusations against him stem from an internal personnel dispute within the judicial bureaucracy started by his own allegations that he is discriminated against because he's Hispanic, despite the fact that there's no hint of racial discrimination spelled out in the complaint. On Page 2, there is the phrase "From February 2009 to April 2010, Judge Postma, in response to perceive inequities in his case assignments and other administrative matters...", but nowhere is there any hint that the perceived inequities were based on race or ethnicity.
So by suddenly playing the race card, Judge Postma has actually undermined his case with part of the community. A number of people have already posted comments criticizing him for racializing the dispute. Judge Postma does have his supporters, though; one person wrote, "I've known Richard Postma for nearly a decade. Those that question his fitness for this position are simply wrong. He is intelligent, thoughtful, witty, professional, and highly ethical".
What makes this ethics complaint difficult to dismiss out of hand is that it was not filed by a self-anointed crusader like Andree McLeod who could be portrayed as an obsessive crank. Instead, it was filed by the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct, which consists of three judges, three attorneys, and three ordinary members of the community deemed to have sufficient interest and expertise in judicial matters. How likely is it to get nine seeming "pillars of the community" to all sign off on a witch hunt against Judge Postma disguised as an ethics complaint? Not likely, so I must conclude there is some substance to this complaint. The real question may be whether or not Judge Postma's behavior merely warrants sanctioning, or outright removal.
Judge Postma gets the opportunity to fight for his reputation and position. He gets 20 days to deliver a response, which means that since the complaint is dated April 30th, he must respond no later than May 19th. After the Judicial Commission holds a hearing where Postma is allowed to defend himself, they will forward a recommendation to the Alaska Supreme Court, which will make the ultimate decision on his disposition. But even though Wendy Lyford, area court administrator for the Third Judicial District, acknowledged that there's no reason to question his prior decisions, Judge Postma has been placed on paid administrative leave until the issue is resolved.
Even if Judge Postma saves his job, his reputation will be tarnished, and could potentially affect the outcome of the retention election he's being subjected to this year. The overwhelming number of judges standing in retention elections are approved by the voters, usually by 60 percent or more. Only one judge in recent memory has been rejected, former Kenai District Court Judge David Landry. In 2006, charges were filed against Landry after he was accused of making inappropriate sexual comments and allowing suspects to escape prosecution by delaying their trials. Voters ousted him in 2008 before the issue was resolved, but the Alaska Supreme Court later barred him from holding any judgeship in the state.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Alaska Democrats Begging For Somebody, Anybody To Go Up Against Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski; Frank Vondersaar Not Their Cup Of Tea
Alaska Democrats are quite literally begging for somebody, anybody who has more than a room temperature political I.Q. to challenge incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski this year. Deborah Williams, the executive director of the state party, hints that a "name" candidate may surface at the Democratic convention to be held May 7-9 in Sitka.
Of course, there's a Democrat already officially in the race in the person of one Frank Vondersaar (pictured at left). However, Vondersaar is a perennial candidate whose main claim to fame is that he's "anti-fascist". Alaska Democrats know that whoever goes up against Murkowski will be a kamikaze candidate, basically cannon fodder, but they hope for someone who'll at least swing at a couple of pitches and perhaps even foul a couple off like Harry Crawford is doing against Don Young, and not just stand there with the bat on the shoulder. In other words, they want someone who can lose respectably and not get skunked.
Williams said today she’s pretty sure another Democrat will enter the race. Williams declined to talk about who that could be but said it's possible someone might announce their candidacy during the convention. I still say their best bet is to convince one of those three Democrats running for Governor to divert to the Senate race. Ethan Berkowitz wouldn't do it, but Bob Poe and Hollis French might consider diverting. Poe could actually put up a serviceable fight against Murkowski. Another available possibility may be 2002 gubernatorial candidate Fran Ulmer. Dangerously available is Sheila Selkregg, but that's a wild card (she'd get thumped).
Or perhaps the Democrats might even drag Tony Knowles out of cold storage one last time.
Dr. David Duke Launching Trial Balloon To Gauge Public Support For Possible 2012 Republican Presidential Run
Update December 31st: Post updated with different link to videos; original video ToS's by YouTube.
The 2012 Republican Presidential field could get a bit more crowded -- and a whole lot more controversial and interesting in the months ahead. Dr. David Duke intends to launch an exploratory campaign to determine if there is sufficient public support for him to run for President in 2012 -- as a Republican.
The article disclosing this information is penned by John Darty and is posted on both Dr. David Duke's website and on this Stormfront thread. I could not verify whether or John Darty is actually a separate person; a Google search of his name did not clarify this issue. Nonetheless, Dr. Duke is at least actively encouraging such speculation. He says he will soon start a year long tour across America from his home base in Mandeville, LA. He plans to speak in every state and gauge the political response to his possible entry into the race for the Republican nomination. He reports that he has the support of the rank-and-file Tea Party Movement just as he had support of both the Republican conservative vote and Democratic hard hat vote in Louisiana. Over the past few weeks since the release of his “David Duke Speaks to the Tea Party” video, thousands of Tea Party activists have urged him to run for President. That video and another were both taken down by YouTube, but a two-part replacement is now embedded below:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Dr. Duke has crafted an initial platform, with six important and all-defining planks:
It should be noted that Dr. David Duke pleaded guilty to the felony charge of filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 in December 2002. Following his release in May 2004, he stated that his decision to take the plea bargain was motivated by the bias that he perceived in the United States federal court system and not his guilt. He said he felt the charges were contrived to derail his political career and discredit him to his followers, and that he took the safe route by pleading guilty and receiving a mitigated sentence, rather than pleading not guilty and potentially receiving the full sentence. The fact that Ted Stevens chose to fight the charges against him yet still got convicted tends to confirm the wisdom of Dr. Duke's strategy. Yet according to FactCheck, a Federal conviction does NOT bar someone from running for Federal elective office.
Dr. Duke has previously run for elective office several times, only once successfully. He first ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. In 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th district Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race. In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries. His campaign failed to make much of an impact, with the one notable exemption of winning the little known New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary. Having failed to gain much traction as a Democrat, he then successfully sought the Presidential nomination of the Populist Party, finishing with only 0.04 percent of the popular vote.
Then he switched to the Republican Party. In 1989, he was elected to the District 89 seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives, serving from 1990-1992. Dr. Duke then launched unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. Senate in 1990 and governor in 1991, although he finished with 39 percent of the vote against Edwin Edwards, who later went to jail for corruption. Dr. Duke also ran for President in 1992, for U.S. Senate in 1996, and in a special election to succeed Bob Livingston in the U.S. House in 1999, all unsuccessfully.
Analysis: Dr. David Duke provides an excellent weapon paleocons can use to wrest control of the Republican Party from the neocons who destabilized our culture through forced diversity and multiculturalism, who transformed our country from a constitutional republic into an international marketplace under the guise of "free trade", who allowed the devaluation and eradication of jobs through mass immigration, and who mindless squandered our strength and means though endless foreign wars under the guises of "nation-building" and "peacekeeping". But above all, the candidacy of David Duke gives us the means to exact payback for 45 years of affirmative action, quotas, and other forms of White-bashing.
If the Republicans respond by giving us another John McCain in 2012, we can respond by taking the risk of giving the country Obama for another four years. We will no longer settle for merely the "best of the worst"; we want the best for the country.
The 2012 Republican Presidential field could get a bit more crowded -- and a whole lot more controversial and interesting in the months ahead. Dr. David Duke intends to launch an exploratory campaign to determine if there is sufficient public support for him to run for President in 2012 -- as a Republican.
The article disclosing this information is penned by John Darty and is posted on both Dr. David Duke's website and on this Stormfront thread. I could not verify whether or John Darty is actually a separate person; a Google search of his name did not clarify this issue. Nonetheless, Dr. Duke is at least actively encouraging such speculation. He says he will soon start a year long tour across America from his home base in Mandeville, LA. He plans to speak in every state and gauge the political response to his possible entry into the race for the Republican nomination. He reports that he has the support of the rank-and-file Tea Party Movement just as he had support of both the Republican conservative vote and Democratic hard hat vote in Louisiana. Over the past few weeks since the release of his “David Duke Speaks to the Tea Party” video, thousands of Tea Party activists have urged him to run for President. That video and another were both taken down by YouTube, but a two-part replacement is now embedded below:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Dr. Duke has crafted an initial platform, with six important and all-defining planks:
1. Bring all U.S. troops home from foreign nations and put as many as we need to seal the US Mexican borders. Let Europe, the Mideast, and the rest of the world run their own affairs, solve their own issues. Why should our boys be guarding the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq when the greatest threat to our people is along the Mexican American Border and in the smoke-filled rooms of politics and media in Washington, New York and Hollywood!
2. Fair trade not free trade! It’s time to protect American business and American workers! Tariffs on goods coming from slave wage nations, and tariffs. And no more outsourcing of American jobs!
3. Prosecute the criminal International banks! Bailout the taxpayers — not the bankers! Put an end to the Banker control of the Federal Reserve, no more “foxes guarding the chicken coop!”
4. An absolute end to the racial discrimination of affirmative action and diversity. True Equal rights for all! Defend the Constitution of the United States and our American heritage!
5. No more foreign control over our foreign policy by the Israeli Lobby! The interests of the United States must be put absolutely first.
6. Tax Hollywood and use the money to expand, cheap high speed, fiber optic internet access to every corner of America, and let the American people develop their own media.
It should be noted that Dr. David Duke pleaded guilty to the felony charge of filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 in December 2002. Following his release in May 2004, he stated that his decision to take the plea bargain was motivated by the bias that he perceived in the United States federal court system and not his guilt. He said he felt the charges were contrived to derail his political career and discredit him to his followers, and that he took the safe route by pleading guilty and receiving a mitigated sentence, rather than pleading not guilty and potentially receiving the full sentence. The fact that Ted Stevens chose to fight the charges against him yet still got convicted tends to confirm the wisdom of Dr. Duke's strategy. Yet according to FactCheck, a Federal conviction does NOT bar someone from running for Federal elective office.
Dr. Duke has previously run for elective office several times, only once successfully. He first ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. In 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th district Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race. In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries. His campaign failed to make much of an impact, with the one notable exemption of winning the little known New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary. Having failed to gain much traction as a Democrat, he then successfully sought the Presidential nomination of the Populist Party, finishing with only 0.04 percent of the popular vote.
Then he switched to the Republican Party. In 1989, he was elected to the District 89 seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives, serving from 1990-1992. Dr. Duke then launched unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. Senate in 1990 and governor in 1991, although he finished with 39 percent of the vote against Edwin Edwards, who later went to jail for corruption. Dr. Duke also ran for President in 1992, for U.S. Senate in 1996, and in a special election to succeed Bob Livingston in the U.S. House in 1999, all unsuccessfully.
Analysis: Dr. David Duke provides an excellent weapon paleocons can use to wrest control of the Republican Party from the neocons who destabilized our culture through forced diversity and multiculturalism, who transformed our country from a constitutional republic into an international marketplace under the guise of "free trade", who allowed the devaluation and eradication of jobs through mass immigration, and who mindless squandered our strength and means though endless foreign wars under the guises of "nation-building" and "peacekeeping". But above all, the candidacy of David Duke gives us the means to exact payback for 45 years of affirmative action, quotas, and other forms of White-bashing.
If the Republicans respond by giving us another John McCain in 2012, we can respond by taking the risk of giving the country Obama for another four years. We will no longer settle for merely the "best of the worst"; we want the best for the country.
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen Tells The Truth About The Effects Of Illegal Immigration Along The Arizona-Mexico Border
On May 6th 2010, the Anchorage Daily News published a Compass piece by Robin Bronen, who is the executive director of the Alaska Immigration Justice Project. Entitled "Immigration reform vital to Alaskans", she makes a case for what is euphemistically called "comprehensive immigration reform" (Translation: amnesty for illegals).
But her essay is littered with misrepresentations. First, she criticizes Arizona SB 1070, saying that it would encourage racial profiling. What she fails to mention is that SB 1070 has been superseded by HB 2162, which specifically bans racial profiling and requires that a cop stop someone for another offense before enquiring into immigration status. Since she presumably took time to do research before composing her essay, I can only assume that the omission was deliberate and that her intention was to mislead.
Second, Bronen persistently uses the term "immigrants" throughout her entire essay. She implies that the legislation poses a threat to all immigrants. Not once did she mention the term "illegal immigrant". Her obvious intent and purpose is to meld legal and illegal immigrants together in the mind of the reader, so that the reader will forget there is a difference. People who oppose this so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" aren't concerned about legal immigrants. We're concerned about ILLEGAL immigrants. We consider breaking into our country a crime just as much as breaking into someone's home. If you would not tolerate someone breaking into your home, you should not tolerate someone breaking into our country. It's also a slap in the face of legal immigrants who took a number, did the paperwork, and waited in line for years to allow illegals to sneak in the back door and then get amnesty in the name of so-called "compassion".
No, I do NOT give a flying fig about Mexico, or Haiti, or any other foreign country, so long as we have American citizens in need. When every homeless veteran has a roof over his head and has access to health care, and when every American child who is parentless gets a home, then - and ONLY then - will I concern myself about the welfare of foreigners. FIX AMERICA FIRST!!!
Bronen does bring up one valid point, though. Many illegals are reluctant to report crimes committed against them for fear they'll be detected and deported. So criminals will repeatedly prey upon them. This is a problem that needs to be corrected; some compromise may be valid here.
But the portrait painted by people like Robin Bronen of illegal immigrants being merely "angels with dirty faces" or "soiled doves" who merely want a better life is clearly misleading and excessively optimistic. The proof comes from Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, who voted for SB 1070. Believing in transparency and accountability, she sent an e-mail out to her constituents explaining her vote. This e-mail found its way into cyberspace, being posted on disparate sources such as the Tucson Citizen and Thoughtcrime. It is cross-posted in full below, and contains a number of horror stories about life down by the border (read after the jump):
But her essay is littered with misrepresentations. First, she criticizes Arizona SB 1070, saying that it would encourage racial profiling. What she fails to mention is that SB 1070 has been superseded by HB 2162, which specifically bans racial profiling and requires that a cop stop someone for another offense before enquiring into immigration status. Since she presumably took time to do research before composing her essay, I can only assume that the omission was deliberate and that her intention was to mislead.
Second, Bronen persistently uses the term "immigrants" throughout her entire essay. She implies that the legislation poses a threat to all immigrants. Not once did she mention the term "illegal immigrant". Her obvious intent and purpose is to meld legal and illegal immigrants together in the mind of the reader, so that the reader will forget there is a difference. People who oppose this so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" aren't concerned about legal immigrants. We're concerned about ILLEGAL immigrants. We consider breaking into our country a crime just as much as breaking into someone's home. If you would not tolerate someone breaking into your home, you should not tolerate someone breaking into our country. It's also a slap in the face of legal immigrants who took a number, did the paperwork, and waited in line for years to allow illegals to sneak in the back door and then get amnesty in the name of so-called "compassion".
No, I do NOT give a flying fig about Mexico, or Haiti, or any other foreign country, so long as we have American citizens in need. When every homeless veteran has a roof over his head and has access to health care, and when every American child who is parentless gets a home, then - and ONLY then - will I concern myself about the welfare of foreigners. FIX AMERICA FIRST!!!
Bronen does bring up one valid point, though. Many illegals are reluctant to report crimes committed against them for fear they'll be detected and deported. So criminals will repeatedly prey upon them. This is a problem that needs to be corrected; some compromise may be valid here.
But the portrait painted by people like Robin Bronen of illegal immigrants being merely "angels with dirty faces" or "soiled doves" who merely want a better life is clearly misleading and excessively optimistic. The proof comes from Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, who voted for SB 1070. Believing in transparency and accountability, she sent an e-mail out to her constituents explaining her vote. This e-mail found its way into cyberspace, being posted on disparate sources such as the Tucson Citizen and Thoughtcrime. It is cross-posted in full below, and contains a number of horror stories about life down by the border (read after the jump):
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Palin-Appointed Anchorage Judge Richard Postma Subject Of Ethics Complaint For Mental Instability, Retains Sarah Palin's Lawyer Thomas Van Flein
Update May 7th: Judge Richard Postma reveals he's Hispanic, alleges the ethics complaint was filed because he complained about "discrimination". Updated post HERE.
Here's a story with interwoven irony: An Anchorage judge originally appointed to the bench by then-Governor Sarah Palin is facing an ethics complaint -- and has retained Sarah Palin's attorney to represent him. Full story published in the Anchorage Daily News.
Forty-three year old Anchorage District Court Judge Richard Postma, appointed to the bench by Sarah Palin on June 14th, 2007, is now the subject of an ethics complaint filed against him by the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct. He is accused of being mentally unstable, of exhibiting an unacceptable level of anger and lack of judgment, and failing to cooperate with other judges and his administrative staff. The complaint further specifies that an independent mental health expert who evaluated Postma in April determined that Postma has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of duties and is or may become permanent. The complaint does not further detail the disability. Read the four-page complaint HERE.
Postma now has 20 days to respond through his lawyer, who just happens to be Sarah Palin's attorney Thomas Van Flein. The commission will hire an outside prosecutor, and the charges will then be heard before the commission, made up of three judges, three lawyers and three public members. The commission decides whether the charges are supported and if they are, they forward a recommendation for action to the Alaska Supreme Court.
One person posting a comment to the ADN story claimed that a number of people objected to Palin's appointment of Postma at the time. I could find no significant record of complaints, and I do not recall any significant outcry against him. One of Postma's more noteworthy cases was that of Robert McGowan, who got mad at his Rottweiler and knocked its teeth out with a rifle butt. The prosecution wanted the max: A year in jail, a $10,000 fine, a 10-year ban on owning an animal. The defense recommended 30 days in jail. Judge Postma split the difference; 300 days in jail and 10 years of probation during which McGowan would not be allowed to have a pet or drink alcohol. McGowan was also required to perform 160 hours of community service and pay restitution for the dog's treatment and care, estimated at between $5,000 and $10,000.
Richard Postma is up for a retention election this year. Because this is the first time he's stood for an election, there are no evaluations on file; read his original application HERE. A judge must stand for retention at the first general election held more than three years after appointment, and then every six years thereafter (ten years for Supreme Court judges).
Postma has a MySpace page HERE.
The only reason I mention the Palin connection in this story is because of the irony of the fact that he was appointed by Palin, and is now using Palin's attorney to try to save his job. Her appointment of Postma to the bench should not be held against her; there was no way she or her staff could have foreseen this. Since its the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct rather than an individual filing the complaint, it can be taken more seriously.
Here's a story with interwoven irony: An Anchorage judge originally appointed to the bench by then-Governor Sarah Palin is facing an ethics complaint -- and has retained Sarah Palin's attorney to represent him. Full story published in the Anchorage Daily News.
Forty-three year old Anchorage District Court Judge Richard Postma, appointed to the bench by Sarah Palin on June 14th, 2007, is now the subject of an ethics complaint filed against him by the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct. He is accused of being mentally unstable, of exhibiting an unacceptable level of anger and lack of judgment, and failing to cooperate with other judges and his administrative staff. The complaint further specifies that an independent mental health expert who evaluated Postma in April determined that Postma has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of duties and is or may become permanent. The complaint does not further detail the disability. Read the four-page complaint HERE.
Postma now has 20 days to respond through his lawyer, who just happens to be Sarah Palin's attorney Thomas Van Flein. The commission will hire an outside prosecutor, and the charges will then be heard before the commission, made up of three judges, three lawyers and three public members. The commission decides whether the charges are supported and if they are, they forward a recommendation for action to the Alaska Supreme Court.
One person posting a comment to the ADN story claimed that a number of people objected to Palin's appointment of Postma at the time. I could find no significant record of complaints, and I do not recall any significant outcry against him. One of Postma's more noteworthy cases was that of Robert McGowan, who got mad at his Rottweiler and knocked its teeth out with a rifle butt. The prosecution wanted the max: A year in jail, a $10,000 fine, a 10-year ban on owning an animal. The defense recommended 30 days in jail. Judge Postma split the difference; 300 days in jail and 10 years of probation during which McGowan would not be allowed to have a pet or drink alcohol. McGowan was also required to perform 160 hours of community service and pay restitution for the dog's treatment and care, estimated at between $5,000 and $10,000.
Richard Postma is up for a retention election this year. Because this is the first time he's stood for an election, there are no evaluations on file; read his original application HERE. A judge must stand for retention at the first general election held more than three years after appointment, and then every six years thereafter (ten years for Supreme Court judges).
Postma has a MySpace page HERE.
The only reason I mention the Palin connection in this story is because of the irony of the fact that he was appointed by Palin, and is now using Palin's attorney to try to save his job. Her appointment of Postma to the bench should not be held against her; there was no way she or her staff could have foreseen this. Since its the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct rather than an individual filing the complaint, it can be taken more seriously.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Hoax Alert: Report Of May 3rd Oil Tanker Explosion In Malacca Strait Off Sumatra Proves To Be Just A Rumor
A previous report by the Indonesian news source Antara News of an oil tanker explosion in the Malacca Strait has now been debunked. Antara News has now published an updated story declaring the previous report to be just a rumor.
Antara News had previously reported that a crude oil tanker was reported to have exploded in the Malacca Strait around 10:00 P.M. Indonesian time May 3rd, 2010 between the border of Bengkalis in Riau Province and Tanjung Balai Asahan, North Sumatra, based upon information provided by the Bengaklais Marine Police Unit. They in turn had received the information from one of the operators of PT Pertamina. Dozens of personnel from the Marine Police Unit were dispatched to the reported location, but after checking the area for two hours and finding no trace of a ship on fire, declared the report to be just a rumor. There is virtually no possibility that they could have missed seeing a tanker on fire; the smoke and flame column would be visible for miles.
PT Pertamina Marine Manager of the northern part of Sumatra, Heru, also denied the incident when contacted to ask for his confirmation, saying that he checked the story with Pertamina in Pekanbaru and found that no tanker had an accident.
No other mainstream media reported this story. There could be three reasons why Anatara News jumped on the original story:
(1). The Bangkok Post had reported that the Singapore Shipping Association said it had received an advisory from the Singapore Navy Information Fusion Centre about an indication that a terrorist group is planning attacks on oil tankers in the Malacca Strait. The strait is one of the world's major maritime choke points; more than 30 percent of world trade and half the world's oil shipments pass through the strait, which is shared by Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. See a map of the Malacca Strait HERE.
(2). Geographic proximity. Because of Indonesia's proximity to the Malacca Strait, Indonesian news sources would have a much more vested interest in this story than other sources.
(3). The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and subsequent oil spill. Cyberspace has been abuzz with rumors of sabotage and/or enemy attack. A report of a supertanker explosion so close on the heels of Deepwater would accentuate fear and paranoia. Indeed, two major discussion boards, Tree Of Liberty and Stormfront, jumped all over the original story.
Antara News had previously reported that a crude oil tanker was reported to have exploded in the Malacca Strait around 10:00 P.M. Indonesian time May 3rd, 2010 between the border of Bengkalis in Riau Province and Tanjung Balai Asahan, North Sumatra, based upon information provided by the Bengaklais Marine Police Unit. They in turn had received the information from one of the operators of PT Pertamina. Dozens of personnel from the Marine Police Unit were dispatched to the reported location, but after checking the area for two hours and finding no trace of a ship on fire, declared the report to be just a rumor. There is virtually no possibility that they could have missed seeing a tanker on fire; the smoke and flame column would be visible for miles.
PT Pertamina Marine Manager of the northern part of Sumatra, Heru, also denied the incident when contacted to ask for his confirmation, saying that he checked the story with Pertamina in Pekanbaru and found that no tanker had an accident.
No other mainstream media reported this story. There could be three reasons why Anatara News jumped on the original story:
(1). The Bangkok Post had reported that the Singapore Shipping Association said it had received an advisory from the Singapore Navy Information Fusion Centre about an indication that a terrorist group is planning attacks on oil tankers in the Malacca Strait. The strait is one of the world's major maritime choke points; more than 30 percent of world trade and half the world's oil shipments pass through the strait, which is shared by Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. See a map of the Malacca Strait HERE.
(2). Geographic proximity. Because of Indonesia's proximity to the Malacca Strait, Indonesian news sources would have a much more vested interest in this story than other sources.
(3). The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and subsequent oil spill. Cyberspace has been abuzz with rumors of sabotage and/or enemy attack. A report of a supertanker explosion so close on the heels of Deepwater would accentuate fear and paranoia. Indeed, two major discussion boards, Tree Of Liberty and Stormfront, jumped all over the original story.
Oil Expected To Gush From Deepwater Horizon Site In Gulf Of Mexico For Another Week; SkyTruth Calculates Oil Spill Totals Of 12.2 Million Gallons
The uncontrolled gusher spewing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from the remnants of the Deepwater Horizon rig is expected to take at least a week to cut off, and that is considered a highly optimistic estimate. The Coast Guard and BP have said it's nearly impossible to know exactly how much oil has gushed since the blast, though it has been roughly estimated to be at least 200,000 gallons a day. SkyTruth is estimating that as of May 1st, a total of 12.2 million gallons of oil have been spilled, surpassing the Exxon Valdez disaster. The New Orleans Times-Picayune has published a number of detailed stories on the latest developments:
-- "Gulf Coast town has little to do but wait after Gulf of Mexico oil spill"
-- "President Barack Obama talks to Louisiana fishers about Gulf oil spill disaster"
-- "Gulf oil spill phone numbers and websites are available"
-- "Gulf oil spill has our full attention, President Barack Obama assures Louisiana"
Here's a graphic which shows a good vertical depiction displaying the situation
The latest curtailment plan entails lowering 74-ton concrete-and-metal boxes into the gulf to capture the oil and siphon it to a barge waiting at the surface. The containment boxes will be 40 feet tall, 24 feet wide and 14 feet deep. This plan will take six to eight days to implement because welders have to assemble the boxes. The downside -- although this technique has been used successfully in shallow water, it has never been tried in deep water. Engineers are still examining whether the valves and other systems that feed oil to a ship on the surface can withstand the extra pressures of the deep. If it doesn't, and efforts to activate a shutoff mechanism called a blowout preventer continue to prove fruitless, the oil probably will keep gushing for months until a second well can be dug to cut off the first.
According to the Times-Picayune, teams are working simultaneously on five possible solutions to stop or at least minimize the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
* Injecting dispersants at the sea floor to break up the oil.
* Closing the blowout preventer that for some unknown reason failed.
* Deploying steel boxes atop the flows to contain oil and redirect it through pipes to a ship on the sea surface.
* Installing new pressure control equipment at the well.
* Drilling two relief wells
More than 6,800 square miles of federal fishing areas, from the mouth of the Mississippi to Florida's Pensacola Bay were closed for at least 10 days on May 2nd by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco says government scientists are taking samples from the waters near the spill to determine whether there is any danger. Fishermen have been out dropping miles of inflatable, oil-capturing boom around the region's fragile wetlands and prime fishing areas, but unfavorable weather is undermining these efforts. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley said 80 percent of the booms laid down off his state over the previous three days had broken down, and boom along other coasts is breaking down also.
What these stories don't provide is a detailed plain-language description of what went wrong. Despite rumors of sabotage or even foreign enemy attack, equipment failure is still considered the most likely cause. An individual who is an experienced professional diver and who has been on countless rigs and platforms has posted his analysis on The Tree Of Liberty Forum (begins after the jump):
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Rumors Of A North Korean Terrorist Attack On The Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform In The Gulf Of Mexico Being Surfaced And Spread By The Russians
It appears that rumors that the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by a North Korean terrorist attack have been surfaced and spread by Russian sources. The Russian source also claims that the Obama Administration knows about it and has ordered a complete news blackout. While there's no mainstream media verification, the possibility of a terrorist attack causing the disaster is plausible, and so I'm posting this story. You be the judge; the European Union Times, which as been reputable in the past, picked it up.
This report is also being circulated by Sorcha Faal, who's known to be a disreputable source of information. In contrast, Dakota Voice also thinks it was a terrorist attack, but perpetrated by eco-terrorists (not sure if even Greenpeace would have the expertise and equipment for this type of operation, though). The Fort Worth Star-Telegram does report that the rig has a history of spills, fires, and even a collision, because of equipment failure, human error and bad weather.
According to the report, written by a source in Russia's Northern Fleet and circulated in the Kremlin, North Korea torpedoed the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform because it was originally built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. North Korea's primary objective is to inflict billions of dollars in economic damage upon the South Korean economy. It is now believed that North Korea was responsible for torpedoing a South Korean warship off the South Korean coast in March 2010 without any retaliation by South Korea or the U.S. According to their interpretation of the existing "laws of war", North Korea considers the attack a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice formally ending the Korean War.
This report is also being circulated by Sorcha Faal, who's known to be a disreputable source of information. In contrast, Dakota Voice also thinks it was a terrorist attack, but perpetrated by eco-terrorists (not sure if even Greenpeace would have the expertise and equipment for this type of operation, though). The Fort Worth Star-Telegram does report that the rig has a history of spills, fires, and even a collision, because of equipment failure, human error and bad weather.
According to the report, written by a source in Russia's Northern Fleet and circulated in the Kremlin, North Korea torpedoed the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform because it was originally built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. North Korea's primary objective is to inflict billions of dollars in economic damage upon the South Korean economy. It is now believed that North Korea was responsible for torpedoing a South Korean warship off the South Korean coast in March 2010 without any retaliation by South Korea or the U.S. According to their interpretation of the existing "laws of war", North Korea considers the attack a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice formally ending the Korean War.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs Amended Immigration Enforcement Bill, HB 2162, Which Eliminates Profiling Aspect Of SB 1070
In response to a rising crescendo of criticism of SB 1070 originating primarily from illegal immigrants and their advocates, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has now signed an amended version of the bill, designated HB 2162. This means SB 1070 is now SUPERSEDED by HB 2162. Read my previous post for a full explanation of SB 1070. Full stories from the Arizona Republic and CNN. Discussion taking place on Stormfront.
If you want to express support for Governor Jan Brewer, visit JanBrewer.com and sign the petition of support entitled "Support Arizona's Immigration Reform" in the upper left hand corner. You need not be a resident of Arizona to do this.
HB 2162 bars race from being considered when deciding whether to inquire about a person's status, "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses.
HB 2162 also specifies that a law-enforcement officer would be required to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a municipal or county code violation. The change led to speculation that municipal code-enforcement officers might be required to inquire about residents' legal status, which the Governor's Office denied.
What this means is that immigration status will now receive secondary enforcement. HB 2162 specifically bars a cop from stopping someone simply because he "looks like an illegal immigrant". The cop will have to observe another violation of the law first before making the stop. After making the stop for another reason, the cop is then authorized to enquire into the immigration status of the detainee. Because of Arizona's proximity to Mexico, and because the majority of illegals are Hispanic, it is expected, and logical, that persons of Hispanic appearance will be snagged more often than others, particularly if they speak accented English or no English at all.
This is why, despite the progressive spin to the contrary, a majority of Hispanics in Arizona support the tough new law. Rasmussen estimates that 63 percent of Hispanics support the law. The caveat: There is no specific category for "Hispanics" listed; there's White, Black, and Other. The majority of Other can be presumed to be Hispanic.
And CNN interviewed two Hispanics who support the law. Sue Schwartz, a retired USPS worker, says undocumented workers are taking jobs from citizens like her teenage granddaughter, who hasn't been able to find a job since she began looking after she turned 15, in part because she doesn't speak Spanish. But Schwartz and some other Americans with Hispanic backgrounds who spoke with CNN say the problem with illegal immigrants isn't just the jobs they take. It's how they're overrunning towns like Phoenix, turning them into "mini-Mexicos" with their trash-filled streets and loud music, according to Schwartz. Of equal concern to her friend, Martha Payan, is how she claims illegal immigrants "fleece" government coffers by collecting welfare on multiple children, or vanish without a trace after an arrest or a hospital visit.
During an interview with Channel 12 (KPNX) on Friday April 30th, Gov. Brewer again spoke out against those who are critical of the legislation. "There's hysteria out there, and people need to take a breath and see what our laws actually say, read them and understand them," Brewer said. "Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don't get it. It's spin." Watch KPNX news video below:
Governor Brewer also discussed various threats to boycott Arizona. Major league baseball has been hinting at the prospect of moving the All-Star Game out of Phoenix in 2011. Not that such a move would be meaningful; real baseball fans stopped caring about the All-Star Game years ago when it became nothing more than a glorified popularity contest. But both San Francisco and the Denver School District have banned official work travel by its employees to Arizona. Notice how the Denver School Superintendent claims the "community" is outraged; it's common for liberals to hide behind the "community". There is no evidence that the Denver "community" is outraged.
If you want to express support for Governor Jan Brewer, visit JanBrewer.com and sign the petition of support entitled "Support Arizona's Immigration Reform" in the upper left hand corner. You need not be a resident of Arizona to do this.
HB 2162 bars race from being considered when deciding whether to inquire about a person's status, "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses.
HB 2162 also specifies that a law-enforcement officer would be required to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a municipal or county code violation. The change led to speculation that municipal code-enforcement officers might be required to inquire about residents' legal status, which the Governor's Office denied.
What this means is that immigration status will now receive secondary enforcement. HB 2162 specifically bars a cop from stopping someone simply because he "looks like an illegal immigrant". The cop will have to observe another violation of the law first before making the stop. After making the stop for another reason, the cop is then authorized to enquire into the immigration status of the detainee. Because of Arizona's proximity to Mexico, and because the majority of illegals are Hispanic, it is expected, and logical, that persons of Hispanic appearance will be snagged more often than others, particularly if they speak accented English or no English at all.
This is why, despite the progressive spin to the contrary, a majority of Hispanics in Arizona support the tough new law. Rasmussen estimates that 63 percent of Hispanics support the law. The caveat: There is no specific category for "Hispanics" listed; there's White, Black, and Other. The majority of Other can be presumed to be Hispanic.
And CNN interviewed two Hispanics who support the law. Sue Schwartz, a retired USPS worker, says undocumented workers are taking jobs from citizens like her teenage granddaughter, who hasn't been able to find a job since she began looking after she turned 15, in part because she doesn't speak Spanish. But Schwartz and some other Americans with Hispanic backgrounds who spoke with CNN say the problem with illegal immigrants isn't just the jobs they take. It's how they're overrunning towns like Phoenix, turning them into "mini-Mexicos" with their trash-filled streets and loud music, according to Schwartz. Of equal concern to her friend, Martha Payan, is how she claims illegal immigrants "fleece" government coffers by collecting welfare on multiple children, or vanish without a trace after an arrest or a hospital visit.
During an interview with Channel 12 (KPNX) on Friday April 30th, Gov. Brewer again spoke out against those who are critical of the legislation. "There's hysteria out there, and people need to take a breath and see what our laws actually say, read them and understand them," Brewer said. "Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don't get it. It's spin." Watch KPNX news video below:
Governor Brewer also discussed various threats to boycott Arizona. Major league baseball has been hinting at the prospect of moving the All-Star Game out of Phoenix in 2011. Not that such a move would be meaningful; real baseball fans stopped caring about the All-Star Game years ago when it became nothing more than a glorified popularity contest. But both San Francisco and the Denver School District have banned official work travel by its employees to Arizona. Notice how the Denver School Superintendent claims the "community" is outraged; it's common for liberals to hide behind the "community". There is no evidence that the Denver "community" is outraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)