LIABILITY NOW LIMITED TO "ACTUAL DAMAGES"

Video Credit Google.com

The "Justices" Have Now Cut Off Their Own Ability To Punish Bad Corporate Behavior

Overstuffed corporate pigs and sociopathic corporations everywhere breathed a polluted sigh of relief this week as the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed U.S. oil-giant Exxon $5 billion as a reward for the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Lower Court judges had "erroneously" placed the environment, the economy, and public health & safety in Alaska ahead of the oil company's profits by assessing Exxon $5.5 billion in compensatory and punitive damages for the negligent, careless and entirely avoidable environmental disaster. Now 32,000 Alaskans whose lives & livelihoods were ruined by the world's largest oil company will split only the $0.5 billion left after SCOTUS's gift to their corporate masters.

Beaches in Valdez are still fouled by oil spilled from the supertanker twenty years ago. The local herring fishery has never recovered, smashing the local economy and bringing endless pain and suffering to thousands of Alaskans. What little is left of the fisheries is now being decimated by skyrocketing oil & gas prices, bringing Exxon well over a billion dollars in profits every day. But that is all "irrelevant" to the corporate lawyers who have now gained control of your last bastion of Justice in America, SCOTUS, thanks to the corporatist Republican Party.

The $5,000,000,000 is equal to two days' profits for Exxon as reported by the company in FEB 2008, before the huge run-up in prices this Spring. Alaskans who have been waiting almost twenty years for relief, will each receive $15,000 or less. For most of the victims, this covers almost none of the actual damage they have suffered, economically and environmentally.

Despite all the conclusive evidence which the Court itself included in its' own decision proving that punitive damage awards have not been excessive in the vast majority of cases, the Court has now established a broad precedent severely limiting victims' rights in favor of corporate profits in every single case that will ever be brought against any business at any level anywhere in these United States. If some lower Court defies SCOTUS, the Corp's now know that they can stretch their appeals out for decades, and then get a free pass from SCOTUS, just like Exxon. Additionally, corporations can now predict exactly how much environmental, economic and other damages will cost them, and simply add it to their prices. In effect, we will all pay for future oil spills out of our own pockets. The same now goes for nuclear, chemical and biological disasters, including the current widespread negligent food-poisonings. There is no longer any judicial deterrent to corporate crime. The law will now punish only those without money or corporate status. A two-tier system of "justice" is officially in effect.

The Wild-West judicial activists on the bench have done what so-called conservatives promise never to do when they are up for nomination to SCOTUS: Usurp the role of Congress in writing, or deciding not to write new laws. (Et stare decisis be damned.) Congress, itself under corporate control, will likely do nothing to protect its' own powers, even after the Exxon outrage. The people have no recourse at all. The people have no one to blame but themselves, for allowing a corporate takeover of their formerly democratic government. The people, that's you.

The question is, will the American people now see what has happened to their democracy, and take the risks and pay the costs of regaining control of their own lives? Or will they settle down into self-satisfied sheepdom, and accept their role as landless peasants in a corporate medieval State, where they have no say, and no rights at all? SCOTUS, POTUS and Big Awl are betting "YES" on Prop 2!

Of course, YOU, the people, have a very special opportunity to vote against the Republican-sponsored corporate takeover of the United States of America: Vote. Become active in your local Democratic Party Organization, and demand that President Obama purge all corporate influences in the Party and the Government.

Unless you'd rather RESET at 1065 AD.

[Links & quotes after the jump]
.

" The Exxon Valdez damages case eventually could prove to be one of the biggest business cases in recent years, said Mark Levy, who heads Kilpatrick Stockton LLP's Supreme Court and appellate practice. 'It's potentially a very significant decision,' Levy said. 'Right off the bat, there's reason to think state courts will pay attention to it and it will be influential on constitutional issues.' Corporate groups consider reducing punitive damages awards one of their top priorities. Chamber President Tom Donohue earlier this week hailed the Exxon Mobil decision, calling it 'good news for companies concerned about reining in excessive punitive damages.' The Supreme Court since 2003 has issued three rulings that place new restrictions on punitive damages awards. The one-to-one ratio spelled out in the Exxon Mobil case, which for now is limited to maritime laws, eventually could narrow the court's broader holding that a single-digit ratio of actual damages to punitive damages is the constitutional limit. "

" Many have forgotten the headlines the Exxon-Valdez oil spill made across the country some two decades ago. But old feelings have resurfaced and are still raw, two days after the Supreme Court ruling that reduced Exxon's punitive damages. When most people think of the Last Frontier they imagine a place of beautiful landscape and abundant wildlife. And yes, it still exists here -- Anchorage has a small army of public relations liaisons who try to sell the state's rich legacy every day. No tourism company ever includes images of America's biggest oil spill in the pamphlets. 'It's damaged a lot of people's lives,' said Greg Garcia, an Exxon protester. Alaskans gathered early Friday morning to protest the Valdez decision, which cut awards from $2.5 billion to $500 million. They hoped to do it in front of a live national audience during an appearance by the Alaska Travel Industry Association on CBS. 'There's increased cancer rates and the destruction of the environment,' Garcia said. 'Meanwhile, (Exxon) has made record profits.' Garcia has lived in Alaska all his life. And when he heard the CBS morning show was featuring a live shot from Alaska to promote tourism, he thought this was appropriate. 'We were going to have "Boycott Exxon," and we decided no 'shame' is really appropriate for this,' Garcia said. But ATIA, which arranged the live appearances, did not agree. In a statement, organizers say the protesters were politely asked to move and their permit for the park allowed them to set parameters for the CBS shoot. Police stepped in. 'They were free to stand along the sidelines and be out of the vision and the view of the cameras and I don't think that's what they were looking for,' said Anchorage Police Department spokesman Lt. Paul Honeman. CBS had a special use permit during the park's closed hours giving them and police the right to make Garcia leave. "

" Although most experts had expected the court to overturn the large punitive damage award, few expected the court to define an explicit rule about what's excessive and what's not. In the Exxon case, the court said that punitive damages in federal maritime law cases shouldn't exceed compensatory damages. Compensatory damages in civil cases are designed to reimburse those who've been injured for a loss or injury, while punitive damages are intended to punish and deter defendants. Business groups have argued that punitive damages are out of control, costing businesses and the economy billions every year. Much of the majority opinion cited statistics on punitive damages, rather than federal law or case law. The court found that "runaway" awards are not the norm, despite the criticism. 'The most recent studies tend to undercut much of it,' the court said. Yet the court said there is a real problem in the spread between the highest and the lowest individual awards. Justice is not served if some defendants are randomly hit with extraordinarily large awards, while similar defendants are punished much less severely. The high court said a better alternative is to peg punitive awards to compensatory damages using a ratio or by setting some maximum multiplier for damages, as many states do. Looking back at thousands of cases, the court said the median ratio for all of these punitive and compensatory damages showed a less than 1:1 ratio, a fair standard for maritime cases. One lawyer who filed an amicus brief on behalf of fishermen wrote on the Scotus Blog that the court's ratio was 'arbitrary' round number and designed to create a 'neat and tidy' rule instead of treating each case on its merits. A majority of states that have set similar ratios for damages have adopted a 3:1 ratio, the court noted. The court's ruling only applies to federal cases, so states can still apply the higher ratio to state cases. The court said it was dissuaded from using a higher ratio because in these states there tended to be little to distinguish awards where defendants were 'worse than negligent but less than malicious' and those with the 'most egregious conduct.' Once a ratio was set, it tended to be used across the board in all cases. "

" ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - The state of Alaska vowed to tighten oversight on Exxon Mobil after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a $2.5 billion (1.3 billion pounds) punitive damage judgment for the 1989 Valdez disaster. 'It's sad to consider that there's probably celebration going on in some industry board rooms right now, while right here in Alaska you're not seeing that celebration,' Gov. Sarah Palin told Reuters on Wednesday. 'Exxon will know that we're very disappointed in this ruling. They will know that our commitment is to stringent, responsible oversight of the industry,' said Palin during a break in a cabinet meeting on the subject. The Republican governor said new oil developments will not take place in Alaska unless they meet safety and ethics standards. As word spread on the Supreme Court ruling, Alaskans expressed anger, disappointment and shock. "

" The settlement comes to about $15,000 per Alaskan affected by the spill. Exxon had fought to at least lessen the punitive damages verdict issued by an Alaskan jury in 1994 after the 1989 accident that poured 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. Stoll said in March that about 20 percent of the case's original clients have died since the suit was filed. The court voted 5 to 3 in favor of reducing the fees, with Judge Samuel Alito abstaining because he holds Exxon stock. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were in the majority. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. "

" 'An average of two oil spills are reported world-wide every week. The world's largest oil spill took place in Prince William Sound, Alaska in March of 1989. 11,000 workers were involved in the clean-up of the 3,000 square mile Exxon Valdez oil spill. All were exposed to toxic substances, and many suffered long-lasting health problems as a result.' "

" The nation's highest court ruled that the punitive damages should be limited to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million. In the court's opinion, Justice David Souter concluded that the $2.5 billion in punitive damages was excessive under federal maritime law, and should be cut to the amount of actual harm. By a 5-3 vote, the justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals that had awarded the record punitive damages to about 32,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others harmed by the nation's worst tanker spill. Soaring oil prices have propelled Exxon Mobil to previously unforeseen levels of profitability in recent years, posting earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007. It took the company just under two days to bring in $2.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2007. The Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound in March 1989, spilling about 11 million gallons of crude oil. The spill spread oil to more than 1,200 miles of coastline, closed fisheries and killed thousands of marine mammals and hundreds of thousands of sea birds. A federal jury in Alaska awarded $5 billion in punitive damages in 1994. A federal judge later reduced the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, and the appeals court further cut it to $2.5 billion. Exxon Mobil, the largest U.S. company by market capitalization, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing it already has paid more than $3.5 billion for the spill. "

" 'This means that corporations like Exxon can simply put a price tag on the destruction of our marine life, our oceans and, ultimately families,' says Jim Ayers, Juneau-based vice president at marine environmental group Oceana and the first executive director of the trust set up to manage the recovery and restoration of the sound. 'They can estimate the value of that loss, put it into the expense column and roll forward with blatant disregard.' The majority in the 5–4 court ruling decided that punitive damages should be capped at the level of actual damages proved—in effect, a new legal standard, at least for maritime cases such as oil spills from tankers. 'The justices stepped forward and did what Congress refused to do, which is set limits on the punitive damages,' Ayers says, who also notes that the ruling eliminates an important deterrent for bad behavior. This could prove particularly relevant in the Arctic, which, thanks to climate change, is more open to future oil exploration and shipping. 'This means that Exxon and other oil companies can now roll into the Arctic, the last great pristine environment, and do whatever it takes to collect and transport oil,' Ayers says. 'They can now buy and destroy America's resources for a mere pittance. All they need to do is throw a few bucks at the family that it devastates.' "

" The problem was that the court was not drawing on any previous court rulings (because none exist) when it arrived at this arbitrary decision. It's what conservatives call 'judicial activism' when so-called liberal judges do it. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, 'Congress is far better situated than is this court to assess the empirical data, and to balance competing policy interests, before making such a choice.' Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer also dissented. (The ninth jurist, Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon stockholder, had recused himself.) Ginsburg wrote, 'The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress.' So it should. Yet again, as in cases involving automakers, cigarette manufacturers and other companies, the court has sided with big business. As Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: 'This is good news for companies concerned about reining in excessive punitive damages.' Whether the damages were excessive is questionable: Exxon was originally assessed $5 billion in punitive damages, which at that time, 1994, amounted to about one year of Exxon's profits, The Washington Post reported. The $2.5 billion figure was arrived at in December 2007. By then, Exxon's annual earnings were $40.6 billion. Calling Exxon's conduct 'worse than negligent but less than malicious,' the court slashed that award by 80 percent, to $507.5 million. That's worth about four days of Exxon's profits as of last quarter and gives an average of about $15,000 to each of the more than 32,000 plaintiffs — fishermen, cannery workers and Alaska natives. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef in March 1989, it spilled nearly 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, the worst recorded spill in North America. It fouled almost 1,300 miles of Alaska coastline, wiped out hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and damaged or destroyed the livelihoods of more than 32,000 residents. The captain, a known alcoholic, had been drinking and was not on the bridge at the time of the grounding. "

" U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) blocked legislation today which would have included a provision that allows plaintiffs of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to average any settlement that they receive in connection with pending litigation in the federal courts over three years for federal tax purposes and allow these individuals to use these funds to make contributions to retirement accounts. Today, with the help of Stevens, the Senate failed to pass a gas relief bill and a tax relief bill.The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act was a tax relief package that would have included the Exxon Valdez provision. The legislation also included incentives for clean energy, college tuition tax credit, deductibility of state and local sales tax for states without income taxes, and research and development tax credit. Alaska 's nearly 8,000 teachers would have saved $2 million under a provision that allowed teachers to deduct their own money spent on classroom supplies. In addition, it would have change the child tax credit to include an additional 2.9 million children. "

[Thanks to Diana for allowing me to post here. This post will be cross-posted at blog me no blogs tomorrow.]
.
.

The Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969


Photo credit: Los Angeles Times

On Jan. 28, 1969, a "blowout" erupted below a Unocal Corp. drilling platform about 5 miles off the Santa Barbara coastline, causing the worst oil spill in the nation's history. More than 3 million gallons of crude oil spewed from drilling-induced cracks in the channel floor. For weeks national attention was focused on the spill's disturbing, dramatic images. Oil-soaked birds, unable to fly, slowly dying on the land. Waves so thick with crude oil that they broke on shore with an eerie silence. Thirty miles of sandy beaches coated with thick sludge. Hundreds of miles of ocean covered with an oily black sheen. But the spills impact went far beyond the fouled beaches. The disaster is considered to be a major factor in the birth of the modern-day environmental movement.

Santa Barbara's catastrophe sparked a local environmental movement that fused the youthful and militant energies of student activists with the money, connections, and indignation of well-established blue-bloods. Together these forces were directly responsible for founding the Community Environmental Council, a major think-tank; starting numerous grass-roots organizations like GOO, the January 28th Committee, and later the Environmental Defense Center; and opening UCSB's Environmental Studies program, the first of its kind in the nation. These forces played a key role in the victory of the statewide initiative that created the California Coastal Commission and contributed to the State Land's Commission decision to ban oil drilling in state waters for 16 years. Nationally, they aided President Richard Nixon in his push to reduce special tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry and, most important, the forces played a major role in Nixon's decision to sign the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970. The law stipulates that the environmental consequences of federal projects be considered before the appropriate federal permits are issued, requires that public hearings be held, and that the public be given access information previously viewed as the property of the developer. The state of California passed a similar law, known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).... [LINK]

On his visit to Santa Barbara, the location of the greatest oil spill in the nation's history, John McCain, who seems to have a penchant for offering monosyllabic solutions to complex problems (remember when he sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"), deigned to call for offshore drilling on the California coastline as a solution to higher gas prices.

John McCain and George Bush have apparently joined forces. Now Bush is demanding that Congress lift the moratorium on drilling in the next two weeks. "If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action," he said, "they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act."

"Bomb, bomb, bomb..." and "drill, drill, drill..." are not the solution. It will take more enlightened problem solving by more sophisticated leaders to bring down gas prices. A change in our foreign policy and an end to saber-rattling against Iran would be a good start.

Bush wants to use the "gas scare" to pressure Congress to absolve him of responsibility for creating this fiasco by creating yet another deflection from the real causes for higher oil and gas prices. We need to let them know we're not falling for it. We won't be bamboozled.

Not this time.

What makes Kunstler's "peak oil" predictions so unsettling is that so many of them are coming true.

Read, if you dare.

Posted by: Phillip | March 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

What's really missing in the public debate about American foreign policy? I believe it's the absence of honesty, a reluctance to level with the American people regarding the direct consequences of our own behavior. On any given day, you can find articles castigating the Bush administration, the foreign policy elite, or liberal academics, but you won't find anyone willing to talk directly to the American people about their own responsibility, even culpability, in shaping our hypocritical foreign policy and irresponsible domestic policies.

The results are predicable: As long as we continue to close our eyes when other people around the world are suffering, simply because it suites our economic interests, those people will continue to hate us. If you take a look at debates within the Islamic extremist community you'll see advocates for attacking the "far enemy" (the United States) won out over those who only wanted to attack their own despotic governments because Usama Bin Laden and others made a convincing argument that the best way to remove the despots was to eliminate their foreign support. They're probably right.

That's not to say the Saudis would be better off if the royal family was replaced by a gang of terrorists. An Islamic republic in Saudi Arabia would be a failure, unable to meet the needs and aspirations of its people, just as the Islamic Republic of Iran is a failure. But its not for us to decide what form of government another people should have. Supporting a dictatorship for the sake of stability is a short term solution at best. The longer the pot boils, the more likely the lid will blow off entirely. Perhaps we need to step aside and allow a Sunni Islamic revolution to succeed, in the short term, so it can fail in the long term. Take a look at the history of communism: That ideology only faded away when it failed to meet the needs of its people, as demonstrated by the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union. For our part, we could make Democracy a far more credible option in the Muslim world if we showed we really mean it, by eliminating all the hypocritical elements of our foreign policy. The most glaring examples are the use of torture and support for despotic regimes.

A reasonable argument could be made that we would no longer be the main enemy and main target of the Islamic extremists if we stopped standing between them and the despotic regimes they want to remove. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Do the Saudi Royal family or any of the other tyrants ruling the Muslim world really deserve our support? How did we allow ourselves to become the primary advocates and defenders of so many despicable regimes? Do short term stability and the preservation of the status quo really reflect our highest values and aspirations?

A lack of honesty is also apparent in our domestic policy debates. As long as so many Americans insist on living in enormous McMansions, while their gas guzzling SUVs to the newest strip mall, we will be dependent on foreign energy. The fact is, we all share responsibility for the decision (or absence of a decision) to allow our cities to grow in the way they have since the end of WWII. We didn't have to allow the developers to push enormous suburban developments further ad further out into the countryside. We didn't have to allow so many millions of Americans to live in vast suburbs where they have to climb in their car to do anything, to shop or dine or play or even to visit friends and relatives. We chose to allow this to happen, or at a minimum we didn't do anything to stop it. Now, we're living with the consequences of our decisions (or indecision).

We could have chosen to develop our cities in a different way, with clustered developments, public transportation, schools and shopping within walking distance. It's ironic that so many upscale Americans are returning to the cities or flocking to new developments that offer a sense of community. Placing individual "freedom", the freedom to drive as big a car as you want and to live in the biggest house you can't afford, above all other values, has serious consequences. The neglect of civic values that lead to more rational zoning and a reasonable degree of regulation also has consequences. Take a look at our financial markets, where an absence of regulation or oversight allowed greed and irresponsible behavior to create a crisis that threatens our entire economy.

Greed doesn't stop on Wall Street, of course. We all share responsibility. If you support the war in Iraq, but oppose higher taxes, you share responsibility for the debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay. If you want the value of your house to go up indefinitely, but don't want to pay too much for someone else's house when you move up, you share responsibility for the state of our real estate markets. If you buy more house than you can afford, but don't want to pay a higher mortgage when the rates go up, you're part of the problem. If you insist on driving a Cadillac Escalade but don't want to pay more for gas, you share responsibility for the higher prices driven by high demand. If you hate sitting in traffic for hours during your daily commute, but refuse to support better public transportation or saner zoning regulations, you're getting what you deserve.

I, for one, would like to find a leader who is willing to have an honest conversation with his fellow Americans about the consequences of our hypocritical foreign policy, not to mention our irresponsible domestic policies. Does the freedom to consume as much as we want whenever we want represent our highest values and aspirations? What kind of country do we want to be, any way? Do we have to accept things the way they are, or can we share the responsibilities and burdens of change?

So, I've taken a vow to stop blaming my government or the conservatives or the liberals for all of our problems. I'm part of the problem, and I need to take responsibility by changing they way I think and the way I live. I'm going to make an effort to understand the way the world looks, from the perspective of ordinary people suffering from the tyrannical regimes we support. And I'm going to try to live a more responsible life by only consuming what my family and I really need. Sure, the adjustment will be painful at times. After all, we Americans have allowed unnecessary and wasteful consumption to dominate our lives, but the choice seems clear to me. Either we choose to change, of our own free will, or change will be forced on us by all those external factors we can't control. The limited supply and high price of oil is just one of those factors.

I also recommend reading the blog post Philip is responding to at democracyarsenal.org: The Things We Don't Talk About on Foreign Policy

I was shocked to hear of Tim Russert's sudden and untimely death today.

How sad.

I'll miss seeing his friendly face on "Meet the Press" Sunday mornings. Before there was Youtube, whenever I slept late and missed the show, I would often stay up until 3 in the morning to see the rerun, because he was one of the few who asked the right questions. Nobody could grill a politician better than he did. What will this election be without him?

Such a loss.

My heart goes out to his family.

AP story

Yep, he did it; Bush's deliberate roiling of world politics is the key variable in the run-up of oil prices. No president has been more brilliant in destabilizing the politics of oil-producing countries from Venezuela to Russia, as well as those of the key oil lakes of Iraq and Iran. [LINK]

Apparently, oil prices aren't high enough for ol' George.

Bush in Germany beats drum for war against Iran

In his last visit to Germany as president of the United States, George W. Bush used a joint press conference Wednesday with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union) to reiterate his threat of war against Iran.

“As I said before, all options remained on the table” with regard to Iran, the American president told the assembled media. In other words, Washington maintains its “option” of launching an unprovoked military strike against Iran to prevent any further development of its uranium enrichment program.[LINK]

As a result, crude oil shot up $5 a barrel Wednesday after a two day retreat from the meteoric rise to $138 a barrel on Friday, when the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Shaul Mofaz, threatened an attack on Iran.

“If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Mofaz told the Israeli newspaper, according to a June 6 Reuters article. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”

If you're wondering why members of Congress have failed to address geopolitical causes for the skyrocketing price of oil and gas at the pump, here's a hint: Complicity and the fear of mass public anger. This fear is apparently shared by our European allies who, like the U.S. congress, failed to challenge the Bush policies.

Bush’s campaign for a military option against Iran eerily recalls the campaign conducted by his administration in 2002 for war against Iraq. At the time, most European leaders refused to challenge the propaganda campaign based on lies and deception organized by the White House to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. By refusing to publicly air their objections, they share responsibility for the resulting carnage in Iraq.

Today the White House is propagating a similar campaign to justify a criminal military strike against Iran, and once again European leaders refuse to utter a public word of criticism.

Although well-informed of the dangers of a confrontation with Iran—at the end of May former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer published an article predicting an Israeli Attack on Iran backed by the US in the coming months—European heads of state fear that any public discussion of the dangers of a US-sponsored assault on Iran could provoke a enormous wave of public indignation and opposition.

Democrats in Congress can stop pretending they're doing something to lower gas prices by trying to impose a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, or suing OPEC for failing to increase output, or legislating against so-called "speculation" in the futures market, and Republicans can stop pretending that opening up pristine lands and sea to oil drilling will solve our dependence on foreign oil any time soon.

Blame oil prices on Bush, his failed policies, aided and abetted by congress, a compliant press, and media pundits.

While the declining value of the dollar and other factors have put pressure on the price, it's impossible to ignore the fact that the invasion of Iraq reduced oil output by 1.5 million barrels a day, thus tightening supply at a time of increased world demand. Nor can it be denied that threats against Iran are driving the price of oil to stratospheric heights, when each time a U.S. or Israeli government official so much as hints at an attack, prices spike. Traders fear that Iran would retaliate against an attack by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than 40% of all globally traded oil is transported, sending the price of a barrel of oil to $400.

The significant rise of oil prices today and Friday, in direct response to U.S.-Israeli threats, finally let the cat out of the bag: The problem with oil prices is the war in Iraq and threats of war against Iran. Denials and obfuscations are no longer plausible in the face of these facts.

Related:

Silly season for oil policy: Lawmakers are falling over themselves to show they're doing something about the price of oil.

Senate Republicans Defeat Oil Windfall Tax Measure

What's on your mind?

Clinton to End Bid and Endorse Obama

[LINK]

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.

Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, and other aides said she would express support for Mr. Obama and party unity at an event in Washington that day. One adviser said Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Mr. Obama and proclaim him the party’s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory in November.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

Someday people may reflect on how close we came to a disastrous choice, had it not been for the emergence of Barack Obama. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton will get a pass for the sake of party unity.

So be it.

Hillary is done. It's time to move on.

Senator Barack Obama became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee today, taking the historic step toward becoming the nation's first black president. He has run an outstanding campaign that has broken all previous records. His conduct throughout this long and difficult race has demonstrated that modesty and honesty can overcome the old political dirty tricks. Obama has shown himself to be the man who can pull this country back from the brink. He has brought light where there was darkness, hope where there was despair -- and perhaps most important of all, he has restored our faith in ourselves and each other.

A deleriously happy crowd embraces Obama

It is the end of the primary race, but there are still some unanswered questions:

At her own rally, Hillary Clinton refused to concede and said she would make her decision about whether to stay in the race later.

Will Hillary Clinton concede in the coming days and help heal the divisions within the party, or will she take her "scorched earth" campaign to the convention in Denver? Will she contest the Rules and Bylaws Committee compromise on Michigan and Florida? Will Obama offer Hillary the v.p. spot? Will he help pay her debts?

Questions... questions...

But one thing is not in question: Obama's victory today represents the sea change so many of us have been hoping and praying for.

The onus is now on Hillary to show the magnanimity of a true champion by helping to unite the party for a Democratic victory in November.

Does she have what it takes?

And yet, by erecting this monument, we are reminded that this different, better place beckons us, and that we will find it not across distant hills or within some hidden valley, but rather we will find it somewhere in our hearts." - Senator Barack Obama speaking at the Martin Luther King Monument

From hospital to sailboat: Kennedy finds renewal on the water
Senator Kennedy, his wife, Victoria and their dogs, Splash and Sunny back on land after sailing on their sailboat (Photo: Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff)

Thanks to Senator Kennedy for working so tirelessly these many years to help keep the dream alive.

Get well soon, Senator Kennedy.

Today's Boston Globe article