=============WTF!===========

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I’m going nuts trying to independently verify the ideas that John Hofmeister and Nick Pozzi represent as facts. It is the weekend and I doubt I can get much done before Tuesday but collect names, phone numbers and information.Based on the extensive reputation and experience of both men I personally think they are telling the truth. Independent verification, however, is needed.

Why this supertanker idea isn’t on the top of the list of items for the Coast Guard and the National Incident Center I don’t understand. If it’s hogwash it would be easy enough for the teams of scientists to disprove the theory. If it’s true than why not begin the logistical planning necessary to put the plan into play?

The undersea plumes of oil, millions of barrels, are moving maybe a greater danger than the surface contamination. What happens when those subsurface plumes begin to make landfall?

Esquire’s The Politics Blog has been reporting on this supertanker concept for two weeks. Here’s part of the May 25th column:

The Politics Blog has been reporting on the supertanker strategy for the past two weeks — here, here, here, and here. We have had conversations with people who have had significant careers in energy who have speculated that it need not be a strategy that is confined to surface collection, but by using powerful pumps and “smart pipe” could be utilized at various depths to retrieve the spreading oil. Should someone not test this hypothesis immediately? This is not a solution that ought to wait for further data, or study. Can anyone argue that it would be less effective than the current skimming and burning operations that have not prevented the ruination of delicate and vital Louisiana marshland? And that is just the beginning, and does not even contemplate the long-term deleterious effects that the oil and the chemical dispersants will have on life in a body of water that is so important to life and commerce along one of the most populous coastlines anywhere. And as goes the Gulf Coast, so goes America.

Read more

The primary author for The Politics Blog on this topic is the executive editor of Esquire, Mark Warren.

I’ve watched, known and enjoyed Jerry Brown’s career for a very long time. One of the things that has always impressed me is his strength of intellect combined with a willingness to work and think ‘outside the box‘.

That’s a worn out term but best describes his deep background and experience. I hope anyone that looks at this blog also makes the investment of time to watch his in-depth interview with Eric Schimdt, the CEO of Google, Inc. With many years political experience under my belt I think it is one of the best interviews I’ve ever seen.

I have it posted here and I sincerely hope everyone, not just Californians, will watch it. This is the caliber of intellect we need to be electing to office. In the last years we haven’t had the best in office.

Frankly I have less against Gov. Muscles, (I can never spell his last name right so I came up with my own. It’s not meant as a slam), than most Democrats. He was hemmed in by his own party and his lack of experience. [Frankly, I also doubt any Kennedy would marry a die-in-the-wool Republican.]

Now compare his background, experience and abilities against Jerry Brown. Yet Gov. Muscles is, and was, far more qualified than Meg Whitman.

The fact Meg Whitman isn’t qualified is why she has dumped more than $54 million of her own money in the race. She hasn’t been able to raise much from the public. Jerry Brown has far more cash in hand, believe it or not, than Meg Whitman after her media campaign costs and $35,000 a month consultants. That $35,000 a month cash drain only covers one set of consultants. There are many more.

Why so many consultants? She doesn’t know what she’s doing. Period. I’ve staffed and run campaigns. I can tell when one is being run by people that the public will never see.

She has pledged to spend as much as needed. Jerry Brown estimated she may spend $100-$150 million on the race. As a billionaire she can afford to attempt to simply buy the race and the governorship.

Jerry Brown explains why he’s not on the air or spending money in the interview.

If you want to see a true intellect matched with experience watch this interview.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Whitman campaign hit as Goldman’s image sours (sfgate.com)
• Whitman says Brown’s debate proposal was a stunt (sfgate.com)
• CA-Gov: Jerry Brown Shows Up To Campaign For Governor, Calls For Debates (news.firedoglake.com)
• CA-Gov: Now The News…With Meg Whitman! (dailykos.com)
• Whitman’s Funds Could Pose Conflict Of Interests (huffingtonpost.com)

If you really want to know Jerry Brown, the key player in the California Governors race, is examined in detail for an hour. If you want to serious about making a choice to back in this race watch this video.

All of us, whether we consciously realize it or not, know that the presence of TV feeds and video cameras changes the dynamic of a press conference, a political event, a negotiation or anything else you want to name. A physicist will tell you that the presence of a observer changes the observed event.

Barrack Obama, the candidate foolishly promised that his healthcare negotiations with Republicans and other opponent would be televised on C-Span. If the cameras would have been present every member of the event would, to one degree or another played to the camera’s. These are people who have to get elected every two or 6 years. Of course they are going to play to the cameras. Is isn’t limited to politicians. I’ve seen very attractive television and movie stars who are not known to be intelligent, in fact they are assumed to be just the opposite, in private at a non-televised political event turn out to absolute policy wonks. I have one in mind in particular because she knew more about healthcare reform back in 2004 than any 2004 candidate. Yet her public, non-televised, image was of the ditsy blonde. I won’t use her name as I do not have permission. She is someone you would know.

It is a surprise that televised White House press conferences are substantially different than the alternative? No. What I do find a surprise is the willingness for the current White House press secretary to say so in a televised interview. See what you feel.

Watch CBS News Videos Online