Friday, 30 July 2010


Ken Berwitz

For three months we all have "known" that BP is solely responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil rig disaster.

But now there is new information indicating that the coast guard not only may have contributed to the disaster, but may have been its prime cause.

These explosive revelations came to light in a report issued by the Center for Public IntegrityOn Tuesday.  

It is now Friday.  How much have you heard about this?  Anything at all?  If not, many thanks to our wonderful "neutral" media for its excellent, successful effort to keep it from you.

Ed Morrissey, writing for, has culled some of the most important information from this report.  I will show you just the beginning - but Morrissey's entire piece is an absolute must-read:

Did the government cause the Gulf spill?

posted at 9:30 am on July 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The generally accepted view of the Deepwater Horizon disaster has focused on the blowout preventer and the non-standard procedures BP conducted just before the explosion and fire.  However, most of the damage and the main source of the spill came from the collapse and sinking of the DH platform rather than the initial explosion.  A new report by the Center for Public Integrity, based on testimony from people on scene and Coast Guard logs, contains evidence that the platform sunk because of a botched response from the Coast Guard, which failed to coordinate firefighting efforts and to have the proper resources to fight the fire:


The Coast Guard has gathered evidence it failed to follow its own firefighting policy during the Deepwater Horizon disaster and is investigating whether the chaotic spraying of tons of salt water by private boats contributed to sinking the ill-fated oil rig, according to interviews and documents.


Coast Guard officials told the Center for Public Integrity that the service does not have the expertise to fight an oil rig fire and that its response to the April 20 explosion may have broken the services own rules by failing to ensure a firefighting expert supervised the half-dozen private boats that answered the Deepwater Horizons distress call to fight the blaze.

When do you suppose our media were planning to tell us about this?  When BP decides to sue for the cost it has incurred, on the grounds that the Coast Guard has admitted a significant level of blame - which, I would think, is an obvious possibility? 

What does it take these people to honestly report the news?

And, for those of you who still accept mainstream media as a last-word source of news, is this the straw that finally breaks the camel's back? 

If not, why not?


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I speculated that there is a sexual component to leftist radio and TV host Ed Schultz's obsession with (successful, attractive, well-to-do) congressperson Michele Bachmann. 

Trust me, I don't think the same vibes exist between him and Lynn Samuels.

Lynn Samuels is a hardline leftist who, these days, does a talk show on satellite radio.  And she takes exception to the fact that Schultz called on Rangel to resign.

Here, straight from her show and guaranteed verbatim, is Ms. Samuels' delicate, diplomatic way of putting it:

"Do you know what that fat fuck freak phony liberal sack of shit Ed Schultz said? Well you couldnt know, because he doesnt go on here til 3, (bu)t I hear him at noon.  He thinks Charlie Rangel should resign.

"This is the new thing in Washington. You know, our Charlie Rangel from New York. Our beloved Charlie Rangel.

"So he didn't pay some taxes. You went through the entire House of Representatives, out of 435 people I would bet you that 300 of them at the very least didn't pay some form of taxes they were supposed to pay. They're out to get Charlie Rangel.

"But that fat fuck freak Ed Schultz says he should resign"

Ladies, if you're ever at a singles bar and you find yourself attracted to a guy there, don't use that as a pick-up line.

If Schultz answers in kind (maybe he already has) I'll try to find the quotes and let you know about it.


Zeke .... ..... .... Lynn Samuels is a boring, loud-mouthed UWS (upper west side of Manhattan) leftist. Her radio shows would be shorter by 50% if she were not allowed to spew the f-bomb. ..... and 98% shorter if those shows were limited to items of any value. (07/30/10)


Ken Berwitz

Who has "ownership" of the war in Afghanistan?  Is it President Bush, who got rid of the taliban government, closed al qaeda's training camps, and kept things that way with a troop total that never got about the high 20,000's? 

Or is it Barack Obama, who declared Afghanistan a "war of necessity" (i.e. he agreed it should be fought), has quadrupled the number of our troops there, and is now overseeing dramatically more combat fatalities in that hopeless anal cavity of the world than we ever had under Bush?

Here is the first part of an Associated Press article which gives us the latest situation there.  Warning:  It is ugly:

KABUL, Afghanistan Three U.S. troops died in blasts in Afghanistan, bringing the death toll for July to at least 63 and surpassing the previous month's record as the deadliest for American forces in the nearly 9-year-old war.


In Kabul, police fired weapons into the air Friday to disperse a crowd of angry Afghans who shouted "death to America," hurled stones and set fire to two vehicles after an SUV was involved in a traffic accident that killed four Afghans on the main airport road, according to the capital's criminal investigations chief, Abdul Ghaafar Sayedzada.

I hope you took advantage of the link I provided and read not just the couple of paragraphs above, but the entire story. 

Tell me:  Does this look like the Obama model is working?  Does this look like it is yielding better results than President Bush attained with a fraction of the troops and a fraction of the casualties? 

Are you pleased with what President Obama has done regarding Afghanistan, and think it is superior to President Bush's strategies?  Or do you wish that we could go back in time and revert to how Mr. Bush handled things?

Finally, do you have any doubt whatsoever that, if our wonderful "neutral" media starts attacking President Obama for his conduct of the war (how's that for a big "if"?), Mr. Obama will find a way to blame it all on President Bush?

And whose fault is this?  Ultimately, it is ours.  We voted this unqualified, incompetent Chicago machine politician into the White House, along with a huge Democratic majority in both houses to second his actions.  Now we are paying for it.  Full price.

The 2010 elections cannot come soon enough.  And that goes double for 2012.

free` Ken, I saw the other day how the left plans to answer that question. It is Bushes fault for IGNORING the afghan war for 6 years. That was what our brilliant VP said. (07/30/10)


Ken Berwitz

You may find this a bit hard to believe but, according to a Reuters article (excerpted below) President Obama needs to "repair damage to his relationship with the black community".

I mean it.  That's what the article is saying.  Here, let me show you:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought on Thursday to repair damage to his relationship with the black community caused by his administration's firing of an African-American government official.

A political fracas erupted last week after Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign when conservative media depicted her as anti-white because of a speech she had given.

Obama later said his administration had jumped the gun and offered Sherrod her job back after a full airing of her speech showed her remarks were taken out of context.

In a speech to the National Urban League, a major civil rights organization, Obama underscored his regret for the incident, calling Sherrod an "exemplary woman."

"She deserves better than what happened last week," Obama said. He said the episode was "a bogus controversy, based on selective and deceiving excerpts of a speech."

"Many are to blame for the reaction and overreaction that followed these comments, including my own administration," said Obama, who made history when he became the nation's first African American president.

The audience gave Obama a friendly reception and he made several jokes, including mentioning how his job was turning his hair gray.

Let me get this straight:  President Obama was "damaged" in the Black community because he fired a Black official? 

Remember, the report doesn't say he was damaged because of an unfair firing - like, for example, the eminently unfair, and almost certainly illegal, firing of Gerald Walpin last year during a corruption investigation of Kevin Johnson, a big-city mayor who is one of Mr. Obama's key Black supporters.  No damage to repair there.  

No, this article's premise is that he has to repair the damage caused by firing a Black official. 

This insults and demeans Black people.  It assumes that if Barack Obama fires someone who happens to be Black, he has to answer specifically to "the Black community".  Not to the voters in general, but to voters who share the same skin color as the fired official.

Did Mr. Obama try to repair damage to "the Jewish community" after firing Gerald Walpin?  Did he speak before a specifically Jewish group to explain himself?

Racism comes in many forms.  But just about all of them consist of setting one group apart from the others and putting them in a special category, either positive or negative (usually negative).

Does this incident fit the definition?  You tell me.


Ken Berwitz

From the Boston Globe:

Senator John F. Kerry yesterday acknowledged for the first time that he mishandled the political fallout from questions about taxes on his new $7 million yacht berthed in Rhode Island, but insisted that he always intended to make the $500,000 payment once he had registered the boat in Massachusetts. Our fault, the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview. I dont think I dealt with it fast enough, effectively enough. Theres nobody to blame but myself for that.

Put that on your flowers and watch them grow.


Ken Berwitz

When do "hundreds of protestors" - which, protest-wise, is nothing with nothing - gain lead-story status on a major network's news show?

Tim Graham has the answer.  Here it is, excerpted from his latest blog at

Anger in the streets and were there for the protests, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer teased in making reaction from a few opposed to Arizonas immigration enforcement efforts her top story on Thursday night. She led:

Emboldened by a judge's rebuke of that law yesterday, hundreds of opponents of the crackdown took to the streets today. But the state's unyielding Governor stood by the law. ABCs Barbara Pinto touted over video which included a protester waving a Che Guevara flag:


Demonstrations started at dawn hundreds of protesters, dozens of arrests, tempers flaring. Tensions are running high here outside this jail, where protesters have gathered and it's turned into a standoff with sheriff's deputies who are trying to push their way out of the building. Demonstrations were loud, disruptive, but mostly peaceful.


After a clip of a woman complaining Joe Arpaio has picked the easy targets, the day laborers. Let's go after the real criminals and stop wasting our money, Pinto fretted: This afternoon, Sheriff Arpaio launched one of his controversial crime raids, targeting illegal immigrants. She concluded with a warning: Tonight's rally intended to send a clear signal to lawmakers and to Governor Brewer from those who think even a partial law is too much.

Is it just me, or did Diane Sawyer and ABC News turn a small, noisy, rowdy protest into some kind of seminal moment that it very definitely was not?

But I'll bet Ms. Sawyer and her cohorts at the network would bristle at any suggestion that this kind of reporting is biased.

The best thing I can say about ABC's sorry performance is that, maybe, biased reporting has become so commonplace there (and at CBS and NBC), so second-nature, that they don't even realize they're doing it anymore.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!