Lauriski is the Brownie of Sago

Michelle Malkin and the Corner are trotting out "blame Bush nut" again, this time against Scott Shields of MyDD for explaining how Bush's negligent safety policies may have caused the Sago mine tragedy.

The use of "Bush blamer" as an epithet should not go unchallenged. It's just a nicer way of saying "shut up, you crazy pinko." It's a desperate and disingenuous attempt to halt debate.

When accused of blaming Bush, sigh and re-explain, as to a very stupid child.

No, honey, when I say that Bush is probably responsible for the Sago mine disaster, I don't mean that he personally dynamited the mine. No, silly, "responsible" doesn't necessarily mean "solely, responsible with malice aforethought."

You see, Bush appoints cronies to run federal agencies. You know, like Mike Brown at FEMA. Bush crony appointee David Lauriski, a former coal mining lobbyist, upped thresholds for coal dust in mines, something the Clinton administration had flatly refused to do, despite pressure from the industry.

It turns out that accumulated coal dust is the most likely cause of the Sago disaster, as occupational safety expert Jordan Barab explains. We also know that Bush has been waging a funding war against OSHA and the MSHA for years. The Sago mine accumulated dozens of citations for excessive dust accumulation and other safety violations over the past year. How is it possible that an employer can commit dozens of documented crimes and continue doing business as usual? Sounds like the consequences of infractions aren't a significant deterrent.

No, dear, I'm not saying that every bad thing that happens during Bush's presidency is his fault. I'm saying that he's doing a terrible job of directing the federal agencies that are supposed to protect us. He's breaking the government and people are dying.

Comments

[Eli]

To be fair, Malkin doesn't have time to offer a full argument, preoccupied as she is with the battle against the unspeakable evil of Muslim Banking.

[John]

Here's a link to C&L that has a partial transcript from Hannity & Colmes, in which they spoke to Jack Spadaro, former director of the National Mine Academy.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/05.html#a6586

Spadaro tried to explain the exact same thing you did, Lindsay. Of course, Sean Hannity tried to drown him out with the "now you're politicizing this tragedy" argument, but Mr. Spadaro held his own against that ass pimple.

One thing for which you have to give Republicans credit, and that is once they have a talking point they stick to it like Krazy glue.

[greensmile]

I got the "liberal larry" treatment a while back for my "candy to a baby" post against the pandering of liberal-baiting talk show "personalities"...I can't even call them conservative because they don't seem to do much thinking. The "blame bush" trick, as used on me, was to use a rancid sarcasm to put a lot of words in my mouth that are not even exagerations but plain lies. I was a newbie blogger and retreated. Your point that such tactics must be exposed and resisted is advice I wish I had back then.

[Squashed Lemon]

Big question, Big question....

What has Bush done since the last Pennsylvania mine flooding? I dare to say, nothing. Didn't he cut the funding to miner safety? (I have to dig it out)

[Grumpy]

Have we yet heard a repeat of the chestnut last heard after Katrina? I'm speaking of the "It's too early to play the blame game (Planck time) That was in the past, now it's time to move on" maneuver.

[Robin]

The funny thing is they'll blame Clinton every chance they get for 9/11.

[The Phantom]

Hey, I know as much about coal mines as the seven commentators above, which is zero, but if we want to interrupt the reverie with a little facts, please read
the following

[Squashed lemon]

Posted by: The Phantom | January 05, 2006 at 11:35 PM

Do you have link to the original data in that charts? thanks. Just curious if those pretty little dots are real number or one of thsoe "global warming vs. pirate" types of data.

[Smitty]

Hey Phantom, thanks for setting the record straight.
The genius of Lindsay's logic is that no matter what the subject, if you can find any relationship to Bush via the federal government, Halliburton, his grandfather etc., you can still blame him for anything that goes wrong in the world including rainy days.
Of course, using the same logic we could also give him credit for anything that goes right too.
Or do I just need it explained to me again?

[gordo]

Phantom--

Coal mining has shifted significantly from east to west. Wyoming, which produced about the same amount of coal as West Virginia in 1990, now more than doubles West Virginia's output.

This has by itself led to a lower rate of accidents. In Wyoming, most of the coal is subbitimous coal that is taken from pit and strip mines. Obviously, this is a lot safer than tunnelling for the coal. One of the hazards of citing statistics without having expertise in a field is that you risk missing factors that might impact your data.

The Bush administration has been consistently hostile to unions and to regulation. Key positions are used as rewards for cronies and political supporters, or go unfilled. For example, MSHA deputy assistant secretarty David Dye got a quick promotion to acting assistant secretary so Bushco could show that SOMEBODY was in charge of the agency when this happened--Lauriski resigned more than a year ago. MSHA refuses to release Dye's biographical information.

Does this sound like a regime that's likely to increase mine safety? Or does it sound like an attempt to make our mining industry more like China's?

Sago was cited 208 times last year for safety violations. Although these citations could have cost $60,000 each, no individual fine exceeded $900. Your source acknowledges that he is not an expert in this field, so you might want to click Lindsay's link to Jordan Barab, who IS a workplace safety expert. Barab seems to think that lax enforcement of regulations was a major factor in this disaster.

[Rob G]

But Gordo, they have their little graph which clearly shows improvement under Bush (2000-2004) compared to Clinton (1995-1999). That is all they need, and you can be damn sure it will be used again.

Why bother with nitpicking details like WHY there is a difference? Or precisely what were the circumstances leading to the disaster? See, that's playing politics.

[Charlie]

One thing for which you have to give Republicans credit, and that is once they have a talking point they stick to it like Krazy glue.

Personally, I consider this a detriment, not a credit.

[Squashed Lemon]

Hey Phantom, thanks for setting the record straight.
The genius of Lindsay's logic is that no matter what the subject, if you can find any relationship to Bush via the federal government, Halliburton, his grandfather etc., you can still blame him for anything that goes wrong in the world including rainy days.
Of course, using the same logic we could also give him credit for anything that goes right too.
Or do I just need it explained to me again?

Posted by: Smitty | January 06, 2006 at 08:47 AM

actually he hasn't set anything straight. The data has some curious feature in it. plus it's only comparing very short time frame. etc etc...

The fact remain, there are dead people, and it hasn't happen too many time in the past decades. Suddenly Bush becomes a president mines start to pop like new years fireworks.

so something is up. What's the chance a president has 2 mining incidents in a tenure?

I wonder how many mining incidents previous presidents have. that would be an interesting stats to see too.

hmm...I guess this is the beginning of link/data post war.

[Squashed Lemon]

The rightwing spin machine is working overtime, they really know mining accident can expose Bush cozy/industry friendly corruption like nothing.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/06/spin-on-sago/

Chao’s Spin on Sago: We Saw the Problem, We Just Didn’t Do Anything About It

It is true that inspectors increased their inspections at Sago, but Chao neglected to mention what the inspections found. Federal investigators repeatedly documented the unsafe conditions at the mine:

Nearly half of the 208 safety citations levied in 2005 against the Sago coal mine where 12 men died this week were “serious and substantial.” Federal inspectors found 20 dangerous roof-falls, 14 power wire insulation problems, and three cases of inadequate ventilation plans, among the 96 major violations.

Amber Helms, whose father died in the mine, said: “If they had that many violations…, they shouldn’t have had the mines open in my opinion.” The problem wasn’t inspections; the problem was enforcement. Proper enforcement at Sago may have saved lives. As the New York Times editorializes this morning, the starting premise of the federal investigation “must be that the explosion that choked off 12 workers’ lives would never have happened if all the safety rules now on the books had been properly enforced.”

And each day, the evidence continues to mount that federal mine safety overseers, despite knowing about the problem, turned a blind eye to it:

Joe McGowan, a longtime Buckhannon, W.Va., resident who’s worked coal mines, oil and gas fields, and timber jobs in the past, says he spoke with his friend Junior Hamner, who died in the explosion, just two weeks ago about the dangers. “He said it’s nothing but a walking time bomb,” says Mr. McGowan, in a measured drawl. “He told me, ‘They’re going to kill us all.’”

[Squashed Lemon]

Mine Inspectors Questioned Administration’s Commitment To Mine Safety »

The Bush administration has announced that they will begin an investigation into the events surrounding the Sago coal-mine incident, an investigation that should explore the administration’s record on mine safety.

The Labor Department denies that budget cuts and staff reductions under President Bush have hindered the ability of the department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration to ensure coal-mine safety. But Jack Spadaro, a former mine safety investigator, claims that mine inspectors raised concerns before Sago about the disastrous consequences that might result from the Labor Department’s unwillingness to enforce safety regulations:

Jack Spadaro, former director of the MSHA National Mine Safety Academy, said inspectors told him privately that Labor Department opposition to vigorous safety regulation has hindered their work.

“Two weeks before this explosion, I was told by an inspector, ‘Jack, there’s going to be another disaster because we can’t do our jobs,’ ” he said in an interview.

The MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) should question Spadaro as part of its investigation.

This is not to suggest the administration’s budget cuts caused the West Virginia accident, nor is it the president’s fault that an explosion occurred. But there is a legitimate question as to whether future mining accidents can be prevented through greater enforcement of mining safety regulations and whether the Bush administration is doing all it can in this area.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/05/mine-inspectors/

[John]

Personally, I consider this a detriment, not a credit.

Actually I agree with you, Charlie. I was just being a smart-ass.

[Uncle Kvetch]

The genius of Lindsay's logic is that no matter what the subject, if you can find any relationship to Bush via the federal government, Halliburton, his grandfather etc., you can still blame him for anything that goes wrong in the world including rainy days.

That Harry Truman sure was a pussy, wasn't he?

"The buck stops here"--what a chump.

[The Phantom]

No, Uncle, Truman was right.

But its just as stupid to say Bush is always wrong as it would be to have a Hannityized view of life to say that he is always right.

There can and should be fair, legit, hard criticism. But none of that useful commentary is going to come from " Crooks and Liars " and the like.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Show me where Lindsay has said, or even suggested, that "Bush is always wrong," Phantom, and I'll cede the point. If you can't do that, you should be willing to concede that "Smitty" was simply throwing shit.

[The Phantom]

Allow me to turn the tables, as even the most biased individual will normally not say " X is always wrong ".

Please show me one post where Lindsay has praised President Bush or any action by him.

[Uncle Kvetch]

When did you stop beating your wife, Phantom?

[The Phantom]

Last Tuesday

[John]

The gauntlet has been thrown down, Lindsay. Say something nice about President Bush, dammit!

[gordo]

Well, Bush did donate to charity $6,000 of the money that Abramoff raised for him, keeping only $100,000+.

Seriously, I can think of something Bush did right: he invaded Afghanistan, removing al-Qaeda's most important resource. There remains no nation that will openly harbor bin Laden or allow al-Qaeda to recruit and train openly. I can quibble with Bush's approach, but this was a necessary step in fighting terrorism.

So maybe now Phantom can concede the point at hand. I'm a bit sick of the Bush cheerleader method of argument. You point out a case where Bush has obviously dropped the ball, and they say, "but what about..." and change the subject.

Bush failed in New Orleans. "But what about Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco?" Bush lied and said that wiretaps would only be used with a court order, then wiretapped U.S. citizens without a warrant. "But what about Clinton lying about Monica?" It's like playing whack-a-mole. Debunk one spin point, and it's on to the next. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole. Phantom, do you think that Bush's approach to regulating the mines will make them safer, or not?

[The Phantom]

Gordo

Will get back. Am focusing on making some putanesca sauce now. See y'all tomorrow.