Posts tagged ‘War Machine’

Madison never meant Second Amendment to allow guns of Sandy Hook shooting



Madison never meant Second Amendment to allow guns of Sandy Hook shooting (via The Christian Science Monitor)

Following the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. by Adam Lanza , many Americans are wondering what exactly our Founding Fathers intended when they set the Second Amendment to paper more than 200 years ago. Surely not the killing of 20 young children and six women.…

Read more…

Maher says Republicans have same problem as the Beach Boys: ‘Their fans are dying’



Maher says Republicans have same problem as the Beach Boys: ‘Their fans are dying’ (via Raw Story )

Friday night on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” host Bill Maher addressed the Republican Party’s staggering electoral losses in this week’s elections and mused that the party may be facing virtual extinction. Maher began the segment talking about Fox News’s alert early on election day that a…

Read more…

Chicano Documentary PBS The Stealing Of Mexico Land Legally By The USA


GOP Declares National Victory in Wisconsin | The Nation


 

Before the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election had even been called Tuesday night by the news networks, conservatives and Republicans were gleefully celebrating Governor Scott Walker’s impending victory. If you were watching Fox News, you were informed that the hastily organized June race in one state is a near-certain predictor of the presidential election results November. Moreover, unions that opposed Walker had not only been defeated in this one specific race; they had been exposed as out of touch with their own members and decisively crushed throughout the nation from today to the End of Times.

Here’s a sampling of what conservative pundits and Republican politicians had to say:

“If I’m Barack Obama I think, ‘Do I need to defend Wisconsin now?’”
—Sean Hannity, Fox News host

“With tonight’s victory, I think this is a state, not only can we win in Wisconsin, but Mitt Romney can also be very competitive, can win Michigan, Pennsylvania.”
—Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

“As Reagan followed Thatcher, Mitt Romney will follow Scott Walker.”
—Hugh Hewitt, radio host

“This shows the irrelevance of the unions.”
—Denny Strigl, former Verizon CEO

“Pack it in, Unions. It’s over.”
Tweet from Brett Doster, Florida senior adviser to Romney for President.

“Perhaps it’s those union leaders, those thugs… who need to be recalled…. Obviously [Obama’s] message has been defeated here in Wisconsin.”
—Sarah Palin, Fox News contributor

“TONIGHT’S RESULTS WILL ECHO BEYOND THE BORDERS OF WISCONSIN”
—Press release headline from Mitt Romney

The National Republican Campaign Committee asserted that the recall election results mean trouble for Democrats in unrelated Wisconsin congressional elections. “By rejecting [Democratic nominee] Tom Barrett [Wisconsin voters] also sent a message that they are ready to stay on a fiscally responsible, pro-jobs track and that means trouble ahead for Madison liberal Tammy Baldwin,” they declared.

There are a few inconvenient facts being ignored by all these chest-beating proclamations. Democrats were at a distinct disadvantage in this particular race. They had only a few weeks between the primary, when Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was selected, and the election, while Walker had months to organize. They were wildly outspent by Republicans, who brought in massive infusions of cash from corporations and wealthy donors. In total, the GOP side spent $45.6 million to $17.9 million on the left. And the exit polls showed that this very same electorate that favored Walker 54-45, favors President Obama over Mitt Romney, 52 to 43. Voters from families with a union member chose Barrett 62–37. (There was no breakout available for just union members themselves, but they tend to be even more Democratic than all voters from union households.)

Before the votes were even cast, sharper minds cautioned against overestimating their national significance. Here’s Slate’s Will Oremus listing the reasons this race is not a test-run for the presidential election:

1) It’s a recall. 2) It’s happening in June. 3) The incumbent is a Republican. 4) Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is running. 5) A significant number of states (49 by my count) will not be participating. 6) Need I go on?

Drawing inferences about a national election on the basis of a state election is almost always tenuous, but it’s particularly so in the case of a gubernatorial recall, where the main issue is not the U.S. economy, health care, or national security, but the character and specific track record of the individual in office.

And, as The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis notes, an uptick in the economy will help all incumbents regardless of party. That means both endangered Republican governors such as Ohio John Kasich and President Obama.

Make no mistake, this is bad news for progressives and Democrats. But it does not prove what conservatives say it does. Rather, it merely shows that the unlimited spending unleashed by the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court has given Republicans a tremendous spending advantage and that does make a difference. Whether or not President Obama and other Democrats can overcome that is an open question.

Related Topics: Barack Obama | Election 2012 | US Politics | Gubernatorial Campaigns and Elections | Campaign Finance | Citizens United v. FEC | Campaigns and Elections | Sarah Palin | States | Conservatives and the American Right | Electoral Politics | Political Action Committees | Presidential Campaigns and Elections

  • |
  • |
  • Text Size A|A|A

If you like this article, consider making a donation.

make a donation

Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.

reprint information

DISQUS...

Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?

Facebook

Twitter

Sharing this page …

Thanks! Close

Login

Add New Comment

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.

  • Post as …
  • Image

Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)

Sort by popular nowSort by best ratingSort by newest firstSort by oldest first

Showing 20 of 106 comments

0 new comment was just posted. Show

  • ronj1955 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Corporate money has run the electoral process for decades.

    show more show less

  • cashhuge.com 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    like Dennis replied I am amazed that some one able to earn $5841 in one month on the internet. have you read that web page

    show more show less

  • RDDavis 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    And NOW, demos want people to reject Romney cause they say he had low job creation numbers, BUT what they dont tell you is, Romney averaged just slightly over 5% unemployment during his time as gubner of Mass.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to create new jobs, when there is no one to take them, EVERYONE who wanted a job, had one already!!

    show more show less

  • RDDavis 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    THIS is what we had in
    ’06 when Republicans held both houses of congress and the WH, and dem0s were
    running for control of congress promising “CHANGE.” How’re yall
    liking the “CHANGE?”

    2006 unemployment #s
    4.7…jan.
    4.8…feb.
    4.7…march
    4.7…april
    4.7…may
    4.6…june
    4.7…july
    4.7…aug.
    4.5…sep.
    4.4…oct.
    4.5…nov.
    4.4…dec.

    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servle…

    When Republicans had
    both houses and the WH…………………….http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketvie… … oduct.html

    The 1st quarter of ’06 saw 4.8% growth in GDP. Then came demos running for
    control of congress promising “CHANGE.” They won, and after 2 years
    in power, things HAVE “CHANGED” GDP growth dropped to negative 6%.
    Happy with your “CHANGE?”

    12,600

    12,621.77

    January 24, 2007

    DOW open and close

    Deficit in january
    ‘07, 1.2%

    show more show less

  • Stephen_Carver1 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    I don’t know if you remember this, cause your stats from 2006 are really beautiful, but in 2008, the bottom fell out of the economy and the financial sector almost collapsed, the auto industry almost collapsed and we went into the worst recession since the Great Depression.  The collapse was a direct cause of 30 years of continued government deregulation in all sorts of financial sectors, brought about by a misplaced understanding of what the long term effects of supply-side economics would be.

    In simpler words:  Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down” economy (aka “voodoo economics” as stated by George HW Bush) FAILED ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

    So, your statistics, while beautiful, are…well…pointless.

    show more show less

  • RDDavis 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    ·

    Just like in EVERY CASE , when

    Republicans pick up power, the economy does better. When
    dim-0s pick up power,

    the economy falters.

    It happened when carter gained the WH, the economy got
    WORSE.

    It happened when Reagan gained the WH, the economy got
    BETTER.

    It happened when clinton gained the WH, economic growth
    dropped from over 4%,

    to about 2% 2 years later.

    It happened in jan ’95, when Republicans took over congress,
    the economy caught

    fire and sported some of the best times in our history,
    including balanced

    budgets and even a PROJECTED surplus.

    It happened in jan ’00 when W. gained the WH. He inherited a
    recession, a crashing market and 9-11 with terrorists in our country planning
    and training. He turned that into the longest running jobs expansion in our
    history with an average 5.2% unemployment number.

    It happened AGAIN in jan ’07, when dim-0 gained control of
    congress promising

    “CHANGE” from the 4.4% unemployment, mid 4%
    economic growth, and the

    longest running jobs expansion in the history of the nation.

    “CHANGED” to depression.

    Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.c…

    show more show less

  • Stephen_Carver1 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    You are truly clueless, aren’t you?

    show more show less

  • LaFayette75 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    DEMOCRACY – USE IT OR LOSE IT

    From WikiP here:

    The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right

    What a bunch sub-human life forms are those quoted in BA’s article above. How low have we descended?

    The right of collective bargaining is included in the UN Charter of Human Rights – see article 23 here. The charter was formulated at the UN in 1947 and sponsored by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    The US is signatory to that charter but never, never, never adopted Article 23 into national legislation – because we are seriously behind the advance of human-rights. Like some old-fashioned country existing on a planet at the opposite end of our galaxy.

    If ignorance is bliss, than we are a very, very Happy People. And if we are not a Happy People, then no one else is to blame other than We, the Sheeple who continue to vote for politicians under the influence of plutocrats. The choice is ours – always has been, always will be.

    Democracy – Use It or Lose It. (Look for and vote into office a Progressive Candidate. Show the bastards that “I am mad as hell and I aint gonna take it anymore!!!”)

    show more show less

  • LaFayette75 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    BIG-DADDY

    I’m not kidding. Where are the courageous politicians who are willing to bring Uncle Sam, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century by instituting in law certain basic human-rights as regards unionizing?

    Or do you want to be led by the nose as is the case today – by plutocrats and their crony Supreme Court.

    We have a Bill of Rights – and the freedom to gather together into a union to bargain collectively is a basic human-right which we, as a civilized nation, deserve to have stated there.

    Your fate is at stake and that, perhaps, of your family – and almost certainly your children. So decide. You think we don’t need unions to represent us against the forces of capitalism amassed against us?

    Then you have not lost your job often enough.

    In the Supply and Demand equation of the Labor Market, both sides must be of equal strength and significance. Any damn fool should be able to understand that basic premise.

    From WikiP:

    In the mid-1950s, 36% of the United States labor force was unionized. At America’s union peak in the 1950s, union membership was lower in the United States than in most comparable countries. By 1989, that figure had dropped to about 16%, the lowest percentage of any developed democracy, except France.

    Other union membership for other developed democracies, in 1990, were:
    – 95% in Sweden and Denmark;
    – 85% in Finland;
    – over 60% in Norway and Austria;
    – over 60% in Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom;
    – over 30% in West Germany and Italy.

    You’re being screwed if you think BigDaddy is going to look out for you.

    show more show less

  • gorak 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    The issue was the presumed universal impossibility of abolishing teachers union rights. The idea wasn’t that you would occasionally get thrown out of office for this, but that you would always be defeated over it. This presumption only took one contrary example to blow it apart all over the country. The impossible has become merely difficult and the change is irreversible.

    show more show less

  • DaveOlson 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Don’t believe your own PR.  This was a serious loss and will affect the fall.

    show more show less

  • TomGenin 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Fact: The Exit Poll in Wisconsin was worthless.
    Fact: The “Exit Poll” said the Walker/Barrett race was Tie.
    Fact: Walker won by 8%.
    Fact: Exit Poll said voters still favored Obama over Romney by 7%
    Fact: Only an idiot would rely on an Exit Poll that was off by 8% for the opposing party when your guy is up 7%.
    The exit polling was worthless, whereas the victory was priceless.

    show more show less

  • michiganruth 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    “If you were watching Fox News, you were informed that the hastily
    organized June race in one state is a near-certain predictor of the
    presidential election results November….”

    actually, Ben, I WAS watching Fox News, and what you wrote is simply not true, even tho it was a really cool-sounding sentence. (you’ll get over loving the sound of your own copy when you’re older.)

    now that I think about this tho:

    I am absolutely in favor of liberals continuing to think there’s nothing wrong with their policies.  you’re right Ben: the Wisconsin election means bupkes, and Democrats have nothing to learn from the results. the 7-point differential was a “razor-thin” margin, and the whole thing was a Koch Brothers-funded setup anyway.

    show more show less

  • J_Stuart_Mill 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    Testy, testy…!   Are a MAJORITY of Right-Wing Mouth-Foaming Animal-Devils gloating up and down the Promenade…?  No.

    So take it easy.  If Walker had lost, a portion of Left-Wing folks would have popped off themselves.  True or False…?

    BTW on a tactical front, this is thin gruel.  Frankly, the End Zone Dance (and the Anniversary End Zone Dance) on bin Laden was somewhat … unbecoming a President.  Kinda “Mission Accomplished” thing there … I mean, in both cases the CIC should have seen the sign/plans and maybe said, “No, this is more serious than that, this is an apolitical role of a President.”

    If only….

    Anyway, back to Reality.  The Whisky results really matter ONLY in the context of a close election this Fall.  If Romney takes Pennsylvania, the context of conditions (economy, etc) that would make that happen mean it would be OVER.

    If Obama takes Florida, in context that would mean it’s OVER.

    If, however, it’s close, then Romney needs / Obama must hold:  Florida, Ohio, Virginia … and ONE MORE.  That could be Whisky.

    That’s it!  Can we do analysis, even if we have a position? Sure! Even if we have a collection of dog whistles, in my case … I’m from Ohio … I’ll be working down South looking for the demographic that voted 42% against Obama in WV and KY Dem Primaries … and turn out that vote.  Ground Game.  Part of life. Can’t say I’m happy it’s come to this….

    show more show less

  • TomGenin 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    I think you mean “pooped” themselves. If they would have “popped” themselves, well… a Walker loss would have had a plus side.

    show more show less

  • Democracy_of_One 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Ben – You are an original.   “Rather, it merely shows that the unlimited spending unleashed by the
    Republican appointees on the Supreme Court has given Republicans a
    tremendous spending advantage and that does make a difference.”

    Supreme Court – ” Selected not Elected.”  -Do I read an entendre in there.

    When the SC declares Obamacare illegal, what are you going to say?

    show more show less

  • porchhound 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    The leftist wackos like this “journalist” are having grand mal seizures at their keyboards attempting to twist the Wisconsin union recall debacle into something other than what it is…ABJECT FAILURE and a sign of things to come in November.  What do you people GAIN by lying to one another?  Can you WISH a different outcome?  Grow UP and smell the sound of public union contracts going through the shredder!

    show more show less

  • bflat879 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Ben, Are you serious here?  IN 2010, the Democrats were given a wake-up call, they hit the snooze button.  They’ve been in denial ever since.  This election is the alarm going off again.  I’m betting they hit the snooze button again and I’m basing it on reading your comments.

    If you don’t know there’s something happening out here you’re just not too observant.

    show more show less

  • SteveThomas39 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    It’s so funny to read this site. It’s like traveling to an alternate universe where common sense is against the law. Oh wait, I forgot, that’s the idea of progressivism. But it sure was a vitally important election to “progressives” before they lost.

    show more show less

  • Ranting Loons 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Democrats were all about this being a national election a month ago. How they were going to dump walker and how “the people” of Wisconsin were behind them – it seems they were off a bit.

    As for your exit poll comparisons – they were “off” – remember how they were predicting a neck and neck race, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.

    show more show less

0 new comment was just posted. Show

Load more comments

Reactions
  • RT @thenation: A few inconvenient facts being ignored by all the chest-beating conservative proclamations: http://t.co/pr5pWHs7 #WIrecall

    14 hours ago

    @laurenismyfav

  • National victory by state election hmmm GOP Declares National Victory in Wisconsin | The Nation http://t.co/r5jVNwx7

    16 hours ago

    @capitaloffensiv

  • GOP Declares National Victory in Wisconsin | The Nation http://t.co/kiwHaNJl

    16 hours ago

    @FLakesDems

  • GOP Declares National Victory in Wisconsin | The Nation http://t.co/ooCYlUOw

    16 hours ago

    @Fieryreddragon

Trackback URL

<div class=”disqus-noscript”><a href=”http://the-nation.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fblog%2F168243%2Fgop-declares-national-victory-wisconsin”>View the discussion thread.</a></div>

Latest

 

Ad Policy

Blogs

GOP Declares National Victory in Wisconsin | The Nation

Top music lobbyist urges corporations to voluntarily censor the Internet | The Raw Story


 

Topics: Cary Shermanrecording industry association of americaRIAA

In prepared remarks delivered to Congress (PDF) on Wednesday, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) CEO Cary Sherman said that the movie and music industries are working behind the scenes to encourage major Internet companies to voluntarily censor the Internet in an effort to better protect intellectual property rights.

Sherman’s testimony came amid a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on “The Future of Audio,” during which members of Congress were considering allowing FM receivers be inserted into next generation smartphones, which would see radio stations paying more in performance rights. Sherman, however, decided to talk about piracy, saying that despite the growing popularity of legitimate online music streaming services, illegal downloading is still essentially killing the industry and more must be done to fight it.

“We hope other intermediaries like search engines will… [negotiate] voluntary marketplace best practices to prevent directing users to sites that are dedicated to violating property rights,” he told the committee.

Despite Sherman’s hopes, that’s not likely to happen.

Search giant Google has been an ardent defender of the same cloud-based storage websites the RIAA calls “rogue,” and even filed an amicus brief on behalf of one so-called “cyber locker” website earlier this year in a prosecution brought by the movie and music industries, accusing the site of a copyright infringement conspiracy. Their attorneys argued that the movie and music industries fundamentally misunderstand the law and are trying to use it in an abusive manner, to the point where they are actually threatening the very existence of the social Internet.

The same groups were behind an enforcement action carried out against user-upload site MegaUpload.com, which Sherman hailed as a landmark achievement for the industry. “The indictment of MegaUpload has had a tremendous impact on other such rogue cyberlocker sites,” he said. “The government’s action sends a signal that the UnitedStates will not tolerate the use of the Internet for criminal activity that violates our laws.”

But where they cannot achieve their goals through government action, the RIAA and counterparts at the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) have sought to achieve voluntary compliance. One of their most recent successes in this arena will see America’s largest Internet service providers launching a copyright spying scheme on July 1 of this year that will monitor Internet users’ traffic and interrupt them with messages of possible legal sanctions if infringing activities are detected.

“Just last year, we announced a voluntary program with ISPs that will be implemented later this year to address illegal downloads on P2P networks,” Sherman told members of Congress. “We also helped craft an agreement with major credit card companies and payment processors on voluntary best practices to reduce sales of counterfeit and pirated goods. And just last month, major advertisers and ad agencies announced a series of voluntary best practices so that their valuable brands are not associated with rogue Internet sites that offerillegal goods, and advertisers don’t inadvertently enrich rogue website operators.”

One example of a voluntary industry “best practice” formulated in recent years are the shared blacklists used by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other major Internet corporations to track sites that are known to host malicious software. While these companies usually just insert a warning page cautioning users that a given site may be harmful, they do not completely block users from accessing them.

Microsoft, however, inadvertently demonstrated earlier this year what a more advanced “best practice” might look like, when it began censoring links to The Promo Bay, a legal media sharing website spun off by the creators of The Pirate Bay, one of the Internet’s leading hubs for illegal downloaders.

Despite that site’s purported legitimacy, it landed on the “SmartScreen” blacklist used by Microsoft, likely due to a report by a copyright holder, and the company suddenly began actively preventing users of its Windows Live Messenger program from sharing links to it. Other sites that were offering identical content could be shared through the service, but Microsoft’s chat client simply explained to users that The Promo Bay “was blocked because it was reported as unsafe,” with users on the other end left unaware the communication ever took place.

“These voluntary programs are not a panacea. No program ever will be,” Sherman told Congress. “And sometimes, the Congress must step in to assure that our property rights, and U.S. economic interests, are being protected. Especially against sites overseas whose business model is the theft of U.S. works. But collectively, we think these collaborative efforts will make a difference. They are the product of outreach, and a lot of conversation over several years — not only with these intermediaries, but also with public interest groups who want to figure out how to address online problems while ensuring the reasonable preservation of a free and open Internet.

“We need to engage in the same sort of outreach directly with the tech and Internet communities, and I am committed to doing that — because, in the end, we all have an interest in an Internet that is open and accessible, but not lawless.”
——

Photo: Shutterstock.com, all rights reserved.

Top music lobbyist urges corporations to voluntarily censor the Internet | The Raw Story

What Is Europe’s Problem?


February 9, 2012 in Uncategorized by Anarchadia

‎” It starts with “thou shall not kill”, then it is “thou shall not kill your neighbor”, then  ”thou shall not kill if that person has lots of money and resources to corrupt you”… and it finishes with, “God is with us, we can go and invade Iraq!”
– Christophe Alévêque

Many of us are too busy putting up with new false ideologies, Mass Media Disinformation, as well as our own lives, to be able to discern real information from that which is false. There is also the National versus Global “problem” (Countries don’t necessarily share the same News, even though they all belong to the same companies, through advertising and financing), which technically censors non-corporate mass communication and still divides the World, between Mass Monetarism and Non-Monetarism (I assure you, it even divides China). It’s all much more subtle now, because obviously the criminals of today, have had a lot of homework to study up on… and so do we!

Europe is being divided just as America, Russia, China, and mostly every other Developed Country in the World; except in America we are one of the least educated Countries in the World, so truth easily wears thin, and debilitates public opinion to the point of supporting the most phony crooks this World has ever set eyes on. Some say Fascism regained its power when Allen Dulles (a Nazi Supporter) assassinated Kennedy, after getting fired by Kennedy. Dulles surprisingly got his job back after Kennedy was killed, was on the Commission which investigated Kennedy, and helped start the career of George W. Bush. Others will argue that Fascism never left America, since the early days of Henry Ford (a nazi supporter). I personally think that Fascism is just a tool of all Oligarchs, whether they be Monarchs or the very rich hiding behind their Corporations, Trademarks, and Monetary Opportunists. Monarchies and Corporations function the same way… they are trademarks, backed by Capital Interest. When the English people speak about their Monarchy, they glorify it as an “amazing” trademark, which is good for stability… give me a break! They are just as amazing as Nike, who exploited enslaved children for 0.30 cents a pair of shoes, to then tell the World how much money they were making. “Amazing”!

The British Monarchy as well as the Austrian Monarchy were Fascist at some point, and some of them fully supported the Nazis. Edward VIII had to abdicated because he was a strong public supporter of Hitler. But nothing was said about George VI, and his personal ideologies. We can give them the benefit of believing in their personalized stochastic versions of History, or we can maybe imagine that the U.K Monarchy had to turn against Fascism. Fascism was unpopular in the U.K as well as the U.S (maybe because the money making War Profit Machine had already started). Hitler never bombed the British Monarchy, he said it was just to scare the Monarchs, but Fascism would have been advantageous to the already rottingly corrupt Monarchy, its Aristocracy and Bourgeoisie (remember Charles Dickens?).

Unspun News On Facebook Since 2010

Maybe this sudden change in Monarchs, had more to do with the “Business plan” in America which failed in 1933, and gave force to the War Loving FDR. The U.K knew that if America ever went to War against UK Monarchist Fascism (as was the Spanish Monarchy, backed by the Vatican, and Italian Government), the Monarchy would be obliterated by historical American sentiment against the U.K Crown. Strong feelings die hard. MI6 and the CIA might state a different story, but we all know who MI6 works for, as well as the CIA: Corporate Interest (not for the little guys and girls).

So in all this there is a trend, and even if we cannot prove it through judicial paper work (since America invented the paper shredder), maybe we can at least admit that the wealthy have been systemically greedy, as some public schools used to teach our kids (with Buddha, Robin Hood and Charles Dickens… the big movie studios are even going to capitalize on Dickens again, as did Sir. Charles for this year’s Charles Dickens anniversary).

Just keep in mind that Fascism resurfaced right after WWII, with the CIA backing Right-Wing Movements, while discrediting those on the Left (Hitler had done the exact same thing, when he won the elections of 1933). Here specialists will iterate the Communist Threat, except that Hitler was just as much against Communism as America was before/after World War II. What is the primordial difference between Fascism and Communism? None. Both were populist fronts used to sell weapons and make War. These Governments might have supported a few good ideas we can learn from, but they were just as murderous and opportunistic when it came to money as the Fascists were. In principle, Socialism/Christianity was for equality, and against monetary inequality, while Fascism is very much like Anarcho-Capitalism aspires to be today (the rich do as they please, which has been the case of Socialist Governments as well as Christian Institutions, the same can be said about Islam or any other Religion; they were all corrupted at some point or another by Capitalism).

Propaganda Due which existed from 1945-1976 helped Italy’s Right Wing pulverize the Left from 1976 to 1981, Propaganda Due implicates three international celebrities: Berlusconi, Sarcozy (who was his Lawyer), and Putin, who just like George Bush, must have been CIA assets, or at least on the same side (that of Fascism ever since Dulles, and maybe even before). The CIA also backed Right-Wing Coups with the Hollywood style Italian Elections of 1948.

Anyway let us skip forward to today. What do Merkel, Sarcozy, Berlusconi, Obama, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Reagan, etc… all share in common? They support the Right Wing, and are simply Centrist Populist Opportunists, who work for the Corporations, who in turn, work for the very rich (who puppeteer us all, it is the case of saying it, just look how old the British Monarchy’s Family Lineage is, these folks had to lie out of their asses ). Never forget that the Austrian Monarchy taught the U.K Monarchy not to go too far in the age of popular votes. The U.K Fascists had learned from their Ancestors mistakes, and were in full throttle to export it to America.

Angela Merkel and Sarcozy have been floating around together these last few months, on televisions saying the same thing: “More Austerity, cut public sector jobs”. They state that they are even ready to kick out Greece and Portugal from the E.U because of their own Fascism. And if anyone criticizes them, they say they are being affronted by the threats of Nationalist/Fascists. Maybe on TV those repeated lies work, but not near any critical-thinking minority (not all people have the time to identify when they are being lead into Fascism, no matter how rich and innocent they are, because Fascists talked about the poor all of the time, only to tax them more like they want to do on us today), enslave them, kill, ex-propriate and famish others. You know the drill! Its a natural recurrence in man, its Fascism!

Therefore when these Countries talk about Greece and Portugal’s debt (behind their backs on Mainstream Corporate Networks), the Fascists want to kick out Countries who refuse to remove more of their Public Sector. They always have wanted to replace Public Services with privatization and Big Chain Hotels, which will impoverish them. America used those policies these past 40 years and look at use we are the most indebted Countri in the World). While the E.U is ready to allow Countries like Croatia (which is an expensive tourist trap compared to Greece), into its Fascist Union. The European Bank is Centralized just like the FED, and even if these Unions broke up, it would actually make prices cheaper, while expanding the Black and Grey Market profits for those who can invest in them. It is common knowledge that those who invest in War get very rich.

And to conclude this rather long debacle I would like to speak of my opinion about France, since many Countries in Europe, Eurasia, South America, and Africa are facing the same threat:

The only reason Sarcozy is even credited as a good candidate, is because his only “real” competition is the Fascist Party itself. Same in Russia against Putin, America with Rand Paul/Ron Paul (currently Obama but he doesn’t have the popular support anymore), and et cetera. Anarchists all over the World are censored, even for what they have to say. Simply because true Anarchism in not for profit, it is a revolutionary evolution within the psyche of man, and has been around for thousands of years… which is a very different image from what most History books state. Anarchists are simply minorities who speak out not behind an ideology, but against oppression they themselves felt. Most Anarchists are pacifists, and are much more patient and peaceful than any of your Government Leaders or their Bankers. Truth is not that difficult to find, unless you have Julius Caesar types who think they can redominate this World, with “divide and conquer”. Divide and conquer works, but it needs War to kill competition, or else it is quickly attacked as a deceitful lie. And people in this World are sick and tired of seeing people dying and hungry, just so that a few assholes can take the credit for everything their billions of slaves have made.

‎” Religion is like any elite. You have the pope, who declares something. The Apostles listen and go out repeating the declaration of the pope, which they memorized. Then you have what is called the people of the church, who interpret what the Apostles told them, but still it is always memorized. Finally you have the “believers” (who ironically believe not what they have to say, but what they themselves memorized, courtesy of the church), who go out and indoctrinate people who have no means to think, like most of us (only because we are worked so much we are stupid and lower class, and must have nothing better to do). So then these stupid people are convinced that it is wise to repeat what they heard from “believers”. Those same “believers”, who had memorized what the Apostles said, who in turn had to memorize what the Pope declared. ”
– Christophe Alévêque

Leave a reply

 

 

 

 

What Is Europe’s Problem?.

Relatives of Afghan civilians killed or injured in Robert Bales’ ‘shooting spree’ receive tens of thousands of dollars from US military – NYPOST.com


New York Post

Last Updated:Sun., Mar. 25, 2012, 11:26am

Relatives of victims in Afghan shooting spree paid $900K by US military

Last Updated: 11:15 AM, March 25, 2012

Posted: 10:48 AM, March 25, 2012

KABUL — Relatives of 17 people shot dead in a rampage by a US soldier in southern Afghanistan were paid tens of thousands of dollars in compensation, a tribal chief and government officials said Sunday.

The money — provided by the US military — was handed over at a private ceremony at the Kandahar provincial governor’s office, they said.

“The elders called me and said they were paid $50,000 per person for the dead and $11,000 for the injured per person,” Haji Agha Lalai, a tribal chief and a member of the Kandahar provincial council, said.

The killings — mostly of women and children — in Panjwai district are thought to be the deadliest crime by a US soldier during the decade-long conflict and have tested Washington and Kabul’s already tense relationship.

AP
Afghan villagers pray over the grave of one of the victims of a shooting rampage earlier this month.

The US is keen to draw a line under the massacre earlier this month as far as it can, and the sums — around $900,000 in total — amount to a fortune in rural Afghanistan.

The payments Saturday came a day after Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, 38, of the US 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, was formally accused of 17 premeditated murders for the killings — charges that could carry the death penalty.

He also is accused of six counts of assault and attempted murder.

Afghan government officials speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed the payments but differed slightly on the amounts, citing them as 2.3 million Afghanis ($46,000) each for the families of the dead and 500,000 Afghanis for the injured.

American officers, local government leaders and tribal elders were present at the event, they said.

Local government officials in Kandahar declined to comment.

In Kabul, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) declined to confirm that any payment was made.

“As a matter of policy, ISAF does not make restitution for losses resulting from combat, combat-related activities or operational necessity,” he said.

But he added, “Individual troop-contributing nations may participate in some form of restitution consistent with the cultural norms of Afghanistan.”

Such payments are normally kept confidential, he added.

Fears had been expressed that if the families received compensation, they could be targeted by Taliban militants, who consistently threaten anyone who receives money from the United States or other foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Bales allegedly walked off his combat outpost under cover of darkness March 11 and killed 17 people in two nearby villages, burning some of their bodies before returning to the base and surrendering.

Responding to the charges against the soldier, a spokesman for Afghan president Hamid Karzai said, “We want justice, and we want it as soon as possible.”

Bales is currently being held at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, and a spokesman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, his home station, said it was likely to be 18 to 24 months until any trial.

Comments

Get NEW YORK POST Emails & Alerts

By clicking ‘SIGN-UP’ you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy

PostPics

Today in Pictures

Click on Each Photo

Video

Click here to find out more!

 

Relatives of Afghan civilians killed or injured in Robert Bales’ ‘shooting spree’ receive tens of thousands of dollars from US military – NYPOST.com.

How To Find An American Police State


This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com. Click here to catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Salisbury discusses post-9/11 police “mission creep” in this country, or download it to your iPod here.   At the height of the Occupy Wall Street evictions, it seemed as though some diminutive version of “shock and awe” had stumbled from Baghdad, Iraq, to Oakland, California. American police forces had been “militarized,” many commentators worried, as though the firepower and callous tactics on display were anomalies, surprises bursting upon us from nowhere.

About the Author

Stephan Salisbury
  Stephan Salisbury is cultural writer for the Philadelphia  Inquirer. His most recent book is Mohamed’s  Ghosts:…

Also by the Author

Far from winning votes, “Muslim-bashing” alienates large swaths of the electorate—even as it hardens an already hard core on the right.

 
 

Gunned down in Tucson, shot to death at the Pentagon and blown away at the Holocaust Museum, as well as in Wichita, Knoxville, Pittsburgh, Brockton and Okaloosa County, Florida, the landscape of America is littered with bodies.

 

There should have been no surprise. Those flash grenades exploding in Oakland and the sound cannons on New York’s streets simply opened small windows onto a national policing landscape long in the process of militarization—a bleak domestic no man’s land marked by tanks and drones, robot bomb detectors, grenade launchers, tasers and most of all, interlinked video surveillance cameras and information databases growing quietly on unobtrusive server farms everywhere.

The ubiquitous fantasy of “homeland security,” pushed hard by the federal government in the wake of 9/11, has been widely embraced by the public. It has also excited intense weapons- and techno-envy among police departments and municipalities vying for the latest in armor and spy equipment.

In such a world, deadly gadgetry is just a grant request away, so why shouldn’t the 14,000 at-risk souls in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, have a closed-circuit-digital-camera-and-monitor system (cost: $180,000, courtesy of the Homeland Security Department) identical to the one up and running in New York’s Times Square?

So much money has gone into armoring and arming local law-enforcement since 9/11 that the federal government could have rebuilt post-Katrina New Orleans five times over and had enough money left in the kitty to provide job training and housing for every one of the record 41,000-plus homeless people in New York City. It could have added in the growing population of 15,000 homeless in Philadelphia, my hometown, and still have had money to spare. Add disintegrating Detroit, Newark and Camden to the list. Throw in some crumbling bridges and roads, too.

But why drone on? We all know that addressing acute social and economic issues here in the homeland was the road not taken. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security alone has doled out somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion in direct grants to state and local law enforcement, as well as other first responders. At the same time, defense contractors have proven endlessly inventive in adapting sales pitches originally honed for the military on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to the desires of police on the streets of San Francisco and Lower Manhattan. Oakland may not be Basra but (as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked to say) there are always the unknown unknowns: best be prepared.

All told, the federal government has appropriated about $635 billion, accounting for inflation, for homeland security–related activities and equipment since the 9/11 attacks. To conclude, though, that “the police” have become increasingly militarized casts too narrow a net. The truth is that virtually the entire apparatus of government has been mobilized and militarized right down to the university campus.

Perhaps the pepper spray used on Occupy demonstrators last November at University of California–Davis wasn’t directly paid for by the federal government. But those who used it work closely with Homeland Security and the FBI “in developing prevention strategies that threaten campus life, property, and environments,” as UC Davis’s Comprehensive Emergency and Continuity Management Plan puts it.

Government budgets at every level now include allocations aimed at fighting an ephemeral “War on Terror” in the United States. A vast surveillance and military buildup has taken place nationwide to conduct a pseudo-war against what can be imagined, not what we actually face. The costs of this effort, started by the Bush administration and promoted faithfully by the Obama administration, have been, and continue to be, virtually incalculable. In the process, public service and the public imagination have been weaponized.

Farewell to Peaceful Private Life

We’re not just talking money eagerly squandered. That may prove the least of it. More importantly, the fundamental values of American democracy—particularly the right to lead an autonomous private life—have been compromised with grim efficiency. The weaponry and tactics now routinely employed by police are visible evidence of this.

Yes, it’s true that Montgomery County, Texas, has purchased a weapons-capable drone. (They say they’ll only arm it with tasers, if necessary.) Yes, it’s true that the Tampa police have beefed up the force with an eight-ton armored personnel carrier, augmenting two older tanks the department already owns. Yes, the Fargo police are ready with bomb detection robots and Chicago boasts a network of at least 15,000 interlinked surveillance cameras.

New York City’s 34,000-member police force is now the ground zero of a growing outcry over rampant secret spying on Muslim students and communities up and down the East Coast. It has been a big beneficiary of federal security largesse. Between 2003 and 2010, the city received more than $1.1 billion through Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program. And that’s only one of the grant programs funneling such money to New York.

The Obama White House itself has directly funded part of the New York Police Department’s anti-Muslim surveillance program. Top officials of New York’s finest have, however, repeatedly refused to disclose just how much anti-terrorism money it has been spending, citing, of course, security.

Can New York City ever be “secure”? Mayor Michael Bloomberg boasted recently with obvious satisfaction: “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-largest army in the world.” That would be the Vietnamese army actually, but accuracy isn’t the point. The smugness of the boast is. And meanwhile the money keeps pouring in and the “security” activities only multiply.

Why, for instance, are New York cops traveling to Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Newark, New Jersey, to spy on ordinary Muslim citizens, who have nothing to do with New York and are not suspected of doing anything? For what conceivable purpose does Tampa want an eight-ton armored vehicle? Why do Texas sheriffs north of Houston believe one drone—or a dozen, for that matter—will make Montgomery County a better place? What manner of thinking conjures up a future that requires such hardware? We have entered a dark world that demands an inescapable battery of closed-circuit, networked video cameras trained on ordinary citizens strolling Michigan Avenue.

This is not simply a police issue. Law enforcement agencies may acquire the equipment and deploy it, but city legislators and executives must approve the expenditures and the uses. State legislators and bureaucrats refine the local grant requests. Federal officials, with endless input from national security and defense vendors and lobbyists, appropriate the funds.

Doubters are simply swept aside (while legions of security and terrorism pundits spin dread-inducing fantasies), and ultimately, the American people accept and live with the results. We get what we pay for—Mayor Bloomberg’s “army,” replicated coast to coast.

Budgets Tell the Story

Militarized thinking is made manifest through budgets, which daily reshape political and bureaucratic life in large and small ways. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, then–Attorney General John Ashcroft, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, used this formula to define the new American environment and so the thinking that went with it: “Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities—plotting, planning, and waiting to kill again.” To counter that, the government had urgently embarked on “a wartime reorganization,” he said, and was “forging new relationships of cooperation with state and local law enforcement.”

While such visionary Ashcroftian rhetoric has cooled in recent years, the relationships and funding he touted a decade ago have been institutionalized throughout government—federal, state, and local—as well as civil society. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, with a total 2012 budget of about $57 billion, is the most obvious example of this.

That budget only hints at what’s being doled out for homeland security at the federal level. Such moneys flow not just from Homeland Security, but from the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense.

In 2010, the Office of Management and Budget reckoned that thirty-one separate federal agencies were involved in homeland security-related funding that year to the tune of more than $65 billion. The Census Bureau, which has itself been compromised by War on Terror activities—mapping Middle Eastern and Muslim communities for counter-terrorism officials—estimated that federal homeland security funding topped $70 billion in 2010. But government officials acknowledge that much funding is not included in that compilation. (Grants made through the $5.6 billion Project BioShield, to offer but one example, an exotic vaccination and medical program launched in 2004, are absent from the total.)

Even the estimate of more than $635 billion in such expenditures does not tell the full spending story. That figure does not include the national intelligence or military intelligence budgets for which the Obama administration is seeking $52.6 billion and $19.6 billion respectively in 2013, or secret parts of the national security budget, the so-called black budget.

Local funding is also unaccounted for. New York’s Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly claims total national homeland security spending could easily be near a trillion dollars. Money well spent, he says—New York needs that anti-terror army, the thousands of surveillance cameras, those sophisticated new weapons and, naturally, a navy that now includes six drone submarines (thanks to $540,000 in Homeland Security cash) to keep an eye on the terrorist threat beneath the waves.

And even that’s not enough.

“We have a new boat on order,” Kelly said recently, alluding to a bullet-proof vessel paid for by, yes, Homeland Security (cost unspecified). “We envision a situation where we may have to get to an island or across water quickly, so we’re able to transport our heavy weapons officers rapidly. We have to do things differently. We know that this is where terrorists want to come.”

With submarines available to those who protect and serve (and grab the grant money), a simple armored SWAT carrier should hardly raise an eyebrow. The Tampa police will get one as part of their security buildup before the city hosts the Republican convention this summer. Tampa and Charlotte, which will host the Democratic convention, each received special $50 million security allocations from Congress to “harden” the cities.

Marc Hamlin, Tampa’s assistant police chief, told the Tampa city council that two old tanks, already owned and operated by the police, were simply not enough. They were just too unreliable. “Thank God we have two, because one seems to break down every week,” he lamented.

Not everyone on the council seemed convinced Tampa needed a truck sheathed in 1.5-inch high-grade steel, and featuring ballistic glass panels, blast shields and powered turrets. City Council Vice Chairwoman Mary Mulhern claimed she found the purchase “kind of troubling,” a sign that Tampa is becoming “militarized.” Then she voted to approve it anyway, along with the other council members. Hamlin was pleased. “It’s one of those things where you prepare for the worst, and you hope for the best,” he explained.

When Mulhern suggested that some of the windfall $50 million might be used to help the city’s growing homeless population, Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn set her straight. “We can’t be diverted from what the appropriate use of that money is, and that is to provide a safe environment for the convention. It’s not to be used for pet projects or things totally unrelated to security.”

Tampa will also be spending more than $1 million for state of the art digital video uplinks to surveillance helicopters. (“Analog technology is almost Stone Age,” commented one approving council member.) Another $2 million will go to install sixty surveillance cameras on city streets. That represents an uncharacteristic pullback from the city’s initial plan to acquire more than 230 cameras as well as two drones at a cost of about $5 million. Even the police deemed that too expensive—for the moment.

All of this hardware will remain in Tampa after the Republicans and any protestors are long gone. What use will it serve then? In the Tampa area, the armored truck will join the armored fleet, police officials said, ferrying SWAT teams on calls and protecting police serving search warrants. In the past, Hamlin claimed, Tampa’s tanks have been shot at. He did not mention that crime rates in Tampa and across Florida are at four-decade lows.

The video surveillance cameras will, of course, also stay in place, streaming digitized images to an ever-growing database, where they will be stored waiting for the day when facial recognition software is employed to mix and match. This strategy is being followed all over the country, including in Chicago, with its huge video surveillance network, and New York City, where all of Lower Manhattan is now on camera.

Tampa has already been down this road once in the post-9/11 era. The city was home to a much-watched experiment in using such software. Images taken by cameras installed on the street were to be matched with photographs in a database of suspects. The system failed completely and was scrapped in 2003. On the other hand, sheriffs in the Tampa Bay area are currently using facial recognition software to match photographs snapped by police on the street with a database of suspects with outstanding warrants. Police are excited by that program and look forward to its future expansion.

The Rise of the Fusion Centers

Homeland Security has played a big role in creating one particularly potent element in the nation’s expanding database network. Working with the Department of Justice in the wake of 9/11, it launched what has grown into seventy-two interlinked state “fusion centers”—repositories for everything from Immigration Customs Enforcement data and photographs to local police reports and even gossip. “Suspicious Activity Reports” gathered from public tipsters—thanks to Homeland Security’s “if you see something, say something” program—are now flowing into state centers. Those fusion centers are possibly the greatest facilitators of dish in history and have vast potential for disseminating dubious information and stigmatizing purely political activity. And most Americans have never even heard of them.

Yet fusion centers now operate in every state, centralizing intelligence gathering and facilitating dissemination of material of every sort across the country. Here is where information gathered by cops and citizens, FBI agents and immigration officers goes to fester. It is a staggering load of data, unevenly and sometimes questionably vetted, and it is ultimately available to any state or local law-enforcement officer, any immigration agent or official, any intelligence or security bureaucrat with a computer and network access.

The idea for these centers grew from the notion that agencies needed to share what they knew in an “unfettered” environment. How comforting to know that the walls between intelligence and law enforcement are breached in an essentially unregulated fashion.

Many other states have monitored antiwar activists, gathering and storing names and information. Texas and other states have stored “intelligence” on Muslims. Pennsylvania gathered reports on opponents of natural gas drilling. Florida has scrutinized supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul. The list of such questionable activities is very long. We have no idea how much dubious data has been squirreled away by authorities and remains within the networked system. But we do know that information pours into it with relative ease and spreads like an oil slick. Cleaning up and removing the mess is another story entirely.

Anyone who wants to learn something about fusion center funding will also find it maddeningly difficult to track. Not even the Homeland Security Department can say with certainty how much of its own money has gone into these data nests over the last decade. The amounts are staggering, however. From 2004 to 2009 alone, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that states used about $426 million in Homeland Security Department grants to fund fusion-related activities nationally. The centers also receive state and local funds, as well as funds from other federal agencies. How much? We don’t know, although GAO data suggest state and local funding at least equals the Homeland Security share.

Yet, as Tampa, New York City and other urban areas bulk up with high-tech anti-terrorism equipment and fusion centers have proliferated, the number of even remotely “terror-related” incidents has declined. The equipment acquired and projects inaugurated to fend off largely imaginary threats is instead increasingly deployed to address ordinary criminal activity, perceived political disruptions and the tracking and surveillance of American Muslims. The Transportation Safety Administration is now even patrolling highways. It could be called a case of mission creep, but the more accurate description might be bait-and-switch.

The chances of an American dying in a terrorist incident in a given year are one in 3.5 million. To reduce that risk, to make something minuscule even more minuscule, what has the nation spent? What has it cost us? Instead of rebuilding a ravaged American city in a timely fashion or making Americans more secure in their “underwater” homes and their disappearing jobs, we have created militarized police forces, visible evidence of police-state-style funding.

[Note on Sources and Further Reading: The following documents can all be found in pdf format by clicking on “here”: the UC Davis Comprehensive Emergency Management plan here, Census Bureau figures on Homeland Security spending here, a report on questionable fusion center actions here, the GAO report on fusion centers here, a report on the decline in the terrorist threat here and Congressional testimony favoring counterterrorism “mission creep” here.]

March 5, 2012       

Colorado’s New Public Disservice Adversiting Campaign


By Amy Mall, NRDC

This post was originally published at Switchboard, NRDC’s staff blog

There is something unusual about the latest newspaper and radio advertisements from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA). While there is nothing new about the oil and gas industry spending money to convince Americans that fracking is safe, what sets the latest ads apart from typical industry propaganda is that the spokesperson in these ads is Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.

In the radio ad, the Governor states that Colorado has not had “one instance of groundwater contamination associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing” since Colorado enacted some new rules in 2008. It’s true that Colorado’s 2008 rules were a vast improvement compared to the previous rules.

But that doesn’t mean that the rules are strong enough, that all fracking activities are safe in Colorado, or that human health and the environment are sufficiently protected. The 2008 rules were a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough to protect communities and their citizens from dangerous air pollution, groundwater contamination, and enormous amounts of toxic waste.

In Colorado, archaic rules allow toxic oil and gas facilities to be as close as 150 feet to a child’s bedroom window. These operations can be in someone’s backyard and on their property without consent if a family does not own the rights to the oil and gas beneath its land–and most Coloradans do not.

The COGA ads tout the latest Colorado rule requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals. While disclosure is essential to preserve the public’s right to know about chemicals in their community, and NRDC calls for nationwide disclosure of fracking chemicals for better regulation of this industry, disclosure is only one part of what’s needed in a comprehensive regulatory structure to protect health and the environment from the dangers of fracking. Disclosure alone does not prevent drinking water contamination–rather it lets citizens know what chemicals might be in their drinking water after it has been contaminated. And many of the chemicals can still be kept secret by oil and gas companies.

The risks are real. From 2009-2011, there were more than a thousand spills related to oil and gas operations in Colorado–many of which impacted groundwater and/or surface water with potentially highly toxic materials. Last September, the Denver Post reported that four oil and gas companies alone had 350 spills in Colorado in less than two years. The Post highlighted one spill that contaminated groundwater with benzene–a known carcinogen. In 2010, a Las Animas County landowner found approximately 500 gallons of grayish brown murky water in his cistern that he believes is linked to nearby hydraulic fracturing. This family has extensive water testing documentation going back many years, verifying that their water was always clean and clear until the nearby fracking took place.

The newspaper ad states it is ”brought to you as a public service,” which makes it sound like a “public service announcement,” but this is misleading. While the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission decided that it is okay for elected officials to use their personal credibility and the position of their office to better educate the public on issues relating to their government position, in its decision, the Ethics Commissions used examples of public service announcements that discuss the importance of voting, filling out the census form, retrieving unclaimed property, and discouraging the illegal use of alcohol.

None of those examples promote one industry or mislead the public with a false sense of security about considerable and well-documented public health and environmental threats.

What’s needed in Colorado and across the nation are strong rules to protect drinking water sources, clean air, healthy communities,and wildlands from the threats of oil and gas development at all stages of the extraction process. Ads that ignore, and appear to try to hide, very real risks are not only a disservice to the public, but will only prolong the public’s distrust of the oil and gas industry and underscore the justifiable demands of communities to keep the industry out of their backyards and schoolyards. Instead of ads that appear to promote the oil and gas industry without acknowledging and addressing the risks, we hope Governor Hickenlooper will instead focus his energy on new and stronger protections for Colorado’s clean water, clean air, and quality of life.

AddThis

shareshare

 

 

Posted on February 28, 2012  | Filed Under Global Warming and a New Energy Economy, Protecting America’s Waters | Leave a Comment

Related posts

The Insanity Of Texas Gov. Rich Perry That Social Security And Medicare Violate The 10th Amendment Of US Constitution


“Governor of Texas Rick Perry writing new legislation to amend the 10th Amendment of the Constitution to end Social Security, and Medicare as we know it for none other than Newt Gingrich; Rick Perry beliefs that it violates the US CONSTITUTION. That how deranged these REPUBLICANS are. This is an insurance policy to protect workers from a serious illness, a serious accident, that can disable you for the rest of your life, or retirement due to old age. Without this protection you would live in poverty, in misery, and very ill until your death unless you were very rich.” Life without Social Security was extremely difficult for the disabled and seniors to survive and especially for those who were seriously ill that, that they often committed suicide.