Sunday, December 09, 2012

HORRORS! More than 50% in NY and PA SUPPORT fracking !!!


How to educate them? Do they have to learn the hard way by having their water contaminated and their families poisoned?  Downstaters (NY City) in NY think fracking is a good idea. It's not their area that will be affected. But many in the affected areas seem not to realize the terrible dangers of fracking. To learn more about it, rent the documentary Gasland from Netflix. Or watch a 10 minute excerpt from the film online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I The following article (underlining in it and comments in red are mine) is from the Dec. 9th Elmira Star-Gazette  (Elmira is in Chemung County, right in the heart of the districts being affected):

Polls find unexpected fracking support in NY and Pa.

PITTSBURGH — Many people in New York and Pennsylvania have voiced concerns about the safety of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. But two new surveys found that many people who live in New York City and the suburbs approve of drilling in parts of the state, and that Pennsylvania residents who live in an area of heavy drilling feel the benefits outweigh the risks. (!!!!)

Siena College said this week that a poll of 822 registered New York voters taken in late November found 50 percent of respondents in suburban areas support drilling in upstate portions of the state, while 32 percent are opposed. In New York City, 41 percent of those surveyed support upstate drilling, while 29 percent are opposed. The poll didn’t break out particular suburbs or upstate areas.

New York has had a moratorium on fracking since 2008, but Gov. Andrew Cuomo has suggested that it be allowed in five upstate counties near the Pennsylvania line, far from New York City, its watershed, or major suburbs. Pennsylvania officials from both political parties have embraced fracking, and more than 3,000 wells have been drilled there since 2007. (!!!!) Has anyone wondered about a possible drilling connection to earthquakes that have taken place in the Marcellus Shale areas -- places where earthquakes have been non-existent prior to drilling?

“Right now what we see is that downstaters, who would be the least affected from both the environmental and jobs point of view, are much more supportive than upstaters,” said Steven Greenberg of the Siena College Poll.

Sandra Steingraber, an anti-drilling activist who lives in Tompkins County, said upstate residents are more likely to be opposed because they’ve learned so much about the issue during four years of intense debate.

About 40 upstate communities in New York have passed bans on fracking, usually at the behest of opposition groups that have circulated petitions. There are movements under way in about 90 more communities to ban or enact moratoriums, but almost all are in towns outside the most likely drilling area near the border. Court challenges are pending against three of the bans with the industry arguing that only the state has authority to regulate gas drilling.  About 60 communities, most of them in the five-county region that Cuomo has suggested might be opened to drilling, have passed resolutions saying they won’t ban fracking but will instead defer to the state’s authority to regulate the industry.

Overall, more upstate New York residents opposed drilling in the poll — 45 percent — compared to 39 percent who favor it, Greenberg said, but they weren’t able to specifically break out the opinions of people in the region where some local governments support fracking.

But a survey in Pennsylvania did just that.

The University of Pittsburgh Center for Social and Urban Research asked similar questions to 403 people in Washington County, which has about 600 gas wells and is about 25 miles south of Pittsburgh.

Forty-nine percent of the residents sampled strongly or somewhat supported the boom, and 22 percent didn’t care much one way or another. Just 10 percent were strongly opposed to drilling, while another 19 percent were somewhat opposed. Those results run contrary to the claims of many anti-drilling activists, who say fracking does more damage to communities than good.

Just over 76 percent in Washington County said drilling offered significant or moderate economic opportunities, and almost 32 percent had a family member who had signed a lease with a gas drilling company. But almost 24 percent still thought drilling represents a significant threat to the environment, while 34 percent thought it was a moderate threat. Forty-two percent thought it was no threat, or a slight one.

The two states have taken different approaches to drilling in the huge Marcellus Shale gas resource that lies beneath large parts of both, as well as under West Virginia, Maryland and Ohio.

Federal energy experts say it became the most productive natural gas field in the country this fall. About 3,500 wells are producing gas in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and the wellhead value this year is estimated to be in the $7 or $8 billion range, even though there’s still no drilling in many places.
While fracking has made it possible to tap into deep reserves of gas, it has also raised concerns about pollution. Large volumes of water, along with sand and hazardous chemicals, are injected underground to break rock apart and free the oil and gas. Regulators in Pennsylvania and other states with heavy drilling contend that overall, water and air pollution problems are rare. New York put a moratorium on fracking in 2008, and is trying to decide whether to proceed.

Many environmental groups and some scientists say there hasn’t been enough research on potential water and air pollution, while the industry and federal officials say the practice is safe when done properly.

Paul Sabin, who teaches environmental history at Yale University, has studied how communities in Pennsylvania, California and the Amazon react to natural resource extraction. He said scholars don’t agree on why some communities welcome an activity such as gas drilling, while others are passionately opposed.

“This is a more difficult question than it seems,” Sabin wrote in an e-mail, adding that economic, cultural and political factors have been suggested.

Many drillers who have already found highly productive wells near the New York border have been hoping that state will allow them to expand operations.

Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, noted that New York residents already use large quantities of gas that comes from fracked wells in other states. She noted that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that expanded natural gas use “makes good economic and environmental sense.”

“We absolutely agree, and believe that New York should move forward with common sense shale gas regulations that ensure more of these benefits are broadly realized,” Klaber said in a statement.

Patrick Henderson, Pennsylvania’s energy executive in the governor’s office, said the Siena poll shows that New Yorkers “see in Pennsylvania and other states the ability to develop this resource responsibly while protecting the environment.”

But Greenberg said the poll also shows that any decision about fracking in New York will be controversial.

“What’s clear is that this is a tough issue for the governor,” Greenberg said, adding that “it’s almost a lose-lose” since no matter what the decision is made, “a large percentage of New Yorkers are going to be unhappy.”


Share:

Saturday, December 08, 2012

Sad story of a suicide that didn't need to happen

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/the-death-of-co-author-of-three-cups-of-tea-is-ruled-suicide.html

Relin, apparently an honest author with an upstanding reputation, had the bad luck to team up with a sociopath.  It's too bad he felt his reputation was too besmirched to be recovered and that he took a way out that hurt his family in such a profound way.  There are far too many sociopaths in our world (4 out of every 100 persons!) and they can't always be avoided. I've had run-ins with a few of them in my lifetime and been dismayed when I realized these people have no consciences and will say and do anything to achieve their own purposes.  But each person who has fallen victim to the creeps of the world still has a choice to stand up, admit he was fooled and reclaim his dignity.  I'm sorry for Relin and his family that he didn't do that. 
Share:

Story/Video showing right wing scare tactics using hypotheticals

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/08/anderson-cooper-destroys-gop-senators-argument-against-u-n-disability-treaty/    (VIDEO and story)

This is typical of right wing argument tactics.  They make up hypothetical situations and then argue for those just-created-in-the-mind pretend situations designed to instill fear and insecurity in the hearts of their supporters.    FEAR is at the base of Republican ideology and it sells well to the duped dittoheads who listen to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh day in and day out.  These brain-washed citizens believe they are hearing truth and then peddle it in their talking points and e-mails with authority and zeal, never realizing their information is nothing but lies and obfuscation.  This state of affairs would be wryly amusing to the rest of us if it weren't for the fact that all of our lives are impacted by the dunderhead politicians these Tea Party advocates send to Washington to represent them and their Bubble World delusions.  In this video, Anderson Cooper doesn't let the politician get away with his lies about why the right wing wouldn't vote for the Disability Treaty.  Cooper ably shoots down every one of the points being made by the obvious noodnik posing ineffectually as an I-got-it-all-together politician. 

Here's the story:

Friday night on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Cooper welcomed Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to discuss Lee’s vote against the United Nations treaty for the “Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”  Cooper questioned why Republicans are so dead set against a treaty that would ultimately have no power over established U.S. laws.

“Senator, you said this treaty will somehow change U.S. law or could change U.S. law,” Cooper said.  ”Former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who helped negotiate this treaty on behalf of President George W. Bush said emphatically it would have no effect on U.S. law, not now, not ever.  Is he wrong?”

“Well, I respectfully disagree with the former Attorney General’s conclusions,” Lee said.  ”I look at the treaty and I see one provision that arguably sets in place international entitlement rights.  Another provision that can be read to undermine the rights of parents to make decisions on how best to educate and otherwise care for their children with disabilities.”  Lee argued that another provision could force the U.S. government to provide abortions.

“You’re just interpreting things,” Cooper said.  ”It doesn’t use the word ‘abortion.’  It just basically says that disabled people should have the same access to health care that other people have, that non disabled people have overseas.”  Lee countered that the treaty uses the phrase “reproductive rights,” which he said “has been interpreted to include abortion.  “But this treaty states that it’s not self-executed,” said Cooper, meaning that it doesn’t create legal obligations to be resolved in U.S. courts“The fact that it may be non-self-executing, Anderson, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have any effect at all,” Lee insisted.

“Can you name any other U.N. treaty that has forced changes in U.S. law?” Cooper asked.Lee could not, admitting, ”I didn’t come prepared to cite Supreme Court precedent on this point but it’s a well known fact that once you ratify a treaty…”

“But what you’re saying is totally hypothetical,” Cooper broke in.  ”You’re using a bunch of hypotheticals saying they’re going to — this is going to force abortion rights for disabled people overseas, some groups are saying children with glasses are going to be taken from their parents, you’re using all these very scary hypotheticals — you can't even cite one case where a U.N. treaty has impacted U.S. law?”

Cooper went on to say that Lee has been arguing against the treaty on the floor of the Senate, that he’s had “weeks and weeks” to prepare his argument, but he can’t cite a single case where an international treaty has overridden U.S. law.

“You can’t assume that because something hasn’t happened already that it couldn’t happen in the future,” Lee replied.


Raw Story (http://s.tt/1wjlO)

 


Share:

Friday, December 07, 2012

The Crazies on the right won't let the Party change

The Bubble dwellers live in an alternate universe from the rest of the world. You can't penetrate that Bubble with common sense, intelligence, or truth, all of which are alien to the Bubble Dwellers who get their "news" from the Fox insane asylum and Rush Limbaugh, the real head of the GOP.  Limbaugh speaks to his adoring "dittotheads" every day and they parrot back whatever he tells them. His commands become their definition of "truth."

THE CRAZY BASE WON'T LET THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CHANGE
By Bob Cesca

In the wake of the election, there's no doubt the Republican Party is capable of making some adjustments to rebrand itself. If nothing else, the party has demonstrated its proclivity for sloganeering and marketing and there are plenty of ways it can adjust its messaging. But it's obvious to anyone paying attention that the base simply won't allow the party to change in any meaningful way.

The base is deeply encased within the twisted, alternate-reality looking glass that the GOP has been constructing throughout the last three decades: a realm of anger, racial resentment, distrust of government, hatred of immigrants and violently anti-choice misogynists and demagogues. The party has deliberately incited these tendencies via the conservative entertainment complex, as David Frum called it on Morning Joe -- AM talk radio, Fox News Channel and the like -- and augmented it with the generous contributions of wealthy financiers who bankroll everything from astroturf campaigns to the bulk-purchasing of every book-length screed by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck.

The problem this creates, of course, is that the Republican Party has been consumed by misinformed idiots with no substantial connection to the real world, and the first post-election PPP poll only serves to amplify this conclusion.

First, the good news. Fifty-six percent of Republican voters aren't really interested in seceding from the United States.

Wait. Isn't that kind of low given the seriousness of topic?

The bumper-sticker party of "these colors don't run" -- the party that practically branded the notion of American patriotism during the previous decade -- is only around half-sure that it doesn't want to totally abandon the United States it heretofore claimed to love so much. The other half is split between still making up its mind on secession and totally wanting to secede right away.

As I've written before, we can only regard this as fair-weather patriotism. More than that, it's just dumb. Perhaps there's a big steaming chunk of wishful thinking on the part of the secession supporters, but the process of secession presents a huge obstacle: it's simply impossible.

For a significant demographic cross-section of the party, softening on issues like immigration and reproductive choice is more obscene than the impossible task of disconnecting from the Constitution and forming a separate nation.

But wait. There's more.

The PPP study asked Republican voters why they thought President Obama was reelected. Thanks to the ex-morning-zoo-deejays and television screechers in the conservative entertainment complex, half of all Republicans think the president stole the election. Actually -- correction -- the president didn't directly steal the election. Half of all Republicans told PPP that ACORN stole it for him. 49 percent of Republicans believe ACORN, the evil nonprofit organization, rigged the election for the president somehow.

Good news and bad news on this one.

The good news first: the percentage of Republicans who think ACORN stole the election is down by three percent from 2009 when 52 percent thought ACORN prevented John McCain and Sarah Palin from winning the election.

Here's the bad/hilarious news: ACORN ceased to exist years ago following a conspiracy of videotaped lies by Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe; a scam that was picked up by Republican leadership in Congress where the organization, which didn't break any laws, was stripped of federal funding. After it was too late, the U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that the Breitbart/O'Keefe videos were heavily edited and that no federal funds were misused and no laws were broken. But ACORN was killed by a conspiracy of lies and slander anyway.

And now, years following its wrongful death sentence, ACORN is still being unjustly and inexplicably accused of stealing elections, and it's all because the base is entirely disconnected with facts and reality -- a disconnection that's reinforced in almost every sphere of right-wing influence.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans are capable changing is just as delusional as the secessionists and conspiracy theorists who compose the GOP's base. The far-right entertainment complex is so deeply and inextricably woven into the life-support system of the Republican Party, it's nearly impossible to extract the crazy-cells without killing the host.

Share:

Soothing fears: Love this cartoon--reminds me of Chas. Addams humor

New Yorker Cartoon

  by Joe Dator 
Share:

Why the right wing killed the Disabled Treaty

You'll hear many specious excuses from conservatives about why the Disabled Treaty was voted against by members of their party. These folks love to throw out nonsense reasons for their idiotic actions. However, there really are no excuses for their ignorance and willful refusal to grant protection to the disabled in our world. Bob Dole and John McCain urged their colleagues to support the ratification of the global treaty that bans discrimination against the disabled.  But, true to form, the right wingers turned a deaf ear to the pleas of even members of their own party to do the right and honorable thing.  Because of such idiocy, the death knell is ringing for the Republican Party, which has been taken over by Tea Party types. GOP now stands for "Goofy Old Party" that is fast going down the tubes. 

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/07/why-the-right-killed-the-disabled-treaty/

Why the Right Killed the Disabled Treaty

December 7, 2012

Besides rejecting many aspects of science, the American Right despises the idea of international agreements as well, considering them infringements on U.S. “sovereignty.” That attitude among GOP senators turned back a global agreement on protecting the disabled, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar 
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies.

Former Senator Bob Dole, 89 years old, returned this week to the floor of the chamber where he was for many years one of the leading Republicans. He also, of course, had twice represented his party on a national ticket as the nominee for vice president and then for president.

Infirm of late and just recently checked out of Walter Reed hospital, Dole was in a wheelchair pushed by his wife Elizabeth, also a former senator. He came back to the Senate to show his support for ratification of a multilateral treaty banning discrimination against people with disabilities.

Dole demonstrated in his own career what a talented person with a disability can do. He lacked one of the common tools of a politician: a handshake with the right arm — an arm that in Dole’s case had been rendered useless by a severe injury sustained in combat in World War II.

Sen. John Kerry, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was the principal advocate of the treaty in the Senate debate. In his speech he appealed to his colleagues, “Don’t let Senator Bob Dole down.” It wasn’t enough.

One of those who lobbied against ratification was another former senator, one whose career has been far less accomplished and distinguished than Dole’s. Rick Santorum argued that somehow the treaty would not let American parents home-school their kids. The vote on ratification was 61 in favor and 38 against, falling short of the two-thirds needed for ratification.

The opposition to this treaty reflected a generic opposition on the right that extends as well to other broadly-adopted international conventions, to anything having to do with the United Nations, often to treaties in general, and even to most international cooperation in general.

Those with this mindset often speak about not wanting to compromise U.S. “sovereignty.” Suspicions were voiced that the disabilities treaty would mean U.N. bureaucrats making decisions about the needs of American children. One could almost hear the black helicopters hovering overhead.

Some of the treaty’s opponents also argued that because countries we don’t like — and which we like to assume are insincere and hypocritical regarding their international obligations — such as Iran and Syria have signed the treaty, for the United States to adhere to the treaty might imply that we approve of how those countries treat their disabled citizens.

That’s a strange approach — one that would appear to give the disliked countries a veto over which international agreements the United States does and does not sign on to itself. Moreover, if we regard the United States as sincere in what it says and it what it signs up to internationally, then the message being sent by rejecting a treaty is that the United States rejects the principles embodied in the document.

Sovereignty does not mean handcuffing one’s own diplomacy or eschewing international commitments. It instead means a nation acting freely and not being told by another country what to do. Signing and ratifying a treaty are themselves acts of sovereignty. And as John Ikenberry has argued, undertaking commitments through international institutions is one of the best ways through which even a superpower can extend and perpetuate its global influence.

Advocates of ratification patiently explained that the convention on disabilities merely applies to other nations what are already legal obligations in the United States under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Rejection therefore has little practical effect on the United States — unlike with, say, the Law of the Sea Convention, which 163 other states have already signed and ratified but the United States has not.

The Senate, however, has missed a chance — which neoconservatives in particular ought to have welcomed — to say something positive about the rest of the world accepting values that Americans have already expressed in their own laws.

(This article first appeared as a blog post  at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

Share:

Jon Stewart interviews Chris Christie -- ya' gotta' see this one!

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/chris-christie-jon-stewart_n_2257198.html

Stewart asks all the right questions, makes all the right points.  Christie is at least willing to listen -- and sometimes even (imagine this!) Agree!  (but not too often--he is a Republican, after all).
Share:

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

What are the "War on Christmas" ranters talking about?

Holy Family (Forever®)  Christmas stamp, 2012

Madonna of the Candelabra by Raphael (Forever®)   Christmas stamp, 2012

Meaning of the War Over Christmas

December 4, 2012

From the Archive: In the month-long (or even longer) “Christmas season,” there is much faux outrage from Fox News and the Right about a “war on Christmas,” even as public places are adorned with Christmas decorations and Christmas music fills the air, as Robert Parry noted in 2005.

By Robert Parry (Originally published Dec. 11, 2005 and still true)

You have to hand it to political operatives who can turn the Christmas celebration of Jesus’s birth into a nasty wedge issue, transforming a traditional message of love, peace and tolerance into one of anger, conflict and resentment.

The success of the American Right in extracting a “war on Christmas” out of a few well-meaning gestures to non-Christians, such as using the greeting “Happy Holidays,” is a testament to the investment conservatives have made in media over three decades.

The annual Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center. (Photo credit: rockefellercenter.com)

With their vertically integrated media apparatus – from newspapers and magazines, to TV and radio, to books and the Internet – the Right now can take a few scattered anecdotes on almost any topic and heat them up into a hot-button issue.

This “perception management” capability is now so powerful that even the most absurd notions can be made convincing to millions of Americans, such as the idea that despite the ubiquitous Christmas displays throughout the United States – from before Thanksgiving to after Dec. 25 – Christmas is under assault.

While an outsider arriving in the United States might see a nation celebrating Christmas with an unrivaled intensity and extravagance, the Right’s media has created another world for its followers – where Christians are persecuted for celebrating their faith, where they are repressed by cruel non-Christians and evil secularists.

This perceived persecution exists even as America’s downtowns and shopping malls are bedecked with the red-and-green Christmas colors and Christmas symbols are everywhere, even in cities like New York with large populations of Jews and Muslims.

Christmas Carols

Somehow, listeners to Fox News and right-wing talk radio are convinced that Christmas is threatened despite the fact that Christmas carols are pumped into nearly all public places, including elevators and grocery stores where both Christians and non-Christians must go. Some radio stations, like the one played in the Arlington, Virginia, coffee shop where I often go to write, have been playing Christmas carols since before Thanksgiving.

When I bought stamps the other day (in 2005) from a U.S. Postal Service vending machine, I had expected to get the usual “American flag” stamps, but instead ended up with “Santa Claus” stamps. The USPS Web site also sold a “Dear Santa” CD, which includes Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song” and Vonzell Solomon’s “O Come All Ye Faithful,” with a cross-marketing deal for a Fox “Dear Santa” special.

Still, one of the complaints heard from conservative Christians was that the post office didn’t offer a new “Madonna and Child” stamp (in 2005 though you could still get the version produced in 2004). (Complainers, please take a look at the 2012 stamps above)

Another major beef from conservative Christians is that the federal courts have restricted displays of the baby Jesus in the manger on government property and that public schools have replaced “Christmas concerts” with “winter concerts” and the “Christmas vacation” with a “winter vacation.”

Nevertheless, schools are closed for about two weeks to accommodate Americans wishing to celebrate Christmas. Despite the U.S. principle of separation of church and state, Christmas remains an official federal holiday, an exception to the rule that is afforded no other religious observance. Jews, for instance, don’t expect Christians to honor Yom Kippur by taking the day off, nor do Muslims expect the government to show undue deference to Ramadan.

‘Liberal Plot’

Our hypothetical outsider might see the American reality as one in which all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, are expected to join in the celebration of Christmas. But that is not the impression one would get from watching Fox News, reading conservative blogs or listening to right-wing talk radio.

Within the Right’s media world, conservative Americans learn how the “liberals” and the American Civil Liberties Union are “anti-Christian” and out to deny American Christians their right to observe Christmas as they see fit.

Fox News anchor John Gibson made this case in his book, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. The “war on Christmas” theme became a centerpiece of Bill O’Reilly’s rants on Fox, a message that then resonated through the Right’s echo chamber.

In 2005, led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, some conservative Christians boycotted stores that offered their customers the non-sectarian greeting of “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” In some cases, “Merry Christmas” is now spit out as fighting words, much as conservatives emphasize the words “under God” during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Falwell vowed to sue “everybody who tries to inhibit the liberties of our children and our families from worshipping and honoring the Lord, as we in America are constitutionally allowed to do.”

But there is a larger message in this trumped-up “war on Christmas.” It is how the Right’s powerful news media can shape American perceptions to such a degree that a dominant group like American Christians can be made to see themselves as powerless victims, even over trivial grievances like saying “Happy Holidays.” [For details on the Right’s media power, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or Lost History.]

‘Victims’

While conservative commentators often accuse African-Americans and other minorities of wallowing in their “victimhood,” the Right’s media has learned the political power that comes from letting white men, for instance, take on the mantle of “victim.”

In the 1990s, a powerful conservative theme was the complaint against “political correctness,” which often came down to universities and other institutions applying clumsy restrictions against young white men shouting the n-word at African-Americans or using other offensive language.

Though American white men collectively are arguably the most privileged group on earth, the “political correctness” theme allowed them to bathe in the self-pity of their “victimhood.” It allowed them to get righteous and angry against their supposed persecutors.

There is, of course, a danger whenever a powerful group begins to view itself as the victim, because their real power allows these ersatz oppressed to inflict far greater harm on their enemies than could a group without power.

Historically, the world has seen this phenomenon many times, for instance, when Christians in Europe persuaded themselves that they were at the mercy of cunning Jews. Many of the continent’s anti-Jewish pogroms were conducted by Christians convinced that they were simply defending their way of life, that they were the real victims.

Now, the United States is witnessing a similar exploitation of Christian fears and the fanning of Christian anger. The “war on Christmas” theme is one manifestation of this growing chip on the shoulder.

The Right has learned well how it can deploy its powerful media to make even the most ludicrous notion seem real – both frightening and infuriating – to millions of Americans.

Share:

Remember Reagan's Welfare Queen? She's been found!!


REAGAN'S WELFARE QUEEN FOUND!

By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks

Good news everyone, after more than thirty years of searching by the news media, Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Welfare Queen” has finally been found. She lives in Bentonville, Arkansas.

She has eighty names, thirty addresses,” Reagan warned during his 1976 run for President about a nameless, Cadillac-driving woman who’s conning the social safety net. He added: “She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In total, Reagan said, “Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

For more than thirty years, Republicans have used the existence of this “Welfare Queen” to justify their attacks on public spending and prove that the “welfare state” has run amok. Yet, her identity has never been revealed. After decades of searching, the best and brightest minds in the field of journalism were never able to discover who’s behind the wheel of the “Welfare Queen’s” Cadillac, or if she even existed.

That is until now.

We now realize our mistake. In our search for this “Welfare Queen,” we were looking for actual people when we should have been looking for corporate people. We should have been looking at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is the largest private employer and brought in more revenue in 2011 than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart pocketed a not-too-shabby $16.4 billion in profits that same year and the six Wal-Mart heirs, the Walton family, own roughly $100 billion in wealth, which is more than 40% of Americans combined.

But, despite making all of this money, Wal-Mart’s business model hinges on mooching from the government. It hinges on being the biggest “Welfare Queen” in the United States.

Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid in the nation.

A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires 39% more in public assistance.

A recent study by UC Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.

In total, it’s estimated that Walmart stores loot more than $2.6 billion every single year from the federal government in the form of tax-payer funded public assistance to their employees. That includes more than one billion in healthcare costs associated with Medicaid, and $225 million in free or reduced-price lunches for school children of Wal-Mart employees.

And now, as reported by the Huffington Post, Wal-Mart is planning to loot even more from us taxpayers, as the giant corporation adopts a new healthcare policy that will deny insurance for any employees working fewer than 30 hours a week.

Wal-Mart routinely forces their workers into part-time schedules, working fewer than 30 hours a week, so many will lose their health insurance under this new policy. When asked for comment by the Huffington Post on how many workers will be affected, Wal-Mart declined to answer.

Make no mistake about it, while it may be individual Wal-Mart employees who are collecting government benefits, the corporation itself benefits tremendously.

If the government didn’t step in to provide food assistance, Wal-Mart couldn’t operate with a team of emaciated workers unable to lift ballets of canned foods or count back the correct change at the checkout lanes.

If the government didn’t step in to provide health insurance, then Walmart stores would be a breeding ground for infectious diseases since their employees can’t afford to see a doctor on their own.

If the government didn’t step in to provide school-lunch assistance, then parents who work at Wal-Mart may have less money to put gas in their car and may not even make it in to work.

How can a business succeed with a sickly, tired, tardy, or altogether absent workforce? It can’t.

And while most businesses understanding that a healthy, happy, productive workforce is good for business, Wal-Mart hasn’t. Instead, Wal-Mart, with its enormous fortune, has shifted this responsibility onto taxpayers like you and me. They are, indeed, among the biggest of the big welfare queens in America.

The only difference is Walmart actually exists and Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” doesn’t.

With the help of “Welfare Queen” argument, Conservatives have targeted individual Americans who rely on public assistance as irresponsible and argued that it’s time to end the “handouts.”

But in reality, it’s time we target the actual institutions of irresponsibility in America – Wal-Mart and the other corporate giants who don’t give enough of a damn about their workers to pay them a living wage stick us with the bill for their well-being.

If a corporation can’t afford to pay its employees enough that each worker can afford basic essentials like healthcare, food, and housing, then that corporation – no matter how big or small it is – shouldn’t be allowed to do business.

No more corporate Welfare Queens in America!
Share:

Monday, December 03, 2012

Remains to be seen if Democrats finally have a backbone....

IN FISCAL CLIFF TALKS, REPUBLICANS HAVE NOWHERE TO RUN
By R J Eskow

Right-wingers are in an uproar over the White House's budget offer, which John Boehner says left him "flabbergasted." Outraged pundits like Joe Scarborough, Charles Krauthammer, and Newt Gingrich are saying that Republicans should "walk away" from negotiations. Boehner has come close to that position himself, saying of the talks: "We're nowhere."

With all due respect, Sir: Speak for yourself.

Democrats are somewhere - somewhere very specific. They're where the voters are, with a program that includes short-term stimulus spending and relatively modest tax increases for higher levels of income. And yet the Republicans are threatening to run from the will of the electorate, a will that was expressed very clearly this November.

But where, in the words of the old song, are they gonna run to?

The Scope of Their Defeat

A walkout would turn House Republicans into democracy's "runaway brides" - except nobody asked for their hand. As a detailed analysis by David Wasserman of the Cook Report shows, the GOP didn't just lose the Presidential and Senatorial votes this year. They lost the popular vote for the House, too. To the extent that Republicans have any right to be at the negotiating table at all, it's as junior partners.

And yet we have reached the winter of Mr. Krauthammer's disrespectful discontent. "It's not just a bad deal," said Krauthammer, it's "really an insulting deal."

"Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox," Krauthammer added, "and he lost the Civil War."

Mr. Krauthammer might like to bone up on his American history: Lee's army was disbanded at the Appomattox courthouse, and all acts of insurrection ceased. It's true that his officers were allowed keep their horses and sidearms, and to return home ... but they were on parole.

Parole: That's a good way to look at the current state of the Republican Party. They lost the Presidency by 4,500,000 votes, the Senate by nearly 13 million votes - and lost the House by 570,000 votes. Their influence over the Senate derives mainly from their routine abuse of Senatorial procedures, while their control of the House is the product of abusive gerrymandering.

And yet Krauthammer wasn't the only conservative in a snit. Another runaway Republican, Newt Gingrich, said the House GOP should "back out of all negotiating with Obama. And Joe Scarborough said Republicans should "just stop talking" with the President. Like Krauthammer, he considered the offer an "insult."

Somebody ought to review the election results with them.

Majority Rules

Far from being an insult, the President's opening bid is reasonable and respectful. It includes $50 billion in stimulus spending in 2013, and continues stimulus-producing middle class tax cuts. It ends the higher-income tax breaks which have failed to provide jobs or growth, while depriving the government of funds which can be used to create jobs and provide important services. No Social Security cuts are offered.

In an ideal world, bolder spending and taxation initiatives would be on the table. But the President's proposal clearly reflects the will of the majority, as reflected at the ballot box and in our post-election polling.

Our poll showed that an overwhelming majority of voters - including a slim majority of Republicans - would find it "unacceptable" not to raise taxes on millionaires. Majorities in both parties also think it's more important to invest in growing the economy at this point than it is to reduce the deficit. And an overwhelming number of voters, including nearly two-thirds of all Republicans, reject any reductions in Social Security's cost-of-living adjustment. (They've rejected other cuts even more conclusively in earlier polls.)

Playground Showdown

So what are the Republicans really worked up about? As Rachel Maddow noted, "for years Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor."

Remember how outraged the class bully used to get whenever somebody fought back? That's what this Republican indignation looks like.

The President's finally using experience, and the fruits of a decisive Democratic victory, to negotiate from a tougher stance. And Tim Geithner, whatever his other shortcomings, is proving adept at delivering the Administration's new and firmer messages. "The ball really is with them now," Geithner said this weekend of House Republicans. "They're in a hard place ... This is very difficult for them. And we might need to give them a little more time ..."

Like the country song says, "How do you like me now?"

Nowhere Man

Despite her official designation as "Minority Leader," Nancy Pelosi speaks for a majority of voters. Gotta love her latest comments about the GOP's lack of cooperation. "This delay is harmful to confidence for consumers, Pelosi said. "It's harmful to confidence for the markets."

We call that "rhetorical jujitsu" - using your opponents' arguments against them. And Leader Pelosi is certainly right about consumers, who are the key to any lasting recovery. Consumer activity fell dramatically in the last round of economic reports.

The GOP is boxed in - as long as Democrats hang tough. If Republicans really "run" from those talks, that will trigger the "fiscal cliff" provisions they've been describing in such apocalyptic terms. They can't win: Either the "cliff" apocalypse won't come, which will make them liars, or it will - which will make them destroyers of the economy.

And yet John Boehner says talks are at a "stalemate." Maybe he hasn't read the polls. Politically speaking, Mr. Boehner, iif there's a stalemate you lose. The only people that are "nowhere" right now are those who aren't paying attention to what voters - including a majority of their own party's members - want them to do.

If Republicans refuse to negotiate from the White House proposal, they'll be refusing to negotiate with the electorate. They shouldn't feel insulted by that offer. The real insult - the one that really must sting - is the one voters just gave them at the polls.

That's something both sides should remembe

Share:

Sunday, December 02, 2012

Air Force Chemtrail Planes almost cause mid air collision

For those who have not believed in chemtrails (even while seeing them being laid down in the skies) this video footage should put the matter to rest.  No amount of denial will work anymore.  This is a youtube video sent out by Alexandra Bruce of Forbidden Knowledge:

If you have been on the fence about
the existence of Chemtrails, this video
should settle the issue for you, once
and for all.

The first case involves three near head-on
collisions with a FedEx cargo jet, as the
pilot requests for permission to find an
altitude where he can evade them - only
to be faced with another near-miss.

Then, several other instances showing
massive gobs of dense material being
dumped from the wing ducts of KC-135
Tanker planes at commercial altitudes,
without the awareness of Air Traffic Control
are shown, including one hair-raising
daredevil stunt.

The obliviousness of ATC could have been
achieved if the military planes had shut off
their transponders. Also, it appears that the
Air Force planes were not detectable by radar.

Hands down, this is the best chemtrails footage
that I have ever seen!

Video (about 7 mins):


Share:

Saturday, December 01, 2012

TED Talks: What can we learn from near-death experiences?

Fascinating talks based on the speakers' own near-death experiences:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/june-cohen/near-death-experiences_b_2213630.html

Share:

9/11: *What* Happened - Not *How* It Happened: Dr. Judy Wood

If you never watch any other video, please take a few moments and watch this one -- and, if your curiosity and interest is aroused, go to www.drjudywood.com   Dr. Wood has impressive credentials and has had serious questions about 9/11 since the very beginning.  Her analysis is based on thorough forensic investigation and critical thinking.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.
 

VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO, only 12 minutes long.  Dr. Judy Wood  

More video at: http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/


Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, a large volume of witness testimony, analyses of dust samples, seismic data, and the analysis of other environmental evidence pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal Qui Tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation and body of evidence as compiled in her book is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is not a book of poetry, yet it has some beautiful prose. It is not a novel yet it tells a complete story. It is not a photography book, yet the pictures will grab you. It is not just a text book, yet its data is empirical and it teaches critical thinking. It is not the Bible yet it will be one of the most important books you will ever read.

Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?
Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.

Dr. Wood received her

  • B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
  • M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
  • Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
  • Experimental Stress Analysis,
  • Engineering Mechanics,
  • Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
  • Strength of Materials Testing
Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.
 



Magic of the heart

Speak from your heart and you will speak the truth.
Feel with your heart and you will know which way to go. 

Look from your heart and you will see the truth.
Listen with your heart and you will understand.

Live from your heart and you will live in peace.
Love from your heart and you will love forever.



Share: