Forget everything you’ve heard and seen
in the mainstream American media
for just one second
Saddam Hussein was rushed to the gallows pole on December 30. This occurred in the coincidental wake of President Gerald Ford’s death (and Ford’s released comments how he firmly disagreed with Bush’s invasion of Iraq) in addition to the holiday of Christmas. Yes, the celebration of Christ’s birthday (even though it’s in March) is the celebration of a man who believed in redemption, peace, love, and forgiveness. While there may be no forgiveness for what Hussein did in the early 80’s under Vice President George H.W. Bush’s guidance and assistance, there is the old “eye for an eye leaves everyone blind” philosophy of passive resistance that so many heroes like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Jesus himself used to spread peace throughout the world. These great leaders believed in justice, but they recognized that justice sometimes comes from the heavens above. They were humble enough to realize that neither they nor any other human is mighty enough to be the ultimate judge. There are not enough people like them.
Many Americans consider the Hussein execution a final accomplishment of 2006. They’re not concerned with punishment. Rather, they are happy he is dead and relieved of his punishment. That punishment of sitting in a cold cell deprived of the royal food he once ate and the royal luxuries he once enjoyed with nothing but time to think about his crimes was taken away by people looking for the quickest fix on a wound that’s not really going to ever go away. For many like the Bush family, his execution was a personal victory in a decade’s long vendetta. The truth is: VP George H.W. Bush and our U.S. government gave Saddam lethal weapons to use on Iranians and any Iraqis who would not follow their agenda. When Saddam used those weapons and accomplished his task, the U.S. then put him in a corner and demanded more. This is perhaps the only thing Hussein did have in common with Osama Bin (still missing) Laden. Hussein’s resistance and a surge of national revolt along with terrorism against the government led to more horrible deaths. U.S. sanctions and bombings that began in the early nineties would go on to kill more than 500,000 Iraqi civilians, far more than Hussein ever killed. So who is the real murderer here? Who is the accomplice? If the execution of Hussein is valid, then one of George H.W. Bush should be expected to follow.
But only the ones in power decide who gets killed, like the ones who killed Jesus, the man Christian Americans including the Bush family were paying respect to this week, even though they don’t follow his values. It is apparent that those who support the death penalty and the execution of Hussein have a little more hypocrisy than just their failure to acknowledge the role of the U.S. and its ex and current president. Take the sixth commandment for example, “Thou shall not kill,” of which most are in violation of by condoning or taking part in any death, whether it’s the death of a dictator, Iraqi civilians, American troops by way of wrongful war, or even the animals slaughtered for their food on a daily basis.
Of course, not everyone is celebrating. Within hours of the news of the execution, violence erupted on the streets of Iraq. Thousands of Sunnis marched in angry protest holding up a giant mosaic of Hussein. Hundreds more mourned Saddam in his hometown of Tikrit. “God bless you, and I thank you for honoring Saddam, the martyr,” said the hanged leader’s eldest daughter Raghad Saddam Hussein. So we can only expect more violence to come out of this execution as well as the expected martyring of Saddam.
This death penalty has done nothing more than make situations worse for our soldiers who have been thrown into a wrongful personal war in which its invokers have personally profited. See Who’s Profiting from the Iraq War? http://broken-nation.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-is-profiting-from-iraq-war.html#links
So think twice before you say you want to see the video of Saddam being executed; you’d actually be resorting to his level of brutality as well as condoning all the violence that will be unleashed on our troops in harms way.
Meanwhile, the U.S. death toll just went up to at least 3,002 by December 31, 2006. The Associated Press count of fatalities showed that at least 113 U.S. service members died in December, making it the most fatal month of 2006.
Iraqi authorities reported that 16,273 Iraqis — including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers — died violent deaths in 2006. The total exceeds the Associated Press count by more than 2,500.
If anything is learned from Saddam’s execution (and the United States involvement demonstrated in the following links), it is that we should be very careful who we elect as president/vice president e.g. Reagan, Bush. For it is those elected official’s decisions that affect not just our future, and the futures of other civilians around the world, but also the future of would be dictators.
Just imagine how different things would have been if the Reagan/Bush administrations hadn’t aided Saddam with weapons from 1980-1990. Who would they have been hanging instead?
# January 1, 2007 by Bill Lawrence
US CORPORATIONS THAT ARMED IRAQ FROM 1980 TO 1990
http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm
1 Honeywell
2 Spectra Physics
3 Semetex
4 TI Coating
5 Unisys
6 Sperry Corp.
7 Tektronix
8 Rockwell
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems
10 Finnigan-MAT-US
11 Hewlett-Packard
12 Dupont
13 Eastman Kodak
14 American Type Culture Collection
15 Alcolac International
16 Consarc
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S
18 Cerberus (LTD)
19 Electronic Associates
20 International Computer Systems
21 Bechtel
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc.
23 Canberra Industries Inc.
24 Axel Electronics Inc.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
September 1980 The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between
May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3] May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8] July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
More references:
Who Armed Iraq?
http://www.alternet.org/story/15322/
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons: The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam Hussein executed before dawn
Now everyone is blind. Was Saddam a good person? Hell, no. But he wasn't the worst and he wasn't the first. And his execution does nothing for this crisis we are in now with our American soldiers being in harm's way. As U.S. fatalities near 3,000, it is important to remember that NO WMD or links to terrorism were ever found. The real reason for this war was a personal vendetta and personal profit for Bush's family and friends. Don't ever forget it. If they were really so worried about human liberation, they'd be invading Saudi Arabia or China or Korea, which have far worse regimes, but they're not because we do business with them.
Bravo, that there is one less dictator in control, not really though if you replace Hussein with the installment of Bush in 2000. They cancel each other out. But really, would Bush's Jesus condone execution? Hardly. The "president" has no moral values and no Christian values. "An eye for an eye" was certainly not the philosophy of Jesus, nor is it of Allah or Buddha.
Within hours of Hussein's death, a bomb planted aboard a minibus exploded in a fish market south of Baghdad, killing 31 people, said Haidr Nahi, service director of the al-Furat al-Awssat Hospital. About 58 others were wounded in the explosion in Kufa, a Shiite town 100 miles south of the Iraqi capital.
This Iraq crisis is nowhere near over.
Bravo, that there is one less dictator in control, not really though if you replace Hussein with the installment of Bush in 2000. They cancel each other out. But really, would Bush's Jesus condone execution? Hardly. The "president" has no moral values and no Christian values. "An eye for an eye" was certainly not the philosophy of Jesus, nor is it of Allah or Buddha.
Within hours of Hussein's death, a bomb planted aboard a minibus exploded in a fish market south of Baghdad, killing 31 people, said Haidr Nahi, service director of the al-Furat al-Awssat Hospital. About 58 others were wounded in the explosion in Kufa, a Shiite town 100 miles south of the Iraqi capital.
This Iraq crisis is nowhere near over.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
FDA says cloned animals are OK to eat
So much for Bush's anti-cloning stance, but then I guess animals don't count because they probably don't have a Christian soul according to the president.
The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. Officials said they don’t think special labels are needed, although a decision on labeling is pending.
Because scientists concluded there is no difference between food from clones and food from other animals, “it would be unlikely that FDA would require labeling in those cases,” Sundlof said.
Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies.
Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin. Cloning lets farmers and ranchers replicate exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.
To produce a clone, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with the DNA of a cow, pig or other animal. A tiny electric shock coaxes the egg to grow into a copy of the original animal. Cloning companies say it’s just another reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences. And Bush has a problem with Stem Cells!!
Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with such food in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonpartisan research group. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490/
Just when I thought factory farming was at its worst!
The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. Officials said they don’t think special labels are needed, although a decision on labeling is pending.
Because scientists concluded there is no difference between food from clones and food from other animals, “it would be unlikely that FDA would require labeling in those cases,” Sundlof said.
Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies.
Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin. Cloning lets farmers and ranchers replicate exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.
To produce a clone, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with the DNA of a cow, pig or other animal. A tiny electric shock coaxes the egg to grow into a copy of the original animal. Cloning companies say it’s just another reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences. And Bush has a problem with Stem Cells!!
Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with such food in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonpartisan research group. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490/
Just when I thought factory farming was at its worst!
Rest in Peace President Gerald R. Ford
He may have pardoned Nixon, but Ford disagreed with Bush on invading Iraq.
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney — Ford's White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372936/
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney — Ford's White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372936/
John Edwards makes it official
John Edwards makes another run for the presidency
Two years after his hopes for a Democratic takeover of the White House were destroyed by election fraud, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards announced that he is making another run at the presidency.
Edwards — who is calling for cuts in poverty, global warming and troops in Iraq — scheduled his kickoff in New Orleans, still devastated from last year’s Hurricane Katrina. He chose the site to highlight his signature concern of the economic disparity that divides America.
“I’m here to announce I’m a candidate for president of the United States,” Edwards told NBC’s “Today Show” Thursday, one of three back-to-back interviews by the candidate on morning news shows. “I’ve reached my own conclusion this is the best way to serve my country.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16377918/
Two years after his hopes for a Democratic takeover of the White House were destroyed by election fraud, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards announced that he is making another run at the presidency.
Edwards — who is calling for cuts in poverty, global warming and troops in Iraq — scheduled his kickoff in New Orleans, still devastated from last year’s Hurricane Katrina. He chose the site to highlight his signature concern of the economic disparity that divides America.
“I’m here to announce I’m a candidate for president of the United States,” Edwards told NBC’s “Today Show” Thursday, one of three back-to-back interviews by the candidate on morning news shows. “I’ve reached my own conclusion this is the best way to serve my country.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16377918/
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Gore's opposition to Iraq should set a standard
Al Gore recently reiterated his original opposition to the invasion. It's not that hard to see the logic in his original opposition. And it makes us have to wonder where were the minds of all of the Congress members who voted for the war? Were they in the clouds out of touch with reality, did they really believe an administration that had already proven its lack of integrity, or were they purposefully giving Bush his blank check for self-destruction? Either way, this invasion was a mistake and Gore's reaffirmation of this should set a standard for the politicians we elect and re-elect.
KING: Were you opposed to Iraq?
GORE: Yes, I was.
KING: From the get-go.
GORE: Yes.
KING: Because?
GORE: Well, the evidence available showed very clearly that we had been attacked on September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. And I applauded President Bush's decision to go into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden. I thought that was correct.I think it was a mistake though to pull so many of our troops off of that hunt and divert to an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and even though we didn't like the dictator that was there, there are a lot of dictators out there right now that we don't like. And I felt that unlike the first Persian Gulf War, which I supported because Saddam Hussein had invaded his neighbor and was threatening the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and we had support from all our allies, the United Nations resolution, the whole world was behind us.
This was different and here's the most troubling aspect of it, Larry. The evidence that was coming out of the CIA and the expert community was saying one thing and it was the stuff they didn't want to hear they were deep-sixing it and stuff that didn't make sense they were ballyhooing. And it's the same thing that's happening with global warming. That's the point. They are doing exactly the same thing on this issue.
KING: Why deliberately? Are they deliberating saying "Ha, ha, ha, we want to go to war so we'll diffuse this?" What's the point?
GORE: I think that they went to -- I think it was like a perfect storm. I think there were a lot of things going on in the administration. I think that Vice President Cheney was genuinely focused on trying to get a foothold in the region where the biggest oil reserves are and he had written about and spoken about that for years before taking office.Karl Rove said on the eve of the war that it was going to be a great political issue and I think that actually played into it. And then I think that there were some in the administration ideologically driven who had this idea that they were going to plant democracy in country with a majority of the population under 19 years old with no tradition of democracy.
And it's a, you know, great thing if you could do it but there was a lack of realism about whether it was actually feasible, particularly with trying to do it on the cheap with far fewer forces than the heads of the military were telling them at the time was necessary. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html
Let's salute the brave and intelligent ones who didn't vote for this war:
The vote on House Joint Resolution 114 as taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23. The 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent senator who courageously voted their consciences against it were:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine(D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The House of Representatives passed the Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133. In the House, six Republicans (Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee) joined 126 Democrats in voting nay.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark are obviously not alone when they say they wouldn't have voted for the war.
KING: Were you opposed to Iraq?
GORE: Yes, I was.
KING: From the get-go.
GORE: Yes.
KING: Because?
GORE: Well, the evidence available showed very clearly that we had been attacked on September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. And I applauded President Bush's decision to go into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden. I thought that was correct.I think it was a mistake though to pull so many of our troops off of that hunt and divert to an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and even though we didn't like the dictator that was there, there are a lot of dictators out there right now that we don't like. And I felt that unlike the first Persian Gulf War, which I supported because Saddam Hussein had invaded his neighbor and was threatening the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and we had support from all our allies, the United Nations resolution, the whole world was behind us.
This was different and here's the most troubling aspect of it, Larry. The evidence that was coming out of the CIA and the expert community was saying one thing and it was the stuff they didn't want to hear they were deep-sixing it and stuff that didn't make sense they were ballyhooing. And it's the same thing that's happening with global warming. That's the point. They are doing exactly the same thing on this issue.
KING: Why deliberately? Are they deliberating saying "Ha, ha, ha, we want to go to war so we'll diffuse this?" What's the point?
GORE: I think that they went to -- I think it was like a perfect storm. I think there were a lot of things going on in the administration. I think that Vice President Cheney was genuinely focused on trying to get a foothold in the region where the biggest oil reserves are and he had written about and spoken about that for years before taking office.Karl Rove said on the eve of the war that it was going to be a great political issue and I think that actually played into it. And then I think that there were some in the administration ideologically driven who had this idea that they were going to plant democracy in country with a majority of the population under 19 years old with no tradition of democracy.
And it's a, you know, great thing if you could do it but there was a lack of realism about whether it was actually feasible, particularly with trying to do it on the cheap with far fewer forces than the heads of the military were telling them at the time was necessary. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html
Let's salute the brave and intelligent ones who didn't vote for this war:
The vote on House Joint Resolution 114 as taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23. The 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent senator who courageously voted their consciences against it were:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine(D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The House of Representatives passed the Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133. In the House, six Republicans (Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee) joined 126 Democrats in voting nay.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark are obviously not alone when they say they wouldn't have voted for the war.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Humans will need two Earths
Humans will need two Earths
Global ‘footprint’ left by consumption is growing, conservationists argue
BEIJING - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a report published Tuesday by the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Footprint Network.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said in releasing the 2006 Living Planet Report in Beijing.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape added.
Largely because of its huge per capita emissions of carbon dioxide — a gas many scientists tie to global warming — the United Arab Emirates were placing the most stress per capita on the planet ahead of the United States, Finland, Canada, Kuwait and Australia, the report said.
Using the report's criteria, Cuba is the only country in the world that has a high level of development, including good health and education systems, and does not use up more resources than is sustainable.
Groups: Footprint getting bigger
The report estimated that "humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003" — and that consumption has even outpaced global population growth from 3 billion in 1960 to the 6.5 billion today.
In 2003, the report added, humanity's ecological footprint — the demand people place on the natural world — was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste.
"This ecological 'overshoot' means that it now takes about one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year," the conservation groups said in a statement.
"Overshoot has increased by 4 percent since the last Living Planet Report, which was based on 2001 data, and is projected to rise to 30 percent in 2006."
"On current projections, humanity will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 — if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said. "People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
"Humanity is living off its ecological credit card," Mathis Wackernagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, said in a statement. "While this can be done for a short while, overshoot ultimately leads to liquidation of the planet's ecological assets, and the depletion of resources, such as the forests, oceans and agricultural land upon which our economy depends."
The report noted that an index tracking 1,300 vertebrate species — birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals — showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Eyes on China, other growing nations
The conservation groups added that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
"The cities, power plants and homes we build today will either lock society into damaging overconsumption beyond our lifetimes," he added, "or begin to propel this and future generations toward sustainable living."
National "footprints" charted by the Global Footprint Network are online at www.footprintnetwork.org
Global ‘footprint’ left by consumption is growing, conservationists argue
BEIJING - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a report published Tuesday by the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Footprint Network.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said in releasing the 2006 Living Planet Report in Beijing.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape added.
Largely because of its huge per capita emissions of carbon dioxide — a gas many scientists tie to global warming — the United Arab Emirates were placing the most stress per capita on the planet ahead of the United States, Finland, Canada, Kuwait and Australia, the report said.
Using the report's criteria, Cuba is the only country in the world that has a high level of development, including good health and education systems, and does not use up more resources than is sustainable.
Groups: Footprint getting bigger
The report estimated that "humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003" — and that consumption has even outpaced global population growth from 3 billion in 1960 to the 6.5 billion today.
In 2003, the report added, humanity's ecological footprint — the demand people place on the natural world — was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste.
"This ecological 'overshoot' means that it now takes about one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year," the conservation groups said in a statement.
"Overshoot has increased by 4 percent since the last Living Planet Report, which was based on 2001 data, and is projected to rise to 30 percent in 2006."
"On current projections, humanity will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 — if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said. "People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
"Humanity is living off its ecological credit card," Mathis Wackernagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, said in a statement. "While this can be done for a short while, overshoot ultimately leads to liquidation of the planet's ecological assets, and the depletion of resources, such as the forests, oceans and agricultural land upon which our economy depends."
The report noted that an index tracking 1,300 vertebrate species — birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals — showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Eyes on China, other growing nations
The conservation groups added that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
"The cities, power plants and homes we build today will either lock society into damaging overconsumption beyond our lifetimes," he added, "or begin to propel this and future generations toward sustainable living."
National "footprints" charted by the Global Footprint Network are online at www.footprintnetwork.org
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
9/11 questions still linger
Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/
Vote here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/
Vote here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/
AL Gore video
It's humorous, it's important, it's Al Gore, excellent as usual!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5621362837465161157&q=label%3Abush
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5621362837465161157&q=label%3Abush
Immigrants not taking Americans' jobs
Immigrants not taking Americans' jobs
WASHINGTON - Big increases in immigration since 1990 have not hurt employment prospects for U.S. workers, says a study released Thursday.
The report comes as Congress and many Americans are debating immigration policy, a big issue in this fall's midterm congressional elections.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14285172/?GT1=8404
WASHINGTON - Big increases in immigration since 1990 have not hurt employment prospects for U.S. workers, says a study released Thursday.
The report comes as Congress and many Americans are debating immigration policy, a big issue in this fall's midterm congressional elections.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14285172/?GT1=8404
Monday, December 18, 2006
The coming holidays
Like the late great poet Charles Bukowski once said, "Why do we kill all those trees just to celebrate one birthday?"
Earlier in the week I wrote an on-line response to a group posting in response to several people who were upset over a rabbi protesting an airport for their Christmas trees. Others are upset because clerks in stores no longer say "happy holidays." The big "war" on Christmas! See this link about the rabbi:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-airport-christmas-trees,0,7546296.story
I can't say I blame the guy for having to deal with the trees. If the trees are there, then the menorah should be there too, but then that means there should be Muslim and Buddhist symbols too. But it's important to note that the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol anyway. It was actually once a symbol of nature. The holiday tree is derived from pagan tree worship, much like virtually every other symbol Christianity borrowed from paganism.
It's also important to note to those who persist to argue that our country was founded on Christianity, that it was not. If it was, who were the Christian founders? I don't recall them. If they just mean that the citizens of our nation were mostly Christian, then why all the killing, slavery, slaughtering of animals, and greed, and lust, and all of the other sins? Doesn't sound like Christianity. Sounds like someone used the name of Christ to spread chaos.
My USA is for everyone. That means no festive decorations in schools and public buildings. Save all the cheap plastic junk and gaudy lights for your own homes. And do I really need the underpaid clerk at the mall to tell me "happy holidays" when I just cut someone off in the parking lot, fought over the last toy in the aisle with another parent, and then shoved someone out of my way on line, just to spend hundreds of dollars (that could've saved entire families in Africa) on junk that everyone will forget about next year anyway, all because some guy in a white robe told me to celebrate the birth of Christ on the 25th of December when he wasn't even born in the same season?
I don’t celebrate X-mas for Christian beliefs nor the materialism. For me, it is a celebration of family and fellowship.
Love is my God. And yes, trees should be worshipped, but not just once a year. Jesus would have wanted it that way.
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti
Earlier in the week I wrote an on-line response to a group posting in response to several people who were upset over a rabbi protesting an airport for their Christmas trees. Others are upset because clerks in stores no longer say "happy holidays." The big "war" on Christmas! See this link about the rabbi:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-airport-christmas-trees,0,7546296.story
I can't say I blame the guy for having to deal with the trees. If the trees are there, then the menorah should be there too, but then that means there should be Muslim and Buddhist symbols too. But it's important to note that the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol anyway. It was actually once a symbol of nature. The holiday tree is derived from pagan tree worship, much like virtually every other symbol Christianity borrowed from paganism.
It's also important to note to those who persist to argue that our country was founded on Christianity, that it was not. If it was, who were the Christian founders? I don't recall them. If they just mean that the citizens of our nation were mostly Christian, then why all the killing, slavery, slaughtering of animals, and greed, and lust, and all of the other sins? Doesn't sound like Christianity. Sounds like someone used the name of Christ to spread chaos.
My USA is for everyone. That means no festive decorations in schools and public buildings. Save all the cheap plastic junk and gaudy lights for your own homes. And do I really need the underpaid clerk at the mall to tell me "happy holidays" when I just cut someone off in the parking lot, fought over the last toy in the aisle with another parent, and then shoved someone out of my way on line, just to spend hundreds of dollars (that could've saved entire families in Africa) on junk that everyone will forget about next year anyway, all because some guy in a white robe told me to celebrate the birth of Christ on the 25th of December when he wasn't even born in the same season?
I don’t celebrate X-mas for Christian beliefs nor the materialism. For me, it is a celebration of family and fellowship.
Love is my God. And yes, trees should be worshipped, but not just once a year. Jesus would have wanted it that way.
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Run for the 2008 election begins
Dennis Kucinich has announced his run for candidate for president of the United States. He is the most outspoken anti-war candidate, who didn't vote for the war, didn't vote for increases in spending, and does not support the slaughter mills of American corporate greed otherwise known as the Iraq war. Kucinich urges early Iraq exit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16210167/
"Waiting for another anti-war candidate “A lot of people are sitting on the fence until someone comes up with something a lot more definitive than what’s being said right now about the war,” said Maryland Democratic Party chairman Terry Lierman, who was the finance chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential bid in 2004.
“The person who wins this (battle for the nomination) is going to be the person who comes up with the strongest and most rational proposal to get out of Iraq,” Lierman added. “Those who have namby-pamby proposals will suffer the consequences.” If Democrats are looking for a contender who did not vote to go to war in 2002 and has not voted to fund the war, two names immediately come to mind: Dean and former vice president Al Gore.
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana will not seek the presidency in 2008. “At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue,” Bayh told the Indianapolis Star. “This path — and these long odds — would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.” A very commendable step-aside for someone hired to do a job and someone who actually wants to do that job. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16235397/
John Edwards to announce '08 run.
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.
Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239360/
In other news, the two who want to dig a hole for America by re-electing another Republican all because they're too egotistical, are getting media attention. Hillary and Obama http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16238556/site/newsweek
Take the live vote at the above site.
Meanwhile, someone not getting publicity for being a politician, but rather for doing a good job, is Al Gore.
"I am not planning to run for president again," Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."
Those words make Gore the 800-pound non-candidate of the Democratic field. The possibility of another presidential bid delights many Democrats still steamed over the disputed 2000 election, in which they argue a few more votes, a state other than Florida and a different Supreme Court could have put Gore, not George W. Bush, in the White House.
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the front-runner, but a polarizing one for some Democrats. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is the electrifying newcomer, but limited in his experience. Gore remains, for many party activists, the Democrat and popular vote-getter done wrong.
"He won the election in 2000 _ he just lost the (electoral) count," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Don Fowler said. "If I were he, I wouldn't rule out a run. It's an uncertain field, and he's a person who is widely respected." http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=430&Itemid=81
"Waiting for another anti-war candidate “A lot of people are sitting on the fence until someone comes up with something a lot more definitive than what’s being said right now about the war,” said Maryland Democratic Party chairman Terry Lierman, who was the finance chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential bid in 2004.
“The person who wins this (battle for the nomination) is going to be the person who comes up with the strongest and most rational proposal to get out of Iraq,” Lierman added. “Those who have namby-pamby proposals will suffer the consequences.” If Democrats are looking for a contender who did not vote to go to war in 2002 and has not voted to fund the war, two names immediately come to mind: Dean and former vice president Al Gore.
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana will not seek the presidency in 2008. “At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue,” Bayh told the Indianapolis Star. “This path — and these long odds — would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.” A very commendable step-aside for someone hired to do a job and someone who actually wants to do that job. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16235397/
John Edwards to announce '08 run.
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.
Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239360/
In other news, the two who want to dig a hole for America by re-electing another Republican all because they're too egotistical, are getting media attention. Hillary and Obama http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16238556/site/newsweek
Take the live vote at the above site.
Meanwhile, someone not getting publicity for being a politician, but rather for doing a good job, is Al Gore.
"I am not planning to run for president again," Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."
Those words make Gore the 800-pound non-candidate of the Democratic field. The possibility of another presidential bid delights many Democrats still steamed over the disputed 2000 election, in which they argue a few more votes, a state other than Florida and a different Supreme Court could have put Gore, not George W. Bush, in the White House.
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the front-runner, but a polarizing one for some Democrats. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is the electrifying newcomer, but limited in his experience. Gore remains, for many party activists, the Democrat and popular vote-getter done wrong.
"He won the election in 2000 _ he just lost the (electoral) count," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Don Fowler said. "If I were he, I wouldn't rule out a run. It's an uncertain field, and he's a person who is widely respected." http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=430&Itemid=81
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Will you be called next?
Army, Marine Corps to ask for more troops
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan cut into global readiness
The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.
The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16160871/
Yeah. and there is no backdoor draft, yeah right.
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan cut into global readiness
The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.
The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16160871/
Yeah. and there is no backdoor draft, yeah right.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Impeachment in the works?
MCKINNEY'S FULL REMARKS ON BUSH IMPEACHMENT BILL
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent (December 08, 2006)
US Rep. Cynthia McKinney today became the first US Congresswoman to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, as well as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
Atlanta Progressive News has obtained the following remarks prepared by the Congresswoman, and has learned she was not allowed to read them on the US House Floor. The remarks are expected to become part of the Congressional Record but will not be available on thomas.loc.gov until next week.
The Congresswoman has scheduled an interview with APN for tomorrow to discuss her legislation. Stay tuned here for more.
The remarks are reprinted here in full:
Mr. Speaker:
I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.
We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.
No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?
The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.
Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid: trust and truth.
From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent, the President then took our country to war.
This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families--who have been asked to make sacrifices--including the ultimate sacrifice--to keep us safe.
Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.
When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.
President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.
With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.
Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.
I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.
This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.
Mr. Speaker:
Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice, should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res.1106 in the House of Representatives.
To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.
Thank you.
Atlanta Progressive News
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0113.html
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent (December 08, 2006)
US Rep. Cynthia McKinney today became the first US Congresswoman to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, as well as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
Atlanta Progressive News has obtained the following remarks prepared by the Congresswoman, and has learned she was not allowed to read them on the US House Floor. The remarks are expected to become part of the Congressional Record but will not be available on thomas.loc.gov until next week.
The Congresswoman has scheduled an interview with APN for tomorrow to discuss her legislation. Stay tuned here for more.
The remarks are reprinted here in full:
Mr. Speaker:
I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.
We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.
No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?
The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.
Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid: trust and truth.
From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent, the President then took our country to war.
This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families--who have been asked to make sacrifices--including the ultimate sacrifice--to keep us safe.
Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.
When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.
President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.
With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.
Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.
I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.
This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.
Mr. Speaker:
Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice, should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res.1106 in the House of Representatives.
To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.
Thank you.
Atlanta Progressive News
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0113.html
Saturday, December 09, 2006
OutFOXed
OutFOXing the Media
The probelm with network news in America is this, it's a monopoly controlled by one who worships at the alter of Ronald Reagon and who's values are aligned with the current administration. The media empire of billionare mogul Rupert Murdoch reaches billions around the globe dominating airwaves in the United States, Britain, Italy and Asia. This Autrailian born Bush supporter owns 9 satellite tv networks, 100 cable channels, 175 newspapers, 40 book imprints, 40 tv stations and 1 movie studio. These include 20th century fox studio, Fox network, Fox news, New York Post, The Times of London and much much more. It is estimated that his media reaches 3/4 of the world's population. Hmmm. Fox News, hard to beleive that many people actually rely on the unilateralism of mainstram media as a source of reliable information.
Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (from the back of the dvd case):
"The team behind outfoxed created a system to moniter Fox News 24 hours a day for months to discover exactly how its shows worked. A team of volunteers around the country scutinized every hour of Fox News programming, noticing examples of bias in it's coverage. The result is an intense examination of Fox News and the lie inherent in it's favorite motto:
"Fair and Balanced."An important side note of this film worth mentioning was it's breif glimpse at the politics of fear and how our government via the media uses fear as a tool to rally our support for a powerful military. You can watch this movie online.
The probelm with network news in America is this, it's a monopoly controlled by one who worships at the alter of Ronald Reagon and who's values are aligned with the current administration. The media empire of billionare mogul Rupert Murdoch reaches billions around the globe dominating airwaves in the United States, Britain, Italy and Asia. This Autrailian born Bush supporter owns 9 satellite tv networks, 100 cable channels, 175 newspapers, 40 book imprints, 40 tv stations and 1 movie studio. These include 20th century fox studio, Fox network, Fox news, New York Post, The Times of London and much much more. It is estimated that his media reaches 3/4 of the world's population. Hmmm. Fox News, hard to beleive that many people actually rely on the unilateralism of mainstram media as a source of reliable information.
Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (from the back of the dvd case):
"The team behind outfoxed created a system to moniter Fox News 24 hours a day for months to discover exactly how its shows worked. A team of volunteers around the country scutinized every hour of Fox News programming, noticing examples of bias in it's coverage. The result is an intense examination of Fox News and the lie inherent in it's favorite motto:
"Fair and Balanced."An important side note of this film worth mentioning was it's breif glimpse at the politics of fear and how our government via the media uses fear as a tool to rally our support for a powerful military. You can watch this movie online.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Gore: Iraq "Worst Strategy Mistake In The History Of The U.S."
Gore: Iraq "Worst Strategy Mistake In The History Of The U.S."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/06/gore-iraq-bush/ Wednesday, 06 December 2006
(ThinkProgress.org) - This morning on NBC, former Vice President Al Gore called Iraq the “worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.”
He urged President Bush “to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it’s not about him. It’s about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and to prevent a regional conflagration there.”
Full Transcript:
GORE: The fact is, this is a very bad situation. Our country has to find a way to get our troops out as quickly as possible without making the situation even worse in the manner of our leaving.
LAUER: It’s described by some as cut and stay as opposed to cut and run. Does it [the Baker-Hamilton report] do enough to acknowledge the results of the mid-term elections and the message voters sending this administration — if these are listened to, these recommendations?
GORE: Well, the report this morning is actually one of several studies. There is one in the Pentagon. There has been reportedly been one in the White House itself. They are all basically saying the same thing, Matt. This is an utter disaster. This worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States. We as a nation have to find a way, in George Mitchell’s words, to manage a disaster. But I would urge the president not to — to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it’s not about him. It’s about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and to prevent a regional conflagration there.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/06/gore-iraq-bush/ Wednesday, 06 December 2006
(ThinkProgress.org) - This morning on NBC, former Vice President Al Gore called Iraq the “worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.”
He urged President Bush “to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it’s not about him. It’s about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and to prevent a regional conflagration there.”
Full Transcript:
GORE: The fact is, this is a very bad situation. Our country has to find a way to get our troops out as quickly as possible without making the situation even worse in the manner of our leaving.
LAUER: It’s described by some as cut and stay as opposed to cut and run. Does it [the Baker-Hamilton report] do enough to acknowledge the results of the mid-term elections and the message voters sending this administration — if these are listened to, these recommendations?
GORE: Well, the report this morning is actually one of several studies. There is one in the Pentagon. There has been reportedly been one in the White House itself. They are all basically saying the same thing, Matt. This is an utter disaster. This worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States. We as a nation have to find a way, in George Mitchell’s words, to manage a disaster. But I would urge the president not to — to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it’s not about him. It’s about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and to prevent a regional conflagration there.
Cheers to Oprah!!
Hope everyone got to see this!
Gore films conservation piece for Oprah Monday, 04 December 2006
(Nashville Tennessean) - Al Gore was at the Lowe's Home Improvement store in Franklin Sunday shooting a spot on energy saving appliances for the Oprah Winfrey talk show.
The former vice president and Tennessee senator led a camera crew through the store, making note of how people can save money on their energy bills and help conserve the planet's natural resources in the process.
With winter approaching, Gore focused on alternative means of heating. He also suggested purchasing a programmable thermostat that can automatically conserve energy when no one is home.
Other products noted include: new gas grills which are more efficient, compact fluorescent lights that can save $40 to $50 in energy costs annually, and Energy Star washing machines that conserve 8,000 gallons of water over the machine's lifetime.
"It's exciting to have Mr. Gore at our store," said Jeff Willis, Lowe's store manager. "And it's good that he's helping people save on their energy bills."
The piece is scheduled to air Dec. 11.
By John Boan
http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=428&Itemid=81
Gore films conservation piece for Oprah Monday, 04 December 2006
(Nashville Tennessean) - Al Gore was at the Lowe's Home Improvement store in Franklin Sunday shooting a spot on energy saving appliances for the Oprah Winfrey talk show.
The former vice president and Tennessee senator led a camera crew through the store, making note of how people can save money on their energy bills and help conserve the planet's natural resources in the process.
With winter approaching, Gore focused on alternative means of heating. He also suggested purchasing a programmable thermostat that can automatically conserve energy when no one is home.
Other products noted include: new gas grills which are more efficient, compact fluorescent lights that can save $40 to $50 in energy costs annually, and Energy Star washing machines that conserve 8,000 gallons of water over the machine's lifetime.
"It's exciting to have Mr. Gore at our store," said Jeff Willis, Lowe's store manager. "And it's good that he's helping people save on their energy bills."
The piece is scheduled to air Dec. 11.
By John Boan
http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=428&Itemid=81
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof'
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Environment is not convenient enough for science teachers
An Inconvenient Truth Squeezed from Classrooms
The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters. One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil. The news was buried deep in the Washington Post website and reported by Laurie David, a producer of the film and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
In their e-mail rejection, they (NSTA) expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.
Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
Oil industry supporters will be quick to endorse the decision, agreeing that An Inconvenient Truth does indeed represent a special interest. What they will conveniently ignore is that unlike industry friendly messages pushed into the curriculum, An Inconvenient Truth is based on, and endorsed by, objective science - the very subject the National Science Teachers Association says it promotes.What truth is more inconvenient? It depends where your pay cheque comes from.
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/11/inconvenient-truth-squeezed-from.html
Meanwhile in Scotland...
Firm offers to pay for pupils to see Gore film
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
EVERY schoolchild in Scotland is to be offered the chance to see former US vice-president Al Gore's film about the dangers of global warming under a scheme by energy company ScottishPower.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1795672006
The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters. One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil. The news was buried deep in the Washington Post website and reported by Laurie David, a producer of the film and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
In their e-mail rejection, they (NSTA) expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.
Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
Oil industry supporters will be quick to endorse the decision, agreeing that An Inconvenient Truth does indeed represent a special interest. What they will conveniently ignore is that unlike industry friendly messages pushed into the curriculum, An Inconvenient Truth is based on, and endorsed by, objective science - the very subject the National Science Teachers Association says it promotes.What truth is more inconvenient? It depends where your pay cheque comes from.
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/11/inconvenient-truth-squeezed-from.html
Meanwhile in Scotland...
Firm offers to pay for pupils to see Gore film
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
EVERY schoolchild in Scotland is to be offered the chance to see former US vice-president Al Gore's film about the dangers of global warming under a scheme by energy company ScottishPower.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1795672006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Right Wing Sanctity of Marraige?
Examples of the Right Wing Sanctity of Marraige:
The sanctity of marriage?
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey, House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will - divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorcedHenry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
Courtesy of http://apatheticnation.blogspot.com/
The sanctity of marriage?
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey, House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will - divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorcedHenry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
Courtesy of http://apatheticnation.blogspot.com/
Friday, December 01, 2006
Corporate Empires
Corporate Empires
These are numbers from ten years ago. Do you think it's changed much?
TWO HUNDRED GIANT CORPORATIONS, most of them larger than many national economies, have sales that exceed a quarter of the world's economic activity. Philip Morris is larger than New Zealand, and it operates in 170 countries. Instead of creating an integrated global village, these firms are weaving webs of production, consumption and finance that bring economic benefits to, at most, a third of the world's people. Two-thirds of the world (the bottom 20 percent of the rich countries and the bottom 80 percent of the poor countries) are either left out, marginalized or hurt by these webs of activity.
Here are five snapshots of the extent of global corporate concentration:
2.The combined sales of the world's Top 200 corporations are far greater than a quarter of the world's economic activity. The Top 200's share of global economic activity has been growing rapidly over the past decade. In 1982, the Top 200 firms had sales that were the equivalent of 24.2 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). Today, that figure has grown to 28.3 percent of world GDP.
3.The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 9; that is they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries. At latest count, the world has 191 countries. If you subtract the GDP of the big nine economies -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and China -- the combined GDP's of the other 182 countries is $6.9 trillion. The combined sales of the Top 200 corporations is $7.1 trillion.
4.The Top 200 have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity. The world's economic income and wealth remain highly concentrated among the rich. Indeed, according to the United Nations, some 85 percent of the world's GDP is controlled by the richest fifth of humanity; only 15 percent is controlled by the poorest four-fifths. Hence, the poorer 4.5 billion people in the world account for only $3.9 trillion dollars of economic activity; this is only a little over half the combined revenues of the Top 200's $7.1 trillion.
5. The Top 200 have been net job destroyers in recent years. Their combined global employment is only 18.8 million, which is less than a third of 1 percent of the world's people. The world has just over 5.6 billion people. Of these, around 2.6 billion are in the workforce. Hence, the Top 200 employ less than three-fourths of 1 percent of the world's workers. Of the world's top five employers, four are U.S. (General Motors, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, and Ford), and one is German (Siemens). If one also includes the public sector in these calculations, the U.S. Postal Service is the world's biggest employer, at 870,160, roughly 160,000 more workers than GM's 709,000 workers.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.08.html
1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart--the number 12 corporation--is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland and Greece. Mitsubishi is larger than the fourth most populous nation on earth: Indonesia. General Motors is bigger than Denmark. Ford is bigger than South Africa. Toyota is bigger than Norway.
These are numbers from ten years ago. Do you think it's changed much?
TWO HUNDRED GIANT CORPORATIONS, most of them larger than many national economies, have sales that exceed a quarter of the world's economic activity. Philip Morris is larger than New Zealand, and it operates in 170 countries. Instead of creating an integrated global village, these firms are weaving webs of production, consumption and finance that bring economic benefits to, at most, a third of the world's people. Two-thirds of the world (the bottom 20 percent of the rich countries and the bottom 80 percent of the poor countries) are either left out, marginalized or hurt by these webs of activity.
Here are five snapshots of the extent of global corporate concentration:
2.The combined sales of the world's Top 200 corporations are far greater than a quarter of the world's economic activity. The Top 200's share of global economic activity has been growing rapidly over the past decade. In 1982, the Top 200 firms had sales that were the equivalent of 24.2 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). Today, that figure has grown to 28.3 percent of world GDP.
3.The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 9; that is they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries. At latest count, the world has 191 countries. If you subtract the GDP of the big nine economies -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and China -- the combined GDP's of the other 182 countries is $6.9 trillion. The combined sales of the Top 200 corporations is $7.1 trillion.
4.The Top 200 have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity. The world's economic income and wealth remain highly concentrated among the rich. Indeed, according to the United Nations, some 85 percent of the world's GDP is controlled by the richest fifth of humanity; only 15 percent is controlled by the poorest four-fifths. Hence, the poorer 4.5 billion people in the world account for only $3.9 trillion dollars of economic activity; this is only a little over half the combined revenues of the Top 200's $7.1 trillion.
5. The Top 200 have been net job destroyers in recent years. Their combined global employment is only 18.8 million, which is less than a third of 1 percent of the world's people. The world has just over 5.6 billion people. Of these, around 2.6 billion are in the workforce. Hence, the Top 200 employ less than three-fourths of 1 percent of the world's workers. Of the world's top five employers, four are U.S. (General Motors, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, and Ford), and one is German (Siemens). If one also includes the public sector in these calculations, the U.S. Postal Service is the world's biggest employer, at 870,160, roughly 160,000 more workers than GM's 709,000 workers.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.08.html
1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart--the number 12 corporation--is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland and Greece. Mitsubishi is larger than the fourth most populous nation on earth: Indonesia. General Motors is bigger than Denmark. Ford is bigger than South Africa. Toyota is bigger than Norway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)