The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.
The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.
“The security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort,” according to the 579-page report, which was being released Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895294/
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
New report reveals political pressure
Bush pressure seen on climate expertsLawmakers get survey of scientists,
half of whom report political pressure
-MSNBC
-MSNBC
The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.
Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Cheney's Rich!
Cheney’s Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#24
Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.
An analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reveals that as Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s. Halliburton has already taken more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq. They were also awarded many of the unaccountable post-Katrina government contracts, as off-shore subsidiaries of Halliburton quietly worked around U.S. sanctions to conduct very questionable business with Iran. “It is unseemly,” notes Lautenberg, “for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”
CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest. The Vice President continues to receive deferred salary from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852
(The CRS report can be downloaded at: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf)
On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton, where from 1995 to 2000 he was employed as CEO, Vice President Cheney said, “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”
UPDATE BY JOHN BYRNE
The media has routinely downplayed Cheney’s involvement and financial investment in Halliburton, one of the largest U.S. defense contractors that received supersized no-bid contracts in Iraq. Ultimately, the importance of the story is that the Vice President of the U.S. is able to use his position of power to reap rewards for his former company in which he has a financial investment. Halliburton may also benefit from a chilling effect in which the Pentagon is more likely to favor Cheney’s firm to seek favor with the White House.
Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, and receives a deferred salary of about $200,000 a year. According to Cheney’s most recent tax returns, he held $2.5 million in retirement accounts, much of which likely came from his former defense firm.
Cheney recently filed disclosure reports that show he is valued at $94 million.
Senator Lautenberg’s disclosure, brought forward by Raw Story, received no mainstream coverage. While the press has often noted that Cheney was formerly Halliburton’s CEO, they routinely fail to mention how much money he accrued from the firm during his service there. They also fail to mention that he continues to receive a pension.
From Raw Story www.rawstory.com
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#24
Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.
An analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reveals that as Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s. Halliburton has already taken more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq. They were also awarded many of the unaccountable post-Katrina government contracts, as off-shore subsidiaries of Halliburton quietly worked around U.S. sanctions to conduct very questionable business with Iran. “It is unseemly,” notes Lautenberg, “for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”
CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest. The Vice President continues to receive deferred salary from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852
(The CRS report can be downloaded at: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf)
On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton, where from 1995 to 2000 he was employed as CEO, Vice President Cheney said, “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”
UPDATE BY JOHN BYRNE
The media has routinely downplayed Cheney’s involvement and financial investment in Halliburton, one of the largest U.S. defense contractors that received supersized no-bid contracts in Iraq. Ultimately, the importance of the story is that the Vice President of the U.S. is able to use his position of power to reap rewards for his former company in which he has a financial investment. Halliburton may also benefit from a chilling effect in which the Pentagon is more likely to favor Cheney’s firm to seek favor with the White House.
Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, and receives a deferred salary of about $200,000 a year. According to Cheney’s most recent tax returns, he held $2.5 million in retirement accounts, much of which likely came from his former defense firm.
Cheney recently filed disclosure reports that show he is valued at $94 million.
Senator Lautenberg’s disclosure, brought forward by Raw Story, received no mainstream coverage. While the press has often noted that Cheney was formerly Halliburton’s CEO, they routinely fail to mention how much money he accrued from the firm during his service there. They also fail to mention that he continues to receive a pension.
From Raw Story www.rawstory.com
Run Al, Run Al
The popular Al Gore is gaining support. With other candidates who voted for and supported the war, like Hillary Clinton, Gore is a much better choice since he was against it from the beginning. His work on global warming education has attracted the attention of the world and has just earned him two Oscar nominations, something even Ronald Reagan didn't have. Let's not forget his years of experience first as a Congressman, then a Senator, and then a successful Vice President in a successful administration that created jobs, created a surplus, and created the most progressive environmental laws yet. He is a Vietnam veteran, a civil servant, a teacher, a writer, and the winner of the 2000 election's popular vote. Even more so, in a nation tired of politicians, he is currently a civilian, one who is accomplishing much more than other presidential candidates like Barack Obama who spends more time campaigning and talking about ideas than accomplishing anything. John Edwards is another civilian who is accomplishing more than many of the current passive and distracted members of Congress. Gore/Edwards would be a nice team, don't you think?"The ideal candidate for the Democrats may be the man who won the popular vote in 2000 -- and who opposed the war in Iraq from the very start" Rolling Stone: Run, Al, Run
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Credibility? Cheny calls Iraq a sucess!
In an angry and nasty interview with Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Dick Cheney snapped on Blitzer several times claiming it was “hogwash” to suggest that President Bush’s credibility was on the line because of mistakes made in Iraq. He seems to be the only one in the world, along with Bush and a few other loyalists, who are confident in the Iraq war. It seems most prominent Republicans are now turning on the Bush administration, including George Pataki and Chuck Hagel. John McCain said "Cheney hasn't been serving the president." So it seems Republicans will now start playing the blame game, placing the blame off onto the more unpopular Dick Cheney. But let's remind them that they supported the war too.
Let's refresh Cheney's memory with things his president gave as reasons for going to war:
“The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.”
George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” -President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
-President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons...And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
-President Bush on September 26, 2002
“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”
-President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
To remind yourself, watch the following: http://www.bushflash.com/right.html
The Truth
“It is somewhat puzzling that you have 100% certainty about WMD’s existence and 0 certainty of where they are.”
-Hans Blix
The administration has not apologized but they have insinuated that there were some “problems with intelligence.” Ok, let’s assume for just a moment that I am wrong, along with the CIA, FBI, and other government officials as well as many other governments from around the world who believe they lied for political and financial gain. Let’s forget about the proof of their connections to the oil industry and Halliburton. Let’s forget about the facts and pretend for a moment that the administration was right. Let’s pretend Bush went into Iraq because he really thought there were WMD and links to terrorism? Now what does that say? This would mean that there was indeed a major intelligence failure. Wait! Wasn’t 9/11 a major intelligence failure also?
THE TRUTH
• The CIA had warned the BAD, “The intelligence is not good enough.”
• The U.S. invaded Iraq after only 3 ½ months of inspections.
• Iraq NEVER had the capability for making long range missiles.
• Iraq had NO connection to religious fanatics or terrorist organizations, in fact it’s quite the opposite, Hussein didn’t allow any of them in his country. Hussein and Laden were enemies. Hussein made sure there were no terrorist or Al Qaeda activity.
• Serin made in 1990/91 only had a shelf life of 3 years at best.
Cheney acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was very unstable but said toppling Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. (maybe for Halliburton it was the right thing to do, they've made millions: www.Halliburtonwatch.org ) But it wasn't the right thing to do for American troops.
Elsewhere in the news, after spewing more lies on the State of the Union the other night, it is now revealed that the Bush administration's new energy plan to reduce gasoline demand by 20 percent could have an unintended side effect — increasing greenhouse gas emissions, California environmental officials say. Officials with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration say the president's strategy to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil falls short of environmental reform.
It was the latest shot at the Bush administration by the Republican governor and his administration, which has chastised the president and the previous Republican Congress for failing to act on global warming.
"We think it not only does not go far enough but may actually, in some cases, if not done right, will increase greenhouse gas emissions," California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams said during a news conference Wednesday. "Without a cap or some kind of a carbon standard, we think the Bush plan falls short." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16806206/
Let's refresh Cheney's memory with things his president gave as reasons for going to war:
“The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.”
George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” -President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
-President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons...And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
-President Bush on September 26, 2002
“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”
-President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
To remind yourself, watch the following: http://www.bushflash.com/right.html
The Truth
“It is somewhat puzzling that you have 100% certainty about WMD’s existence and 0 certainty of where they are.”
-Hans Blix
The administration has not apologized but they have insinuated that there were some “problems with intelligence.” Ok, let’s assume for just a moment that I am wrong, along with the CIA, FBI, and other government officials as well as many other governments from around the world who believe they lied for political and financial gain. Let’s forget about the proof of their connections to the oil industry and Halliburton. Let’s forget about the facts and pretend for a moment that the administration was right. Let’s pretend Bush went into Iraq because he really thought there were WMD and links to terrorism? Now what does that say? This would mean that there was indeed a major intelligence failure. Wait! Wasn’t 9/11 a major intelligence failure also?
THE TRUTH
• The CIA had warned the BAD, “The intelligence is not good enough.”
• The U.S. invaded Iraq after only 3 ½ months of inspections.
• Iraq NEVER had the capability for making long range missiles.
• Iraq had NO connection to religious fanatics or terrorist organizations, in fact it’s quite the opposite, Hussein didn’t allow any of them in his country. Hussein and Laden were enemies. Hussein made sure there were no terrorist or Al Qaeda activity.
• Serin made in 1990/91 only had a shelf life of 3 years at best.
Cheney acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was very unstable but said toppling Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. (maybe for Halliburton it was the right thing to do, they've made millions: www.Halliburtonwatch.org ) But it wasn't the right thing to do for American troops.
Elsewhere in the news, after spewing more lies on the State of the Union the other night, it is now revealed that the Bush administration's new energy plan to reduce gasoline demand by 20 percent could have an unintended side effect — increasing greenhouse gas emissions, California environmental officials say. Officials with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration say the president's strategy to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil falls short of environmental reform.
It was the latest shot at the Bush administration by the Republican governor and his administration, which has chastised the president and the previous Republican Congress for failing to act on global warming.
"We think it not only does not go far enough but may actually, in some cases, if not done right, will increase greenhouse gas emissions," California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams said during a news conference Wednesday. "Without a cap or some kind of a carbon standard, we think the Bush plan falls short." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16806206/
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Where are the senators?
Guess who Republicans (and FOX news) are giving positive attention to as a presidential front runner, as Cheney says "a formidable candidate who could win"? The answer is my missing New York senator Hillary Clinton. Why? Because they know she is a polarizing figure who really wont win.
On the heels of Barack Obama's announcement to explore a candidacy for president, Clinton has decided to get in the ring and spoil Obama's attention. But she's not the first. Obama jumped into the ring a week after John Edwards announced his candidacy. Edwards is not currently a senator with Congressional duties. Yes, duties, it's actually a job. But what is it they are doing? What have these two candidates accomplished in their terms? Edwards is working on fighting poverty and rebuilding communities ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. As a civilian it seems he is accomplishing more than these current politicians. Al Gore can be included as one who has accomplished much more and been more outspoken than Obama and Clinton.
So what is it Obama and Clinton have accomplished?
Hillary Clinton
"HILARY CLINTON CAN NEVER BE PRESIDENT" BILL MAHER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMogRyGQ4Bc
On the heels of Barack Obama's announcement to explore a candidacy for president, Clinton has decided to get in the ring and spoil Obama's attention. But she's not the first. Obama jumped into the ring a week after John Edwards announced his candidacy. Edwards is not currently a senator with Congressional duties. Yes, duties, it's actually a job. But what is it they are doing? What have these two candidates accomplished in their terms? Edwards is working on fighting poverty and rebuilding communities ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. As a civilian it seems he is accomplishing more than these current politicians. Al Gore can be included as one who has accomplished much more and been more outspoken than Obama and Clinton.
So what is it Obama and Clinton have accomplished?
Hillary Clinton
- ignored election fraud in 2000 and 04, of course this would help her run in 2008
- ignored the facts of 9/11 and refused to push further investigations pleaded by her own NY constituents
- ignored the brutal Canadian seal hunt, citing that business with Canada is more important than the fact that they're allowing the slaying of defenseless animals, including pups.
- voted for the Iraq War even though other members of Congress and many in the general public knew it was all an immoral political hoax.
- voted to keep troops there even after it was proved that the reasons for war were wrong and illegal.
- New York is no better. Inner city schools still can't afford textbooks and most public schools are failing the public. Costs of living and housing are atrocious. Environmental concerns are being ignored.
- She has spent the majority of her time as a NY senator travelling around doing fund raising to add to her million dollar campaign fund.
- She has used the state of New York to launch her presidential bid. This is a slap in the face to all of those who elected her.
- Has remained virtually silent on all of the Bush administration's blunders and assaults on our nation.
Barack Obama
- ignored election fraud and irregularities in 2004 and blew off the work of John Conyers Jr. who pushed for investigations. Six months after he ignored Conyers plea, he went and began his own legislation on voting rights under his own name.
- voted to keep troops in Iraq even though it was proven they were sent there for wrong reasons and even though the war continues to be a disaster.
- is too inexperienced in national politics and has no foreign policy experience at all.
- Illinois is no better. Inner city schools are still without funding for books and repairs. Suburban schools are still failing the public. Costs of housing are too high. Unemployment is still a problem. And environmental concerns are being ignored.
- Has spent more time campaigning in other states than he spends serving his own constituents in Illinois.
- Panders to the radical religious right
- Has remained virtually silent on all of the Bush administration's recent blunders on the war and their assaults on the environment & economy.
"HILARY CLINTON CAN NEVER BE PRESIDENT" BILL MAHER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMogRyGQ4Bc
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Bad Environmental News
Rescuers guided eight distressed dolphins back into open water on Tuesday, a week after several of the animals became stranded in a shallow cove off Long Island, New York.
About 20 common dolphins wandered into the cove-like Northwest Creek near East Hampton, New York, last week, said Chuck Bowman, president of the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation, who has been involved in the rescue efforts.
The dolphins were thought to have followed fish through a narrow opening that allowed boats into and out of the cove.
Up to 80 rescuers and 10 marine biologists have worked to lure the dolphins back out toward the Atlantic Ocean.
"After working all day we got about eight dolphins out into the open bay waters, giving them a chance to survive," he said. "But about four are still left in the creek area." Six others have died, he said.
Above-average winter temperatures in the Northeast United States have caused some marine life, including dolphins, to linger closer to the shore than usual, Bowman said.
"Normally (the dolphins) would be far offshore feeding on Atlantic herring and mackerel," he said. "But we believe because of the warmer weather and temperatures the fish moved closer to the shore and the dolphins followed," he said.
Rescuers banged pipes on boats and rang underwater "pingers" to force the dolphins out of the shallow waters.
"They had to have been in stress because they had no food and were not in their natural habitat," Bowman said.
Rescuers were to try to free the remaining four dolphins on Wednesday. In a separate incident, eight common dolphins were found beached on Sunday in the Boston suburb of Quincy, the first mass stranding that scientists could recall in Boston Harbor. Thirty-one dolphins and a pilot whale have been stranded along the Massachusetts coast since the start of the year. Some had brain deformities or chronic diseases.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication
About 20 common dolphins wandered into the cove-like Northwest Creek near East Hampton, New York, last week, said Chuck Bowman, president of the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation, who has been involved in the rescue efforts.
The dolphins were thought to have followed fish through a narrow opening that allowed boats into and out of the cove.
Up to 80 rescuers and 10 marine biologists have worked to lure the dolphins back out toward the Atlantic Ocean.
"After working all day we got about eight dolphins out into the open bay waters, giving them a chance to survive," he said. "But about four are still left in the creek area." Six others have died, he said.
Above-average winter temperatures in the Northeast United States have caused some marine life, including dolphins, to linger closer to the shore than usual, Bowman said.
"Normally (the dolphins) would be far offshore feeding on Atlantic herring and mackerel," he said. "But we believe because of the warmer weather and temperatures the fish moved closer to the shore and the dolphins followed," he said.
Rescuers banged pipes on boats and rang underwater "pingers" to force the dolphins out of the shallow waters.
"They had to have been in stress because they had no food and were not in their natural habitat," Bowman said.
Rescuers were to try to free the remaining four dolphins on Wednesday. In a separate incident, eight common dolphins were found beached on Sunday in the Boston suburb of Quincy, the first mass stranding that scientists could recall in Boston Harbor. Thirty-one dolphins and a pilot whale have been stranded along the Massachusetts coast since the start of the year. Some had brain deformities or chronic diseases.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Blood in the streets
An explosion outside a Baghdad university as students were heading home for the day killed at least 65 people on Tuesday, in the deadliest of several attacks on predominantly Shiite areas.The attacks came ahead of an imminent security operation by the Iraqi government and U.S. forces to secure the capital. On Tuesday alone, at least 109 people were killed or found dead across Iraq — the bloodiest day for such attacks in weeks.
Nearly 35,000 civilians were killed last year in Iraq, the United Nations said Tuesday, a sharp increase from the numbers reported previously by the Iraqi government.
Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the U.N. Assistance Ministry for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 were wounded last year.
Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the U.N. Assistance Ministry for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 were wounded last year.
Meanwhile, more violence and anger erupted after the beheading of Saddam's half-brother.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Today we salute an American hero, Martin Luther King Jr. Here are some of his many wise quotes that helped change the world for the better and bring progress, equality, and peace to America. Unfortunately, the battle is long from over.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom.
It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true
When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.
Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom.
It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true
When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.
Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Friday, January 12, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth Silenced by Exxon, Shell, and others
Science a la Joe Camel
By Laurie David
At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.
The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.
The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.
In their e-mail rejection, they 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.
That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.
It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.
And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.
So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.
In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.
And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.
NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.
The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.
Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.
"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."
An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose
Kyoto-like measures in the future."
So, how is any of this different from showing Gore's movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren't facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.
By Laurie David
At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.
The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.
The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.
In their e-mail rejection, they 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.
That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.
It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.
And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.
So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.
In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.
And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.
NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.
The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.
Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.
"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."
An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose
Kyoto-like measures in the future."
So, how is any of this different from showing Gore's movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren't facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.
It's hard to say whether NSTA is a bad guy here or just a sorry victim of tight education budgets. And we don't pretend that a two-hour movie is a substitute for a rigorous science curriculum. Students should expect, and parents should demand, that educators present an honest and unbiased look at the true state of knowledge about the challenges of the day.
As for Exxon Mobil -- which just began a fuzzy advertising campaign that trumpets clean energy and low emissions -- this story shows that slapping green stripes on a corporate tiger doesn't change the beast within. The company is still playing the same cynical game it has for years.
While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.
laurie@lauriedavid.com
Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html
What you can do: Watch what kind of gas you use in your car, what kind of paper you use for your printer, what kind of products you buy and who you're buying them from. If you're a teacher show your students "An Inconvenient Truth" and visit http://www.climatecrisis.org/ for an educational companion guide.
While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.
laurie@lauriedavid.com
Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html
What you can do: Watch what kind of gas you use in your car, what kind of paper you use for your printer, what kind of products you buy and who you're buying them from. If you're a teacher show your students "An Inconvenient Truth" and visit http://www.climatecrisis.org/ for an educational companion guide.
On January 12, 2007 Exxon announced that it is cutting ties with Global Warming skeptic groups like Competitive Enterprise Institute. Why? Because for one, these front groups are out of the bag and have been revealed for what they are. For two, they don't need them anymore. Now they'll go right to the schools. But mark my words, there will be new front groups with fancy names coming out, except this time they'll cover their tracks a little better.
Remember that these polluting companies that are destroying our healthy environment are also the same ones who contributed large sums of money to the deadly Republican war, a growing budget deficit, and all of the other recent blunders including the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
Joe Lieberman gives the president a pass on Katrina
Jan. 11, 2007 - Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.
No sooner did President Bush finish his speech Wednesday night than Lieberman put out a statement applauding Bush for his “courageous course”—a notable comment, given the lukewarm response the president’s speech received from many leading Republicans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16585614/site/newsweek/
Nice going, Connecticut! You got your senator!
One day after proposing to increase U.S. forces by 21,500, mostly to help secure Baghdad, Bush appealed for patience.
"The new strategy is not going to yield immediate results. it's going to take a while," Bush said at Fort Benning, an Army base in Georgia from which about 4,000 more soldiers will soon deploy to Iraq.
Meanwhile, senators including Democrat John Kerry and Republican Chuck Hagel, grilled Secretary Rice on the failing Iraq policy. Hagel called Iraq "the worst blunder since Vietnam."
No sooner did President Bush finish his speech Wednesday night than Lieberman put out a statement applauding Bush for his “courageous course”—a notable comment, given the lukewarm response the president’s speech received from many leading Republicans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16585614/site/newsweek/
Nice going, Connecticut! You got your senator!
One day after proposing to increase U.S. forces by 21,500, mostly to help secure Baghdad, Bush appealed for patience.
"The new strategy is not going to yield immediate results. it's going to take a while," Bush said at Fort Benning, an Army base in Georgia from which about 4,000 more soldiers will soon deploy to Iraq.
Meanwhile, senators including Democrat John Kerry and Republican Chuck Hagel, grilled Secretary Rice on the failing Iraq policy. Hagel called Iraq "the worst blunder since Vietnam."
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush sends MORE troops and admits strategy error
Admitting strategy error, Bush adds Iraq troops
He says 21,500 new troops will help quell violence
WASHINGTON - Defying public opinion polls and newly empowered Democratic lawmakers, President Bush told Americans Wednesday that he is dispatching 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. And in a rare admission, he said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised address from the White House. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “America’s commitment is not open-ended.”
LIVE VOTE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16552198/
Bush still doesn't get it. Sending more troops to die isn't going solve the Iraq problem. Furthermore, he should be prosecuted for not having a war strategy and war crimes on the Iraqi people.
Meanhwile, a new Democratic Congress just passed a new higher minimum wage, something the Republican Congress didn't even think about.
He says 21,500 new troops will help quell violence
WASHINGTON - Defying public opinion polls and newly empowered Democratic lawmakers, President Bush told Americans Wednesday that he is dispatching 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. And in a rare admission, he said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised address from the White House. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “America’s commitment is not open-ended.”
LIVE VOTE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16552198/
Bush still doesn't get it. Sending more troops to die isn't going solve the Iraq problem. Furthermore, he should be prosecuted for not having a war strategy and war crimes on the Iraqi people.
Meanhwile, a new Democratic Congress just passed a new higher minimum wage, something the Republican Congress didn't even think about.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
WOOL: a new years reminder
I NO longer purchase or accept animal-based products. This includes any clothing or products made from wool, leather, suede, or fur. The reason: it involves the oppressive exploitation and brutal torture of animals. While you may not see this in your department store, it is the reality. While you may not want to face that reality, although I hope you do, you must respect the fact that I do acknowledge this brutal truth. Whether or not you want to face the inconvenient truth and harsh realities of animal cruelty is up to you, but in my opinion, wearing products from fellow mammals shredded of their skin is immoral. Imagine yourself being forced to live in crowded unsanitary conditions until the day the profiteers come along to skin you alive with no painkillers. If you think sheep have it any better, think again. We’re not living in the age anymore where the farmer comes along and patiently shears the sheep. Nor are we in the age where we hunt animals in the wild and utilize every part as the Native Americans once did. We’re living in the age of the factory farm and shrinking wildlife habitat, and genocide of fellow mammals is taking place right now. There is nothing loving, nothing Christian, nothing Godly, nothing peaceful about fellow living creatures being used for our unnecessary luxuries. Each year over 50 million animals—including millions of dogs and cats—are killed for their fur worldwide. There isn’t a penny worth that kind of evil.
Why I don’t wear wool:
http://www.hsus.org/furfree/cruel_reality/the_cruel_reality_of_fur.html
http://www.downbound.com/Wool_s/271.htm
More explicitly why I don’t wear wool and other products:
See the video
Click to watch footage of how raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur in China.
http://www.savethesheep.com/
Take a stand against cruelty: Say NO to fur: https://community.hsus.org/campaign/furfreepledge_jay?qp_source=gabawj
For more info on fur:
http://www.infurmation.com/
Cruelty Free Shopping:
http://www.peta.org/living/alt2.asp
Being vegetarian is another aspect of non-cruelty living:
Famous Vegetarians
http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm
http://www.goveg.com/celebs_famous.asp
http://www.famousveggie.com/quotes.cfm
“I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world - if we are superior to it.”
-Mohandas Gandhi
“To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana.” -Buddha
“Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight. ...Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God's absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering.” - Rev. Andrew Linzey http://www.jesusveg.com/qow11298.html
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy” -Jesus
“There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have We omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.” -Qur'an, Sura 6:38
“There is no difference between the worry of a human mother and an animal mother for their offspring. A mother’s love does not derive from the intellect but from the emotions, in animals just as in humans.” -Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides)
“There were no Slaughterhouses in the Garden of Eden.” -Unknown
“When we kill animals to eat them they end up killing us because their flesh...was never intended for human beings, who are naturally herbivores.” -William C. Roberts, M.D
The Three Stages of Truth:
1. ridicule
2. violent opposition
3. acceptance
http://www.isawearthlings.com/7minutesmedium.html
Why I don’t wear wool:
http://www.hsus.org/furfree/cruel_reality/the_cruel_reality_of_fur.html
http://www.downbound.com/Wool_s/271.htm
More explicitly why I don’t wear wool and other products:
See the video
Click to watch footage of how raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur in China.
http://www.savethesheep.com/
Take a stand against cruelty: Say NO to fur: https://community.hsus.org/campaign/furfreepledge_jay?qp_source=gabawj
For more info on fur:
http://www.infurmation.com/
Cruelty Free Shopping:
http://www.peta.org/living/alt2.asp
Being vegetarian is another aspect of non-cruelty living:
Famous Vegetarians
http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm
http://www.goveg.com/celebs_famous.asp
http://www.famousveggie.com/quotes.cfm
“I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world - if we are superior to it.”
-Mohandas Gandhi
“To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana.” -Buddha
“Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight. ...Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God's absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering.” - Rev. Andrew Linzey http://www.jesusveg.com/qow11298.html
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy” -Jesus
“There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have We omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.” -Qur'an, Sura 6:38
“There is no difference between the worry of a human mother and an animal mother for their offspring. A mother’s love does not derive from the intellect but from the emotions, in animals just as in humans.” -Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides)
“There were no Slaughterhouses in the Garden of Eden.” -Unknown
“When we kill animals to eat them they end up killing us because their flesh...was never intended for human beings, who are naturally herbivores.” -William C. Roberts, M.D
The Three Stages of Truth:
1. ridicule
2. violent opposition
3. acceptance
http://www.isawearthlings.com/7minutesmedium.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)