Hold Congress Accountable

Enjoying the benefits of the 1970's Clean Water Act

2012-01-11T13:34:00.000-08:00

Thank You Congressman Pete McCloskey

Deep Propaganda - Fantasy Scenarios to build a case for the next WAR

2011-11-04T10:04:00.000-07:00

"Leave Digger alone! He's MI-6's man in Hong Kong" - Spy Games

Sometimes creating Propaganda can be fun - creative writing building fantasy scenarios that are pushed to the public as news releases. Ideally, the herd of fools in the general public will read enough of this to sway opinion pols and create a public fear of an evil international enemy. Why - because the US Government will need support for the next big War they are planning.

China-US satellite warning a hot-button issue
By Craig Guthrie

HUA HIN, Thailand - It's a nightmare scenario for proponents of China's "counter-space" threat. A group of military-grade Chinese hackers access United States Earth observation satellites through a ground station in the Arctic. With a full array of commands at their disposal, the hackers manipulate and glean valuable environmental data. When conflict erupts, the satellites are programmed to self-destruct, or take down more valuable targets.

The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), a congressional body, hints in its latest report that the People's Liberation Army has already opened the door to such a strike, finding that US environment-monitoring satellites were interfered with four or more times in 2007 and 2008 and that "the

techniques appear consistent with authoritative Chinese military writings".

The forthcoming annual report for the independent congressional advisory panel states in the chapter "China's Activities Directly Affecting US Security Interests" that in October 2007 and July 2008 the earth observation satellite Landsat-7 "experienced 12 or more minutes of interference". Landsat-7 is jointly managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the US Geological Survey.

More worrying are the commission's findings that the defenses of the Terra EOS (earth observation system), a NASA satellite, were breached for two and then 10 minutes in June and October 2008. "The responsible party achieved all steps required to command the satellite, but did not issue commands".

"For countries that can never win a war with the United States by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the US space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice," the reports cites a China expert, who it didn't identify, as saying.

NASA has since acknowledged "suspicious events" with Terra, while the US Geological Survey has confirmed that its Landsat-7 mapping satellite experienced two ''anomalous'' radio frequency events.

However, US experts have raised doubts over the report's findings and suggested the USCC has ventured beyond its remit of monitoring US-Chinese relations. Meanwhile, Beijing's spokesman has rejected the claims as "fabricated" and based on the commission harboring "ulterior motives".

The USCC states in its report that China's military-related space activities can be divided into "reconnaissance-strike complexes" and "counter-space weapons", with the latter enabling attacks on adversary space systems from the ground through, "deception that involves the interception or forgery of transmissions".

Such interference poses numerous potential threats, particularly if achieved against satellites with more sensitive functions. For example, access to a satellite's controls could allow an attacker to damage or destroy the satellite. The attacker could also deny or degrade as well as forge or otherwise manipulate the satellite's transmission. A high level of access could reveal the satellite's capabilities or information, such as imagery, gained through its sensors. Opportunities may also exist to reconnoiter or compromise other terrestrial or space-based networks used by the satellite ...

[T]he techniques appear consistent with authoritative Chinese military writings. For example, according to Military Astronautics, [1] attacks on space systems "generate tremors in the structure of space power of the enemy, cause it to suffer from chain effects, and finally lose, or partly lose, its combat effectiveness." One tactic is "implanting computer virus and logic bombs into the enemy's space information network so as to paralyze the enemy's space information system.

This could critically disrupt the US military's ability to deploy and operate during a military contingency.

The commission then goes on to identify a likely weak link that would allow PLA hackers access, noting that SvalSat, a satellite ground facility used by the observation satellites located in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, has a high-bandwidth connection to the Norwegian telecommunications grid.

While the USCC states that the use of such infrastructure presents "potential opportunities for malicious actors to gain access to restricted networks", Konsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) president Rolf Skatteboe insists the report's assertions are completely off the mark.

"KSAT has not experienced any attempt to enter into the company's systems from outside sources,'' Skatteboe wrote in a media statement. ''We do not have any indication that hacking of satellites using KSAT Svalbard station has taken place. A careful screening of our security systems has not indicated any attempts to access SvalSat from unauthorized sources.

''The Internet is occasionally used for distribution of x-band payload data received from the satellite to the end user. Hence, this communication channel is not an access point for hacking if it were to happened."

Regardless of access through the Norwegian ground station, US experts say the interference proves Washington needs to firm up its cyber-security on space assets.

''These reports are troubling, though not too surprising, given that they rely on commercial Internet-connected satellite ground stations,'' Bruce MacDonald, senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Director of the Space Working Group, told Asia Times Online.

"Not only the government, but the commercial sector needs to a much closer look at cyber and other vulnerabilities of such stations, and take steps to substantially upgrade their security." MacDonald was quoted in the USCC in its report.

Underscoring the commercial value of such data is Terra's involvement in geological surveying for rare earths. While China controls about 60% of the global supply of the increasingly important commodity through a state firm located in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous region, neighboring independent Mongolia has uncovered significant deposits with the help of Terra.

A Taiwanese study on south Mongolia's Gobi desert in 2007 found that Terra's ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission Reflection Radiometer) sensor imaging to be an "important source of information about absorption in transition metals, especially iron and some rare-earth elements." It also recommended comparing ASTER mineral mapping with Landsat-7 data. [2]

While the Norwegian ground station refutes the USCC report's allegations and Macdonald states it has revealed US vulnerability, other US experts doubt the group's motives.

"The US-China Commission has made some speculative leaps and outright translation and reporting errors in the past", Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the US Naval War College, told Asia Times Online. She cites a case where her and a colleague informed congress of "significant" errors in testimony in the May 2008 USCC hearing "China's Proliferation Practices and the Development of its Cyber and Space Warfare Capabilities". [3]

"Cyberspace is an area of significant concern, and the US needs to be vigilant, but I would have to see more information before putting too much faith in this specific report or example," said Johnson Freese.

George Smith, a senior fellow at US-based security research group globalsercurity.org,say the report's allegations are "more of the same."

"It's an old event so news of it was released for a reason, to keep the argument for more cybersecurity/cyberdefense/cyberwar funding hot. In that respect it's just part of a continuum of things that have rolled out into the public light over the last decade ... Satellites are fairly well-protected assets anyway, so the real nature of the incidents may have been functionally trivial but still worth addressing. And now that information has become useful," Smith told Asia Times Online.

The USCC's draft report also notes that other cyber attacks with possible Chinese involvement seen in the past year include the "Night Dragon" intrusion on energy and petrochemical companies and an alleged attempt to infiltrate Gmail accounts of US government officials, journalists and Chinese political activists.

An Australian academic, however, recently dismissed China's cyber-warfare capabilities as "fairly rudimentary".

Desmond Ball, a professor in the Strategic and Defense Studies Center in Australia's National University, says in the Winter 2011 report "China's Cyber Warfare Capabilities", that China's high-profile hacks recently, as well as website defacements and denial-of-service attacks, were unsophisticated compared to other nations' capabilities.

More sophisticated Trojan Horse programs were used in 2002 to penetrate and steal information from the Dalai Lama's computer network. More recently, Trojan Horse programs camouflaged as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents have been inserted in computers in government offices in many countries around the world. Portable, large-capacity hard discs, often used by government agencies, have been found to carry Trojan Horses that automatically upload to Beijing Web-sites everything that the computer user saves on the hard disc.

From the late 1990s until 2005, the PLA conducted more than 100 military exercises involving some aspect of IW [information warfare], although the practice generally exposed substantial short-falls.

Ball says that China would be unable to systematically cripple selected command and control, air defense and intelligence networks and databases of advanced adversaries, or to conduct deception operations by secretly manipulating the data in these networks. His conclusion: "China is condemned to inferiority in IW capabilities for probably several decades."

Notes
1. Military Astronautics by Chang Xianqi, Li Yunzhi, Luo Xiaoming, Xu Wei,Geng Yandong, Chen Haoguang, Lin Dong National Defense Industry Publishing House; 2nd Edition, 2005.
2. Mapping surface materials of the Gobi desert area using ASTER images, Southern Mongolia. Master's Thesis, June 24, 2011.
3. See Significant Errors in Testimony on China's Space Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, May 20, 2008.

Craig Guthrie is a correspondent for Asia Times Online based in Thailand.

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

US in 'denial' over China's Pacific strategy (Jul 28, '11)

1. Competition deepens in the South China Sea

2. US stares down occupying forces

3. The Pentagon-Arab Spring love story

4. Iraq pullout threatens US Afghan presence

5. The dragon is no white knight

6. The economics of polarization

7. The scalpel and the needle in foreign policy

8. Jockeying intensifies for China's politburo

9. China's home price protests fail to budge discount developers

10. US political consensus is a Himalayan task

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Nov 2, 2011)

Of course it's Copyright - this is great fiction and we are just trying to help you spread the message.

The Elussive Accountable Government

2011-07-06T14:57:00.000-07:00

This article and discussion is at the core of our Governments failures to be effective. It's good perspective.

March 24, 2010

Who writes our law?

Author: Josh Tauberer - Categories: Questions

10 comments so far...

Daniel Sage January 5th, 2011 (#):

First of all, thank you for sharing this information. It is really interesting how the members of Congress have staffers that make drafts of bills for them and then have an OLC lawyer come and translate the draft into legal terms. I always thought that the member wrote the bill themselves but I am shocked to find out how many people actually get involved with writing the bills.

Guri2323 January 12th, 2011 (#):

I think that writing a law is just as long as writing a paper when you were in High School. You would have to start with ideas, then the rough draft, then the final copy. I think that many people contribute into making things into laws.

Jerry Day January 19th, 2011 (#):

I couldn’t finish this article because it was so naive and off-point. Since 9/11, corporations write legislation and hand those scripts to Congress with bags of money. The bills are rarely debated, sometimes not even disclosed (Obama HealthCare) as Nancy Pelosi said “You’ll get to see what’s in the bill after we pass it”, and legislation is generally NOT in the public interest by any interpretation. Legislation is now written by world banks, CFR backroom committees, military industries, big pharma and big agriculture in roughly that order. Congress are puppets to this process.

Walter W Kernaich jr March 17th, 2011 (#):

Currently I am in college working on my graduate degree in criminal justice and then on to my law degree. I want to know once I have pass the bar and become an attorney can I use my knowledge to begin writing bills for introduction. I see so many laws that needs a change how do I go about proposing such a change.

Thom B April 5th, 2011 (#):

I hope every Taxpayer and voter reads this article. I have forwarded this link to the hundreds of addressees in my Adress Book. I hope all of you will do the same.
1) None of these people dreaming up ideas is elected; nor have most ever held a non-government job. Many of them do not even vote in their elected bosses district or State! If the Members of Congress are looking for ideas; they should try listening to their constituents! Perhaps they have heard about that little war that started with “Taxation without Representation”? Having some staffer from Harvard or Yale, born and raised to work in Washington, DC isn;t many Citizens idea of Representation!
This will never change until the American Voters stop voting Party Lines or going along with teh incumbant hoping to benefit from senority.
Change is built into our Constitutionally perscribed form of government. When an Incumbant compaigns on the strength of “knowing the system”. They are simply admitting to knowing the corruption. At this point in our history our Government is the single most dangerous enemy of this country. The power to correct this corruption still remains in the hands of the voters! DON’T vote for a single incumbant or previous office holder for 12 years. That’s all it will take to clean out the government, bring about a real balance budget, make meaningful Health Care and Monetary Reforms… The current administration and Congress will never even make a serious attempt. Toss them all out, before it’s too late.

a regular guy from Portugal April 9th, 2011 (#):

My respect to Josh Tauberer, the man behind this site. I admire your effort to bring such matters to the public, allowing that everybody could understand more about what (and how) is done by your government.
Unfortunely, the comment above from Jerry Day, is becoming more and more close to reality.

Josh Tauberer April 13th, 2011 (#):

Bills can only be introduced by a Member of Congress. Anyone can actually do the writing, but generally that’s a matter between the Member of Congress and the Congressional staff lawyers.

Edward Steve April 17th, 2011 (#):

First of all I’d like to thank Josh for sharing such kind of helpful and informative resources that helps people understanding the entire law making process. Law making process is not tailored overnight.It’s a long and smooth process for a law to be granted by the maximum members of Parliament. Lots of people concerning this and their efforts belong to the process.The first thing is a draft, gradually being converted as bill and finally into a law. People need to be aware about the fact how law makers do their work for the sake of their countrymen.

Dena May 11th, 2011 (#):

Years ago I worked in Washington, DC for a lobbying group and often members of Congress would send us their proposed legislation to mark up and comment on so that groups like mine would lend support for these politicians. Don’t think staffers do it alone.

Bryan Watson May 11th, 2011 (#):

There are special interest groups who specialize in writing legislation and distributing it to federal and state legislators for conversion into law. These are either specific amendments to pending legislation or, in some case, whole bills.
One such group is ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) which brags about writing “model legislation” that promotes their ideological viewpoint.They write: “The centerpiece of Task Force projects is ALEC model legislation. ALEC is the only state legislative organization that adopts policies and creates model legislation for its members to use in their states. To date, ALEC has nearly 1,000 pieces of model legislation.”
There is no published list of who is a member of ALEC, or which legislators subscribe to ALEC, or what legislation ALEC produces or how actual legislation matches up to ALEC’s model legislation.
While ALEC operates at the state level, there are other “think tanks” that operate at the federal level.
It is widely reported that PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) directly wrote large portions of the legislation that became Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage).
I appreciate this article’s attempt to explain how it should be done. In fact, substantive legislation is initiated, and in many cases written, by very large, very well funded, very well organized special interest groups.

David Peterson May 22nd, 2011 (#):

[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]
This article is Fantastic, it touches the tip of the iceberg, on the realities of our American Government. The original author claims over and over that Legislative staff are non-partisan, and that they write the bills.
The comments are from savvy citizens who know better.
Version 1 should be archived for all to see and Version 2 should be written with no effort to hide the truth. Remember, it’s called “Open-Government”

Click here for information about the paid content on GovTrack

2012 Election, Will Pollution Profiteers prevail for another 2 years/ 4 years ?

2011-07-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

Most Democratic INCUMBENTS fail to mentions such Truths:
"The press itself, which treats deception and falsehood on the same plane as scientific fact, and calls it objective reporting of alternative opinions." - Al Gore 2011
I'd like to see Oil Monopoly supporting Democratic Incumbents - primary challenged!! cc: End Crony Capitalism <- Join the campaign.

Al Gore: Climate of Denial

Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?

By Al Gore

June 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET

The first time I remember hearing the question "is it real?" was when I went as a young boy to see a traveling show put on by "professional wrestlers" one summer evening in the gym of the Forks River Elementary School in Elmwood, Tennessee.
The evidence that it was real was palpable: "They're really hurting each other! That's real blood! Look a'there! They can't fake that!" On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today's language, a "narrative"), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.
But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the "rules" — such as they were — like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question "Is it real?" seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?
Scorched Earth: How Climate Change Is Spreading Drought Throughout the Globe
That is pretty much the role now being played by most of the news media in refereeing the current wrestling match over whether global warming is "real," and whether it has any connection to the constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours.
Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.
The referee — in this analogy, the news media — seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business. Is he responsible for ensuring a fair match? Or is he part of the show, selling tickets and building the audience? The referee certainly seems distracted: by Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, the latest reality show — the list of serial obsessions is too long to enumerate here.
But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)
This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.
This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."
But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!
And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it's entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.
Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them.
To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
After World War II, a philosopher studying the impact of organized propaganda on the quality of democratic debate wrote, "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false."

Page 2 of 7
Is the climate crisis real? Yes, of course it is. Pause for a moment to consider these events of just the past 12 months:
• Heat. According to NASA, 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year measured since instruments were first used systematically in the 1880s. Nineteen countries set all-time high temperature records. One city in Pakistan, Mohenjo-Daro, reached 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the hottest temperature ever measured in an Asian city. Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. The past decade was the hottest ever measured, even though half of that decade represented a "solar minimum" — the low ebb in the natural cycle of solar energy emanating from the sun.
• Floods. Megafloods displaced 20 million people in Pakistan, further destabilizing a nuclear-armed country; inundated an area of Australia larger than Germany and France combined; flooded 28 of the 32 districts that make up Colombia, where it has rained almost continuously for the past year; caused a "thousand-year" flood in my home city of Nashville; and led to all-time record flood levels in the Mississippi River Valley. Many places around the world are now experiencing larger and more frequent extreme downpours and snowstorms; last year's "Snowmaggedon" in the northeastern United States is part of the same pattern, notwithstanding the guffaws of deniers.
• Drought. Historic drought and fires in Russia killed an estimated 56,000 people and caused wheat and other food crops in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan to be removed from the global market, contributing to a record spike in food prices. "Practically everything is burning," Russian president Dmitry Medvedev declared. "What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us." The drought level in much of Texas has been raised from "extreme" to "exceptional," the highest category. This spring the majority of the counties in Texas were on fire, and Gov. Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration for all but two of the state's 254 counties. Arizona is now fighting the largest fire in its history. Since 1970, the fire season throughout the American West has increased by 78 days. Extreme droughts in central China and northern France are currently drying up reservoirs and killing crops.
• Melting Ice. An enormous mass of ice, four times larger than the island of Manhattan, broke off from northern Greenland last year and slipped into the sea. The acceleration of ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica has caused another upward revision of global sea-level rise and the numbers of refugees expected from low-lying coastal areas. The Arctic ice cap, which reached a record low volume last year, has lost as much as 40 percent of its area during summer in just 30 years.
These extreme events are happening in real time. It is not uncommon for the nightly newscast to resemble a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. Yet most of the news media completely ignore how such events are connected to the climate crisis, or dismiss the connection as controversial; after all, there are scientists on one side of the debate and deniers on the other. A Fox News executive, in an internal e-mail to the network's reporters and editors that later became public, questioned the "veracity of climate change data" and ordered the journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
But in the "real" world, the record droughts, fires, floods and mudslides continue to increase in severity and frequency. Leading climate scientists like Jim Hansen and Kevin Trenberth now say that events like these would almost certainly not be occurring without the influence of man-made global warming. And that's a shift in the way they frame these impacts. Scientists used to caution that we were increasing the probability of such extreme events by "loading the dice" — pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Now the scientists go much further, warning that we are "painting more dots on the dice." We are not only more likely to roll 12s; we are now rolling 13s and 14s. In other words, the biggest storms are not only becoming more frequent, they are getting bigger, stronger and more destructive.
"The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change," Munich Re, one of the two largest reinsurance companies in the world, recently stated. "The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge."
Many of the extreme and destructive events are the result of the rapid increase in the amount of heat energy from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere, which is radically disrupting the planet's water cycle. More heat energy evaporates more water into the air, and the warmer air holds a lot more moisture. This has huge consequences that we now see all around the world.
When a storm unleashes a downpour of rain or snow, the precipitation does not originate just in the part of the sky directly above where it falls. Storms reach out — sometimes as far as 2,000 miles — to suck in water vapor from large areas of the sky, including the skies above oceans, where water vapor has increased by four percent in just the last 30 years. (Scientists often compare this phenomenon to what happens in a bathtub when you open the drain; the water rushing out comes from the whole tub, not just from the part of the tub directly above the drain. And when the tub is filled with more water, more goes down the drain. In the same way, when the warmer sky is filled with a lot more water vapor, there are bigger downpours when a storm cell opens the "drain.")
In many areas, these bigger downpours also mean longer periods between storms — at the same time that the extra heat in the air is also drying out the soil. That is part of the reason so many areas have been experiencing both record floods and deeper, longer-lasting droughts.
Moreover, the scientists have been warning us for quite some time — in increasingly urgent tones — that things will get much, much worse if we continue the reckless dumping of more and more heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere. Drought is projected to spread across significant, highly populated areas of the globe throughout this century. Look at what the scientists say is in store for the Mediterranean nations. Should we care about the loss of Spain, France, Italy, the Balkans, Turkey, Tunisia? Look at what they say is in store for Mexico. Should we notice? Should we care?
Maybe it's just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists — and that we should instead put our faith in the pseudoscientists financed by large carbon polluters whose business plans depend on their continued use of the atmospheric commons as a place to dump their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without limit or constraint, free of charge.
Page 3 of 7

The truth is this: What we are doing is functionally insane. If we do not change this pattern, we will condemn our children and all future generations to struggle with ecological curses for several millennia to come. Twenty percent of the global-warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!
We do have another choice. Renewable energy sources are coming into their own. Both solar and wind will soon produce power at costs that are competitive with fossil fuels; indications are that twice as many solar installations were erected worldwide last year as compared to 2009. The reductions in cost and the improvements in efficiency of photovoltaic cells over the past decade appear to be following an exponential curve that resembles a less dramatic but still startling version of what happened with computer chips over the past 50 years.
Enhanced geothermal energy is potentially a nearly limitless source of competitive electricity. Increased energy efficiency is already saving businesses money and reducing emissions significantly. New generations of biomass energy — ones that do not rely on food crops, unlike the mistaken strategy of making ethanol from corn — are extremely promising. Sustainable forestry and agriculture both make economic as well as environmental sense. And all of these options would spread even more rapidly if we stopped subsidizing Big Oil and Coal and put a price on carbon that reflected the true cost of fossil energy — either through the much-maligned cap-and-trade approach, or through a revenue-neutral tax swap.
All over the world, the grassroots movement in favor of changing public policies to confront the climate crisis and build a more prosperous, sustainable future is growing rapidly. But most governments remain paralyzed, unable to take action — even after years of volatile gasoline prices, repeated wars in the Persian Gulf, one energy-related disaster after another, and a seemingly endless stream of unprecedented and lethal weather disasters.
Continuing on our current course would be suicidal for global civilization. But the key question is: How do we drive home that fact in a democratic society when questions of truth have been converted into questions of power? When the distinction between what is true and what is false is being attacked relentlessly, and when the referee in the contest between truth and falsehood has become an entertainer selling tickets to a phony wrestling match?
The "wrestling ring" in this metaphor is the conversation of democracy. It used to be called the "public square." In ancient Athens, it was the Agora. In the Roman Republic, it was the Forum. In the Egypt of the recent Arab Spring, "Tahrir Square" was both real and metaphorical — encompassing Facebook, Twitter, Al-Jazeera and texting.
In the America of the late-18th century, the conversation that led to our own "Spring" took place in printed words: pamphlets, newsprint, books, the "Republic of Letters." It represented the fullest flower of the Enlightenment, during which the oligarchic power of the monarchies, the feudal lords and the Medieval Church was overthrown and replaced with a new sovereign: the Rule of Reason.
The public square that gave birth to the new consciousness of the Enlightenment emerged in the dozen generations following the invention of the printing press — "the Gutenberg Galaxy," the scholar Marshall McLuhan called it — a space in which the conversation of democracy was almost equally accessible to every literate person. Individuals could both find the knowledge that had previously been restricted to elites and contribute their own ideas.
Ideas that found resonance with others rose in prominence much the way Google searches do today, finding an ever larger audience and becoming a source of political power for individuals with neither wealth nor force of arms. Thomas Paine, to take one example, emigrated from England to Philadelphia with no wealth, no family connections and no power other than that which came from his ability to think and write clearly — yet his Common Sense became the Harry Potter of Revolutionary America. The "public interest" mattered, was actively discussed and pursued.
But the "public square" that gave birth to America has been transformed beyond all recognition. The conversation that matters most to the shaping of the "public mind" now takes place on television. Newspapers and magazines are in decline. The Internet, still in its early days, will one day support business models that make true journalism profitable — but up until now, the only successful news websites aggregate content from struggling print publications. Web versions of the newspapers themselves are, with few exceptions, not yet making money. They bring to mind the classic image of Wile E. Coyote running furiously in midair just beyond the edge of the cliff, before plummeting to the desert floor far beneath him.
Page 4 of 7

The average American, meanwhile, is watching television an astonishing five hours a day. In the average household, at least one television set is turned on more than eight hours a day. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of those using the Internet frequently watch television at the same time that they are online.
Unlike access to the "public square" of early America, access to television requires large amounts of money. Thomas Paine could walk out of his front door in Philadelphia and find a dozen competing, low-cost print shops within blocks of his home. Today, if he traveled to the nearest TV station, or to the headquarters of nearby Comcast — the dominant television provider in America — and tried to deliver his new ideas to the American people, he would be laughed off the premises. The public square that used to be a commons has been refeudalized, and the gatekeepers charge large rents for the privilege of communicating to the American people over the only medium that really affects their thinking. "Citizens" are now referred to more commonly as "consumers" or "the audience."
That is why up to 80 percent of the campaign budgets for candidates in both major political parties is devoted to the purchase of 30-second TV ads. Since the rates charged for these commercials increase each year, the candidates are forced to raise more and more money in each two-year campaign cycle.
Of course, the only reliable sources from which such large sums can be raised continuously are business lobbies. Organized labor, a shadow of its former self, struggles to compete, and individuals are limited by law to making small contributions. During the 2008 campaign, there was a bubble of hope that Internet-based fundraising might even the scales, but in the end, Democrats as well as Republicans relied far more on traditional sources of large contributions. Moreover, the recent deregulation of unlimited — and secret — donations by wealthy corporations has made the imbalance even worse.
In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don't acquiesce don't get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths. It is now commonplace for congressmen and senators first elected decades ago — as I was — to comment in private that the whole process has become unbelievably crass, degrading and horribly destructive to the core values of American democracy.
Largely as a result, the concerns of the wealthiest individuals and corporations routinely trump the concerns of average Americans and small businesses. There are a ridiculously large number of examples: eliminating the inheritance tax paid by the wealthiest one percent of families is considered a much higher priority than addressing the suffering of the millions of long-term unemployed; Wall Street's interest in legalizing gambling in trillions of dollars of "derivatives" was considered way more important than protecting the integrity of the financial system and the interests of middle-income home buyers. It's a long list.
Almost every group organized to promote and protect the "public interest" has been backpedaling and on the defensive. By sharp contrast, when a coalition of powerful special interests sets out to manipulate U.S. policy, their impact can be startling — and the damage to the true national interest can be devastating.
In 2002, for example, the feverish desire to invade Iraq required convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for attacking the United States on September 11th, 2001, and that he was preparing to attack us again, perhaps with nuclear weapons. When the evidence — the "facts" — stood in the way of that effort to shape the public mind, they were ridiculed, maligned and ignored. Behind the scenes, the intelligence was manipulated and the public was intentionally deceived. Allies were pressured to adopt the same approach with their publics. A recent inquiry in the U.K. confirmed this yet again. "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence," Maj. Gen. Michael Laurie testified. "To make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence, the wording was developed with care." Why? As British intelligence put it, the overthrow of Saddam was "a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies."
That goal — the real goal — could have been debated on its own terms. But as Bush administration officials have acknowledged, a truly candid presentation would not have resulted in sufficient public support for the launching of a new war. They knew that because they had studied it and polled it. So they manipulated the debate, downplayed the real motive for the invasion, and made a different case to the public — one based on falsehoods.
And the "referee" — the news media — looked the other way. Some, like Fox News, were hyperactive cheerleaders. Others were intimidated into going along by the vitriol heaped on any who asked inconvenient questions. (They know it; many now acknowledge it, sheepishly and apologetically.)
Page 5 of 7

Senators themselves fell, with a few honorable exceptions, into the same two camps. A few weeks before the United States invaded Iraq, the late Robert Byrd — God rest his soul — thundered on the Senate floor about the pitiful quality of the debate over the choice between war and peace: "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."
The chamber was silent, in part, because many senators were somewhere else — attending cocktail parties and receptions, largely with special-interest donors, raising money to buy TV ads for their next campaigns. Nowadays, in fact, the scheduling of many special-interest fundraisers mirrors the schedule of votes pending in the House and Senate.
By the time we invaded Iraq, polls showed, nearly three-quarters of the American people were convinced that the person responsible for the planes flying into the World Trade Center Towers was indeed Saddam Hussein. The rest is history — though, as Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Because of that distortion of the truth in the past, we are still in Iraq; and because the bulk of our troops and intelligence assets were abruptly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, we are also still in Afghanistan.
In the same way, because the banks had their way with Congress when it came to gambling on unregulated derivatives and recklessly endangering credit markets with subprime mortgages, we still have almost double-digit unemployment, historic deficits, Greece and possibly other European countries teetering on the edge of default, and the threat of a double-dip recession. Even the potential default of the United States of America is now being treated by many politicians and too many in the media as yet another phony wrestling match, a political game. Are the potential economic consequences of a U.S. default "real"? Of course they are! Have we gone completely nuts?
We haven't gone nuts — but the "conversation of democracy" has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired. Throughout American history, we relied on the vibrancy of our public square — and the quality of our democratic discourse — to make better decisions than most nations in the history of the world. But we are now routinely making really bad decisions that completely ignore the best available evidence of what is true and what is false. When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.
That is exactly what is happening with U.S. decisions regarding the climate crisis. The best available evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the reckless spewing of global-warming pollution in obscene quantities into the atmospheric commons is having exactly the consequences long predicted by scientists who have analyzed the known facts according to the laws of physics.
The emergence of the climate crisis seems sudden only because of a relatively recent discontinuity in the relationship between human civilization and the planet's ecological system. In the past century, we have quadrupled global population while relying on the burning of carbon-based fuels — coal, oil and gas — for 85 percent of the world's energy. We are also cutting and burning forests that would otherwise help remove some of the added CO2 from the atmosphere, and have converted agriculture to an industrial model that also runs on carbon-based fuels and strip-mines carbon-rich soils.
The cumulative result is a radically new reality — and since human nature makes us vulnerable to confusing the unprecedented with the improbable, it naturally seems difficult to accept. Moreover, since this new reality is painful to contemplate, and requires big changes in policy and behavior that are at the outer limit of our ability, it is all too easy to fall into the psychological state of denial. As with financial issues like subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, the climate crisis can seem too complex to worry about, especially when the shills for the polluters constantly claim it's all a hoax anyway. And since the early impacts of climatic disruption are distributed globally, they masquerade as an abstraction that is safe to ignore.
These vulnerabilities, rooted in our human nature, are being manipulated by the tag-team of Polluters and Ideologues who are trying to deceive us. And the referee — the news media — is once again distracted. As with the invasion of Iraq, some are hyperactive cheerleaders for the deception, while others are intimidated into complicity, timidity and silence by the astonishing vitriol heaped upon those who dare to present the best evidence in a professional manner. Just as TV networks who beat the drums of war prior to the Iraq invasion were rewarded with higher ratings, networks now seem reluctant to present the truth about the link between carbon pollution and global warming out of fear that conservative viewers will change the channel — and fear that they will receive a torrent of flame e-mails from deniers.
Many politicians, unfortunately, also fall into the same two categories: those who cheerlead for the deniers and those who cower before them. The latter group now includes several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination who have felt it necessary to abandon their previous support for action on the climate crisis; at least one has been apologizing profusely to the deniers and begging for their forgiveness.
"Intimidation" and "timidity" are connected by more than a shared word root. The first is designed to produce the second. As Yeats wrote almost a century ago, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Barack Obama's approach to the climate crisis represents a special case that requires careful analysis. His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change. Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, is in the second category. Why?
First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.
In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.
Page 6 of 7

But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.
The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was — a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis — and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"
Some concluded from the failure in Copenhagen that it was time to give up on the entire U.N.-sponsored process for seeking an international agreement to reduce both global-warming pollution and deforestation. Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon. And whatever approach is eventually chosen, the U.S. simply must provide leadership by changing our own policy.
Yet without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is "the power to persuade." Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.
Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.
Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.
All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.
Those who profit from the unconstrained pollution that is the primary cause of climate change are determined to block our perception of this reality. They have help from many sides: from the private sector, which is now free to make unlimited and secret campaign contributions; from politicians who have conflated their tenures in office with the pursuit of the people's best interests; and — tragically — from the press itself, which treats deception and falsehood on the same plane as scientific fact, and calls it objective reporting of alternative opinions.
All things are not equally true. It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.
Page 7 of 7

So how can we make it happen? How can we as individuals make a difference? In five basic ways:
First, become a committed advocate for solving the crisis. You can start with something simple: Speak up whenever the subject of climate arises. When a friend or acquaintance expresses doubt that the crisis is real, or that it's some sort of hoax, don't let the opportunity pass to put down your personal marker. The civil rights revolution may have been driven by activists who put their lives on the line, but it was partly won by average Americans who began to challenge racist comments in everyday conversations.
Second, deepen your commitment by making consumer choices that reduce energy use and reduce your impact on the environment. The demand by individuals for change in the marketplace has already led many businesses to take truly significant steps to reduce their global-warming pollution. Some of the corporate changes are more symbolic than real — "green-washing," as it's called — but a surprising amount of real progress is taking place. Walmart, to pick one example, is moving aggressively to cut its carbon footprint by 20 million metric tons, in part by pressuring its suppliers to cut down on wasteful packaging and use lower-carbon transportation alternatives. Reward those companies that are providing leadership.
Third, join an organization committed to action on this issue. The Alliance for Climate Protection (climateprotect.org), which I chair, has grassroots action plans for the summer and fall that spell out lots of ways to fight effectively for the policy changes we need. We can also enable you to host a slide show in your community on solutions to the climate crisis — presented by one of the 4,000 volunteers we have trained. Invite your friends and neighbors to come and then enlist them to join the cause.
Fourth, contact your local newspapers and television stations when they put out claptrap on climate — and let them know you're fed up with their stubborn and cowardly resistance to reporting the facts of this issue. One of the main reasons they are so wimpy and irresponsible about global warming is that they're frightened of the reaction they get from the deniers when they report the science objectively. So let them know that deniers are not the only ones in town with game. Stay on them! Don't let up! It's true that some media outlets are getting instructions from their owners on this issue, and that others are influenced by big advertisers, but many of them are surprisingly responsive to a genuine outpouring of opinion from their viewers and readers. It is way past time for the ref to do his job.
Finally, and above all, don't give up on the political system. Even though it is rigged by special interests, it is not so far gone that candidates and elected officials don't have to pay attention to persistent, engaged and committed individuals. President Franklin Roosevelt once told civil rights leaders who were pressing him for change that he agreed with them about the need for greater equality for black Americans. Then, as the story goes, he added with a wry smile, "Now go out and make me do it."
To make our elected leaders take action to solve the climate crisis, we must forcefully communicate the following message: "I care a lot about global warming; I am paying very careful attention to the way you vote and what you say about it; if you are on the wrong side, I am not only going to vote against you, I will work hard to defeat you — regardless of party. If you are on the right side, I will work hard to elect you."
Why do you think President Obama and Congress changed their game on "don't ask, don't tell?" It happened because enough Americans delivered exactly that tough message to candidates who wanted their votes. When enough people care passionately enough to drive that message home on the climate crisis, politicians will look at their hole cards, and enough of them will change their game to make all the difference we need.
This is not naive; trust me on this. It may take more individual voters to beat the Polluters and Ideologues now than it once did — when special-interest money was less dominant. But when enough people speak this way to candidates, and convince them that they are dead serious about it, change will happen — both in Congress and in the White House. As the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass once observed, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."
What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly. The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance. Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends. When it works, the democratic process helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence. That is why the Constitution affords such unique protection to freedom of the press and of speech.
The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.
Related: Photos: 11 Extreme-Weather Signs the Climate Crisis is Real
• How Obama Gave Up on Climate Change Legislation
• Photos: Who's to Blame: 12 Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming
• How Oil and Gas Companies Have Blocked Progress on Global Warming
This story is from Rolling Stone issue 1134/1135, available on newsstands and through Rolling Stone All Access on June 24, 2011.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a Congress member on your side?

2011-06-06T14:05:00.000-07:00

Now Congress wants to go after your 401k Account. Unbelievable.

American's need new Congress members that will not steal your money.

Congress takes aim at 401(k)s

By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Posted: 3 pm ET

Should Congress put limits or even completely do away with the tax incentives that make saving within a 401(k) or some other tax-advantaged retirement plan attractive in order to cut the deficit?
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis conclude that these retirement planning programs will cost the federal government about $600 billion in lost revenue over the next five years.
Here's what they suggest instead:

Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force -- Maintain existing accounts but cap tax-preferred contributions to the lower of $20,000 or 20 percent of income.
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform -- Consolidate the various retirement accounts and cap tax-preferred contributions to the lower of $20,000 or 20 percent of income.

The American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries, or ASPPA, says the government's math is fuzzy because it doesn't accurately figure deferred revenue -- savers eventually take the money out and pay taxes on it. Based on its calculations, the government would only gain about 25 percent more in taxes and the price would be reduced income and security for people living in retirement.
A separate study by the Stanford University Graduate School of Business says that the introduction of 401(k)s has had an enormous impact on how people invest in stocks and bonds. At the end of World War II, individual citizens owned 90 percent of the stock market; by 2006, they owned only 30 percent. The other 70 percent was held by institutions, including mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds.
Ilya Strebulaev, associate professor of finance and primary author of the study, recommends that tax reformers consider making the tax rate on capital gains equal to the tax rate on equities held in tax-advantaged accounts. Now, of course, the capital gains rate is 15 percent for most people -- less for low-income people, while the rate son equities in tax-advantaged accounts are the same as for ordinary income. This would level the playing field and potentially make it less attractive to hold stocks in a tax-advantaged accounts. He believes that among other things, holding stocks outside of institutional accounts would encourage individual investors to pay more attention to how their money is invested. "Institutional investors are very passive. They delegate their vote. It's not the best social outcome," Strebulaev says.
Strebulaev dismisses the idea of limiting the tax advantages of retirement accounts to increase revenue. "What I think what our research delivers is that all these small twists in taxation are very unlikely to work."

America - No Freedom & No Liberty, because No Justice

2011-05-22T07:47:00.000-07:00

United States citizens truly have No Freedom & No Liberty because they do Not have Justice. When the elite few are excused(and facilitated) from Fraud by the Government on such a grand scale everyone is affected. The United States economy and the entire world have been brought to their knees due to the Financial Schemes perpetrated in this last decade.
Without sufficient Constitutional protections and criminal laws to prevent these actions they continue to recur. {Remember, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky - The Junk Bond Scheme, The Savings & Loans Elimination}
Here is the seed of a movement to cut the corruption: http://www.facebook.com/pages/End-Crony-Capitalism/145626605487516

Here is a great article from the Rolling Stone that will never get coverage in the corporate media.

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein tesifies before the Senate in April 2010

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

219 Comments

By Matt Taibbi

May 11, 2011 9:30 AM ET

They weren't murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it.
Thanks to an extraordinary investigative effort by a Senate subcommittee that unilaterally decided to take up the burden the criminal justice system has repeatedly refused to shoulder, we now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.
This article appears in the May 26, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive May 13.
The great and powerful Oz of Wall Street was not the only target of Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the 650-page report just released by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, alongside Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — "a million fraud cases a year" is how one former regulator puts it. But the mountain of evidence collected against Goldman by Levin's small, 15-desk office of investigators — details of gross, baldfaced fraud delivered up in such quantities as to almost serve as a kind of sarcastic challenge to the curiously impassive Justice Department — stands as the most important symbol of Wall Street's aristocratic impunity and prosecutorial immunity produced since the crash of 2008.
Photo Gallery: How Goldman top dogs defrauded their clients and lied to Congress
To date, there has been only one successful prosecution of a financial big fish from the mortgage bubble, and that was Lee Farkas, a Florida lender who was just convicted on a smorgasbord of fraud charges and now faces life in prison. But Farkas, sadly, is just an exception proving the rule: Like Bernie Madoff, his comically excessive crime spree (which involved such lunacies as kiting checks to his own bank and selling loans that didn't exist) was almost completely unconnected to the systematic corruption that led to the crisis. What's more, many of the earlier criminals in the chain of corruption — from subprime lenders like Countrywide, who herded old ladies and ghetto families into bad loans, to rapacious banks like Washington Mutual, who pawned off fraudulent mortgages on investors — wound up going belly up, sunk by their own greed.
Read Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs, the 'great vampire squid'
But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them — and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime — a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history.
Read Taibbi's 2010 piece on how bailed-out banks are recreating the conditions for a crash
Defenders of Goldman have been quick to insist that while the bank may have had a few ethical slips here and there, its only real offense was being too good at making money. We now know, unequivocally, that this is bullshit. Goldman isn't a pudgy housewife who broke her diet with a few Nilla Wafers between meals — it's an advanced-stage, 1,100-pound medical emergency who hasn't left his apartment in six years, and is found by paramedics buried up to his eyes in cupcake wrappers and pizza boxes. If the evidence in the Levin report is ignored, then Goldman will have achieved a kind of corrupt-enterprise nirvana. Caught, but still free: above the law.

Los Angeles to send another War-monger to Congress for the 36th District

2011-05-18T11:46:00.000-07:00

Many Democrats who actually take a look at the work their representatives are doing on their behalf in Washington D.C. were appalled by Rep. Jane Harman. As a result, 40% voted against her in 2010 preferring Marcy Winograd who proposed Peace as an alternative.
With this in-mind Candidate Janice Hahn was sure to include the word Peace in her 2011 special election campaign materials, leading with titles such as: "Green Jobs and Peace".
Unfortunately, too few Voters took the time to read the fine print on how Janice Hahn is actually a huge War monger herself and details her support of the 55 year flawed post WWII Subsidized Weapons programs that dominates US Foreign Policy.

When you look a little closer you can see:

Janice Hahn's goals for Peace

"Foreign Aid to Israel
The stability of Israel is vital to the United States. To that end, I fully support the 2007 MOU between the U.S. and Israel—which calls for the U.S. to provide $30 billion in security assistance to Israel for ten years. This aid is critical for Israel in maintaining its military advantage, protecting her people, and prevailing over those that threaten her security.
I commit to maintaining the current level of aid, as well as supporting proposed increases, for the Israeli people."

Yup, Just like Military Aid to Saddam Hussein and Pakistan WAS a GOOD Idea. - NOT

Sorry Aerospace Industry in CA-36 America needs to find better exports to Israel than weapons.

On Foreign Policy
Janice Hahn states:

"Had I been in Congress, I would have voted in favor of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (H.R. 1327) and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability Act. As a Congresswoman, I will work to make sure that the provisions of these laws are vigorously enforced."

This was the Neo-Con's efforts to open a new front of War in the Mid-East Region. The campaign failed in 2008 with the collapse of the Wall Street ending the Financial Scheme perpetrated on the US housing market. With the American Tax-payers funding two Wars & Occupation in Iraq & Afghanistan, the War profiteers were anxious to launch a third War in Iran. Regardless, of the cost of the first two Wars to the American taxpayer, the Wars are extremely profitable for the Government Contractors. Military Contractors campaign contributions to Congressional elections are simply a cost of doing business. These Business Development fees are baked into the lucrative contracts to insure ongoing business opportunities.

Can Honda break-Open the Oil Co's Monopoly in the Auto-market

2011-05-10T12:24:00.000-07:00

The United States of America the home of the brave and the land of the Free- Markets-NOT
Auto manufacturers are prohibited from Selling Alternative Fuel Cars in the United States. Most Auto-makers produce the H2-Cars, but Sales to the public are not allowed.
The first wave of electric cars at the turn of the century (12 years ago) were so popular and so successful, that the Oil Co's had to move fast to get a Petroleum Powered Generator in front of the Batteries. The several million people who drive today's Hybrid vehicles may think they have broke away from the OPEC strangle-hold, but if fact they have just been given more rope to hang themselves.
Hydrogen Electric Cars, however, can eliminate Petroleum entirely from the Power supply. The vehicles on board Fuel-cell Generates electricity effectively making Hydrogen a 'Battery of portable power'. The energy to produce the Hydrogen can be from Solar, Wind, Hydro-electric, Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, and yes even Petroleum. The most convenient source of energy today and for the past 100 years is Electricity. The Electric Grid is the number one energy distribution method. However, energy from the Grid has not been portable, so that's the niche that Petroleum ICE Internal Combustion Engines have filled for the last 80 years. The Hydrogen Electric motor allows the Electric Grid to get back into personal transportation with it's fully portable capability. So while the technology exists with multiple car makers in the mix, including: Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, GM, Ford, Suzuki, none have been allowed to SELL their products to the American consumers. The Unofficial quiet Moratorium is set to expire in the year 2015, so the Petroleum industry is scrambling to get another 10 year extension to 2025.

So, What is the ideal source for Energy?
In fact most energy comes from the sun. Wind is the result of un-even Solar heating of the earths surfaces. Coal, Natural Gas, and Petroleum are the result of life forms on earth building carbon structures and storing energy derived from the sun through the photo-synthesis process. Of course each of the 3 carbon fuels, must also be compressed deep under the earths surface for varying eons of time as well. So if you'd rather be more direct and not wait thousands of years Wind and Solar and more immediate Solar energy methods.

Of Coarse, the Hydrogen Electric Car should be refueled with Solar Power. Honda - Forget the On board Outlet, We Need On-board Electrolysis so we can Plug-in to Any electrical outlet world-wide to recharge! But the most important thing we need is for Honda to SELL Hydrogen Cars Now to the Public!!
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=172387699014
http://world.honda.com/news/2011/c110420Solar-Hydrogen-Station/index.html

Honda Announces the Plan to Build Solar Hydrogen Station on Grounds of Saitama Prefectural Office, FCX Clarity Used in Electric Vehicle Testing Program to Serve as Mobile Electric Generator

TOKYO, Japan, April 20, 2011 - Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced its plan to build a Solar Hydrogen Station on the grounds of the Saitama Prefectural Office and introduce an electric power outlet equipped FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle within the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. The initiative is part of the Electric Vehicle Testing Program for Honda's next-generation personal mobility products, in which Honda and Saitama Prefecture are currently collaborating. In a further initiative, Honda will equip the FCX Clarity fuel cell electric vehicle with an outlet to function as a 10kW or higher power source, the approximate equivalent of the power required by 2 households*. Since the FCX Clarity uses a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen to produce power with zero CO₂ emissions, with its new outlet the vehicle will be able to serve as a zero-emission mobile electric generator.

: Solar Hydrogen Station (artist's rendering)

In March 2009, Honda and Saitama Prefecture concluded an agreement to collaborate on environmental issues. Based on this agreement, since December 2010, Honda has been implementing an Electric Vehicle Testing Program in Saitama that features advanced electromotive technology and communications and telematics to help realize a low-carbon mobility society in the future.
Within this program, the Saitama Prefectural Office Solar Hydrogen Station will represent the hydrogen-powered society of the future, while the specially equipped FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle will refuel at the solar powered station and serve as both a vehicle and a high-capacity electric generator. This setup will allow Honda to do extensive testing on the technological capabilities and operational requirements of the Solar Hydrogen Station in a real-world urban environment.
To help replace fossil fuels, reduce emissions and combat climate change, Honda has been a leader in the ongoing development of fuel cells, which it views as the ultimate clean power source. Representing the hydrogen-powered society of the future and producing zero CO₂ emissions during operation, the FCX Clarity fuel cell electric vehicle became available for lease in the US in July 2008 and in Japan in November of the same year. Also believing it crucial to eliminate CO₂ emissions during the production, storage and supply of hydrogen fuel, in January 2010 at the Los Angeles Center of Honda R&D Americas, Inc., Honda began experimental operation of a compact, quiet and low-cost next-generation Solar Hydrogen Station for household use.

*: Based on the calculation that an average household uses approximately 5kW of electricity

There Is Only One Party in the USA - the War Party

2011-04-03T16:32:00.000-07:00

There Is Only One Party in the USA - the War Party

Become a Fan

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Dean Hartwell (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
Become a Fan (11 fans)

opednews.com

Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. What nation will we bomb next?
Who are the people who support these wars? They are not the majority of the public. A recent CBS News poll showed that 53% of adults nationwide said we "should not be involved" in Afghanistan.
They are not our elected officials, either. Just as a nation cannot go to war on an empty stomach, neither can a president or a Congress actually go and fight the wars themselves. They also need to find a way to persuade a public {Too easy! The ease with which a few men can CONvince many men to Go to War, Strap bombs to themselves is the single greatest "Threat" } sometimes wary of the idea of war. The president does not frame any choice as between peace or war. Peace would always win! So President Obama recently justified our intervention in Libya as "humanitarian," President George W. Bush warned us of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.
Sander Hicks, author of The Big Wedding 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-up, once said that "history shows us that when the [U.S.] rulers decide to go to war, they 'create' a reason." That they can decide to fight before they reason suggests that our leaders are prepared to start war at all times.
So who wants war?
There is a machine keeping the drive for war alive. The machine is composed of those who benefit the most from the decision to go to war. There are the companies that make the weapons, like Boeing, the companies that provide support to the troops, like Halliburton, the generals that live for war, the people who own stock in the defense contractor companies and others who believe that the United States must defend itself against non-existent threats.
This group of people has interests that supersede those of the rest of us. They impose their interest in war in different ways. The defense contractors contribute money evenly to both major political parties and pay heavily to lobby Congress for favorable laws and policies, the generals offer advice to the politicians about the need to fight and the stockholders put their money before their patriotism.
They are the War Party. Democrats and Republicans bow to them. To oppose this party means less campaign money, less support and a lingering suspicion that one is "soft on defense." Have you ever heard of a candidate for office talk about the need for a "weaker defense?"
Our next wars have already been planned for us with justifications designed to obfuscate the truth just like all of our previous wars. The only way to stop the War party is to de-fund those who benefit from war until they can adequately defend our need to go there.

How do Governments Break Bad Habits?

2011-03-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

Author and Congressional Candidate Norman Solomon discuses one such Federal bad habit, and we expand on his notion with further definition.

Totalitarian loyalty
There's nothing the U.S. government loves more than a 'good' dictator

by Norman Solomon

A standard zigzag of political rhetoric went for a jaunt along Pennsylvania Avenue last month with a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at George Washington University. "Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people," she declared. During the last few weeks much has changed in the politics of the Middle East—but not much has changed in the politics of Washington, where policymakers turn phrases on a dime.

The currency is doublespeak, antithetical to a single standard of human rights.

And so, the secretary of state condemns awful Iran, invoking "our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it and the principles that ground it." But don't hold your breath for any such condemnation of, say, Saudi Arabia—surely an "awful" government that "routinely violates the rights of its people."

It wasn't long ago that Hosni Mubarak's regime—with all its repression and torture—enjoyed high esteem and lavish praise in Washington. For Egyptians, the repression and torture went on; for the bipartisan savants running U.S. foreign policy, the suppression was good geopolitics.

As recently as Jan. 27, when Joe Biden appeared on the PBS NewsHour, the official U.S. line about the despot of Egypt was enough to make Orwell's coffin spin. Was it time for Mubarak to go? "No," Biden replied. "I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that—to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

The interviewer, Jim Lehrer, is hardly a tough questioner of red-white-and-blue officialdom, but he did press the vice president on whether Mubarak was a dictator. Biden replied: "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with—with Israel. ... I would not refer to him as a dictator."

Secretary of State Clinton is correct when she says that Iran's regime is "awful." I caught a glimpse six years ago, at Tehran University, when police and Basij thugs broke up a peaceful demonstration for women's rights. Over lunch one day, an Iranian talked about the torture of friends in prison and described the people in charge as "monsters." These days, the repression in Iran is far worse.

Meanwhile, the torture of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia is no less horrific—while the U.S. government's winks and nods toward the Saudi regime are no less pernicious today than they were for decades while Mubarak's henchmen did their foul deeds in Egypt. In both cases, the cruelty has been OK with Washington since it has been perpetrated by (cue Biden) "an ally of ours in a number of things" that has been "very responsible... relative to geopolitical interest in the region."

On the same day as Clinton's selectively righteous speech blasting an awful regime in the Middle East, my colleagues at RootsAction (rootsaction.org ) launched "An Open Letter to the People of Egypt."

"From the United States, we watched as you stood up for democracy, faced huge obstacles and used nonviolent action to depose a dictator," the letter says. "We send you our congratulations and appreciation for showing us—and people all over the planet—the power of mobilized humanity in the quest for justice and freedom."

The letter adds: "As Americans, we have a responsibility to reset U.S. government policies in Egypt and the entire region. Last week, thousands of us signed a letter demanding that Obama apologize for our country's three decades of support for the Mubarak regime. Now, in the absence of a presidential apology, we take it upon ourselves to apologize. We resolve to work for human rights in solidarity with you, calling for a swift transition for democracy in Egypt. We intend to work so that U.S. foreign policy truly becomes aligned with the values of democracy and human rights."

Signing the open letter is a statement of solidarity with pro-democracy movements—and a rejection of Washington's ongoing double standard on human rights. But our words won't accomplish much unless we match them with effective political organizing in the days and years ahead.

Norman Solomon is president of the Institute for Public Accuracy and a senior fellow at RootsAction. His books include 'War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.'

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.

Comments

Posted by David Peterson,

Excellent article, Mr. Solomon.

I think we should be more specific to define the details behind American support for dictators around the world. The U.S. supports brutal regimes that purchase Weapons from the United States! That alone is the primary criteria; records of brutality are set aside to make new Weapons Sales. Saddam Hussein is an ideal example, he was an enemy of America, purchasing the majority of his weapons from France and the Soviets. Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan & George H.W Bush were happy to become the new Weapons supply source to Iraq with massive amounts of mustard gas sales, and related military hardware.

You can see how the Profit motive can be "the tail that wags the Dog" of Foreign Policy. Your example, of V.P Joe Biden's reluctance to bite the hand that feeds and condemn Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The United States is entering a period of serious uncertainty. The non-violent protests of the Egyptian people that lead 40-year dictator Mubarak to step down in Egypt. Momar Qadaffi is using his military openly and publicly against his owns citizens. The united States Military Industrial complex is worried, and with good reason. The very market for their products is disappearing almost as fast as Newspaper classified ad sales.

Weapons manufacturer's are not out-of-business, not by a long-shot. The challenge is for the American Voters and Tax-Payers to curb efforts by the industry and elected officials from creating NEW Markets to sell their wares.

Ideally, Americans can make efforts to Transform their economy, and develop new exports. A measure of success would be the transition of Weapon makers to new products such as Nuclear-Free Wind generators, Non-Acid-Rain Solar panels, 100% Smog-Free & 100% Imported Oil-Free Hydrogen Electric Cars, and well as Green mass transit systems. That would be a brave new world.

The Bravest of Candidates Speaking Truth to Power

2011-03-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

Every economy is structured on the cycle of products and services bought and sold. You can see glimpses of the cycle in the lives of individuals:
Congressional candidate Marcy Winograd's students tell her : they will join the military service. “They tell me [that by doing so] ‘I’ll get a job, I’ll get benefits,’” She discussed the war and weapons in terms of her students, who are facing post-graduation unemployment.

Marcy Winograd imagines a American society far beyond today's norms: “The larger issue is that we have to transition to a new economy. Why can’t we give out huge sums [of Taxpayer's Dollars] to build [other benefits to the common good such as Nuclear-Free Wind generators, Non-Acid-Rain Solar panels, 100% Smog Free AND 100% Imported Oil Free Hydrogen Electric Cars, and well as Green] mass transit system[s]? If there were the same amount of dollars to build [benefits to the common good] that we spend on weapons systems, what would you prefer? How many weapons do you need?”

The War/Defense Industry Profiteers are abundant in Marcy Winograd's district. They are the largest election campaign contributors in the area. Her opponents, both career politicians, each add the coded phrase "I support strong National Defense" in their campaign platform.
And so the economic paradigms will continue, and American Policy will be in support of Wars, Occupations, Military interventions, regime changes, establishment of Dictators who will purchase weapons from the United States. America's number one export - Weapons.

Marcy Winograd's vision is bold and noble, but has yet to give a clear path to the Transition of the economy. Where are the first steps? How do we turn a corner on an economic juggernaut?
Could these very same Weapons companies build the assets for the common good? The answer is YES, they could, and they have the competitive advantage of favorable support from the federal government for grant and contracts.

Chances are the change will not come through the vision and wisdom of the electorate, the common people who go about their day and vote when called to do so. Voters rely on the many fliers that come in the mail to learn about the candidates. Many more voters defer their decision to the opinions presented over the TV. It's expensive to get the campaign message out. Voters are generally swayed with the most prominent message. But not in every case, Meg Whitman shall long be remembered as the candidate who blew the biggest fortune touting messages a majority of voters did not agree with. So there is a glimmer of hope that the Voters could bring Change to the Economic Cycle this May 17th 2011, in the California district 36 special election

Voting on Weapons and War

March 8th, 2011

By Bill Boyarsky
El Segundo Boulevard, near the Southern California beaches, represents the heart and soul of the military-industrial complex. On either side of the boulevard—its streets mostly barren of pedestrians—are the offices and plants of companies locked in permanent embrace with Washington. War and space activities fuel them. Their campaign contributions and lobbying spending fuel Congress.
I drove to the boulevard, which runs through the city of El Segundo, last week for a column on the June special election in the 36th Congressional District, which extends along the coast southwest of Los Angeles. The election is to fill the seat of Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, a military-industrial complex supporter and a power in intelligence and defense policy, who resigned to take over the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. With a liberal, anti-war candidate, Marcy Winograd, in the race, this is likely to be the year’s first national electoral test of support for the Afghanistan War.
After my visit to Harman’s district, I checked on the companies located there, consulting the invaluable Open Secrets.org website of the Center for Responsive Politics.
It showed for 2010: Boeing, $17.89 million for lobbying, $2.80 million in campaign contributions; Lockheed Martin, $12.77 million for lobbying, $2.66 million in campaign contributions; Raytheon, $7.18 million for lobbying, $2.17 million in campaign contributions. Across the boulevard from Raytheon is the big Los Angeles Air Force Base, where engineers design space systems. Raytheon works hand in hand with them on projects such as a space tracking and surveillance system to detect incoming missiles. The “Star Wars” program still lives, long after President Ronald Reagan proposed his Strategic Defense Initiative.
I don’t expect Marcy Winograd to be trolling El Segundo Boulevard for contributions. The industry supported Harman, and she signaled her favorite in the campaign by inviting Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn to join her in hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an industry favorite, and a bunch of local Democrats are supporting Hahn. Another Democratic candidate is Debra Bowen, the current secretary of state.
It looks as though Winograd has a tough fight in this, her third try for the seat. “We need to bring our troops home,” she said. We met for coffee late in the afternoon after she had completed her day teaching at Crenshaw High School, a predominantly African-American and Latino school in a working-class Los Angeles neighborhood. Almost 80 percent of the students are in government-subsidized lunch programs.
“The larger issue is that we have to transition to a new economy. Why can’t we give out huge sums to build a mass transit system? If there were the same amount of dollars to build a rapid transit system that we spend on weapons systems, what would you prefer? How many weapons do you need?”
She discussed the war and weapons in terms of her students, who are facing post-graduation unemployment. Many of her students tell her they will join the military service. “They tell me [that by doing so] ‘I’ll get a job, I’ll get benefits,’ ” she said.
Winograd is talking about a war that has become part of the background noise of American life. The Afghanistan War has slipped off the charts in the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism survey of how much coverage is given to major events. We’re like the British of the Victorian and Edwardian eras, going about their business while volunteer soldiers were dying in a futile effort to subdue Afghanistan. It’s necessary to go to sources other than the mainstream media on most days to find out about a war that may claim the lives of some of Winograd’s Crenshaw students.
An invaluable source is the new book “The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan” by Bing West, an ex-Marine combat officer in Vietnam and former Reagan administration defense official, now 70 years old, who slogged through patrols and firefights, up mountains and into canals with much younger men to learn on the ground about the futility of the Afghanistan War.
He had been with a battalion assigned to clear guerrillas out of a town called Barge Matal that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai needed for support in his phony re-election campaign. Killed in the effort was a squad leader, Eric Lindstrom, who had recently helped a nearly dead West, suffering from cholera, to a rescue helicopter. Describing his time recovering in a hospital with a wounded soldier who had been with Lindstrom, West wrote: “When you lose somebody, you wonder about the mission. You need a faith or a cause to compensate for loss. Jake and I were pretty damned mad about the lack of cause. What made Barge Matal worthwhile? What were American soldiers doing in unnamed mountains, fighting tribes forgotten by time and history, while the bastards that murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 were protected in the country next door? What was accomplished in such a lost place? Why did Eric die where no sensible infantry should have been sent?”
These are the questions that Marcy Winograd and other peace candidates should ask. They are not being addressed in Washington and only occasionally raised in the news media. And these questions certainly won’t be asked by the corporate bosses on El Segundo Boulevard or other stops along the military-industrial trail—now extending to the East and South—where products are made for use in Afghanistan.

Nuclear Radiation is a Symptom of Crony Capitalism

2011-03-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

Before America can protect itself from Nuclear Radiation, we must first teach the children how to recognize propaganda, and how to avoid it's influences. The Nuclear industry sponsors Dr. Bill Wattenburg on the radio to perpetually espouse the benefits of Nuclear power. He denies the risks and hazards. His supportive callers sound brilliant, his opposition and detractors are made to sound like crazy people.
Overcoming the propaganda in favor of nuclear power will be more difficult than convincing a generation not to litter. But that's the best place to start. Remember the first campaign, "Don't be a Litter Bug" It took years to convince a generation of kids, to care about their environment and not just toss trash everywhere. One of the closing campaign's was "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute" which expanded the message to include Industrial polluters, hoping that Voters would include some of their new wisdom at the ballot box in favor of candidates who supported Environmental regulations.

Now in 2011, as the world watches Japan facing nuclear disaster, every layer of the propaganda machine is getting caught bending the story away from the truth. From Japan Electric, to the Japanese prime minister to President Obama, and every Nuclear expert in the U.S.
It's obvious the Nuclear systems in Japan were not safe. 13 out of 13 back-up generators failed to work when the reactors were shut down. This is only the first level of cooling back-up. The Nuclear industry experts constantly claim, "multiple layers of redundancy in the systems to insure safety." Now is when the propaganda becomes out right Lies. Too late for the hundreds of thousands who will suffer radiation sickness and death.
If Nuclear power were safe, U.S. Senators would be storing the spent fuel rods under their own homes instead of trying to bury them in our backyard in Nevada.

It's been 60 years and the Nuclear lobby is so strong, they have their hand deep into the taxpayers pocket for a criminal amount of funds. And the flow continues as long as they spend enough on congressional reelections. Building and Operating Nuclear Power plants is highly profitable. The extra profit is because they claim there is so much risk. The risk is something the profiteers never pay for in the end. If we could take the profit out of Nuclear power, the campaign contributions and lobbyist efforts would fade away.

You can't get a windmill on the Hill in your town, both nuclear and Oil industries won't allow it.
You can't get Solar on your roof-top because the prices are pushed up by Tax incentives that inflate the market by $15,000 per installed site. The economic impact is a reverse application of supply-side economics, push the price higher to make it less affordable.

Maybe, America will have a champion in congress who can battle the Cronyism, come 2012. Could Norman Solomon be that champion? Read the article below and see what you think of his reasoning.

Norman Solomon

March 17, 2011

Hello Friend,

The other night, as news from Japan took a turn for the worse, I stayed up late and wrote about Nuclear Power Madness. I hope you'll read the article and pass it on.

My opposition to nuclear power is longstanding. In the late 1970s, while advocating for solar and wind energy as well as conservation, I devoted two years to public education and nonviolent civil disobedience that aimed to shut down a large nuclear power plant operating just forty miles from Portland, Oregon.

Later, I served as director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims and co-authored Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation. (The book is now online; if you'd like to take a peek, click here.)

Despite the latest in a long line of presidential assurances, the nuclear facts are dire. As the director of Public Citizen's Energy Program wrote this week, "There are alternatives. Had Japan invested in rooftop solar and wind turbines to the degree it spent maintaining and building nuclear reactors, the country wouldn't be grappling with the potential of a full-scale nuclear meltdown."

The ominous power of the nuclear industry extends from Sacramento to Washington, D.C., where an atomic lobbying force throws buckets of money at Capitol Hill.

Elected officials routinely offer doubletalk or remain silent. Meanwhile, as the New York Times reported on Monday, "most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, aging plants and backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances."

As I move toward running for Congress in the North Bay, I fully intend to challenge the conventional energy wisdom that enables nuclear-invested outfits like PG&E and General Electric -- and their tacit allies in elective office -- to impose a nuclear shadow on future generations. Willingness to confront the nuclear establishment is crucial.

A few days ago, when Marin IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood wrote that Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey "is expected to announce her retirement by midsummer," he noted that "Solomon's positions are virtually identical with that of Woolsey." The North Bay must continue to have strong progressive representation in Congress.

I want to invite you to one of the house parties and related events where I'll be speaking over the next few weeks in Mill Valley, Bolinas, San Geronimo, San Francisco and Sebastopol. For details on those upcoming events, please click here.

The winter has dealt us some grim setbacks. But spring is arriving -- and with it, new possibilities.

We can make grassroots democracy work!

Best wishes,

Norman

P.S. -- Meanwhile, struggles for democracy continue in the Middle East. If you'd like to read my recent article Totalitarian Loyalty, which appeared in the Pacific Sun, click here.

Like every other president since the 1940s, Barack Obama has promoted nuclear power. Now, with reactors melting down in Japan, the official stance is more disconnected from reality than ever.
Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of "safe nuclear power." It's up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.
There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.
As the New York Times reported on Monday:

Most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, aging plants and backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances.

Nuclear power -- from uranium mining to fuel fabrication to reactor operations to nuclear waste that will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years -- is, in fact, a moral crime against future generations.
But syrupy rhetoric has always marinated the nuclear age. From the outset -- even as radioactive ashes were still hot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- top officials in Washington touted atomic energy as redemptive. The split atom, we were to believe, could be an elevating marvel.
President Dwight Eisenhower pledged "to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma" by showing that "the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life."
Even after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 -- and now this catastrophe in Japan -- the corporate theologians of nuclear faith have continued to bless their own divine projects.
Thirty years ago, when I coordinated the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims on the edge of Capitol Hill, we heard grim testimony from nuclear scientists, workers, downwinders and many others whose lives had been forever ravaged by the split atom. Routine in the process was tag-team deception from government agencies and nuclear-invested companies.
By 1980, generations had already suffered a vast array of terrible consequences -- including cancer, leukemia and genetic injuries -- from a nuclear fuel cycle shared by the "peaceful" and military atom. Today, we know a lot more about the abrupt and slow-moving horrors of the nuclear industry.
And we keep learning, by the minute, as nuclear catastrophe goes exponential in Japan. But government leaders don't seem to be learning much of anything.
On Sunday, even while nuclear-power reactors were melting down, the White House issued this statement:

The president believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.

Yet another reflexive nuclear salute.
When this year's State of the Union address proclaimed a goal of "clean energy sources" for 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2035, Obama added: "Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen."
Bipartisan for nuclear power? You betcha. On Sunday morning TV shows, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell voiced support for nuclear power, while Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer offered this convoluted ode to atomic flackery:

We are going to have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in the other half of the globe. Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I've always said it has to be done safely and carefully.

Such behavior might just seem absurd or pathetic -- if the consequences weren't so grave.
Nuclear power madness is so entrenched that mainline pundits and top-elected officials rarely murmur dissent. Acquiescence is equated with prudent sagacity.
In early 2010, President Obama announced federal loan guarantees -- totaling more than $8 billion -- to revive the construction of nuclear power plants in this country, where 110 nuclear-power reactors are already in operation.

"Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step," he said. "What I hope is that, with this announcement, we're underscoring both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge, not as a partisan issue, but as a matter that's far more important than politics because the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many generations to come."

Promising to push for bigger loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants, the president said: "This is only the beginning."

Norman Solomon's books include "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation" (1982), co-authored with Harvey Wasserman

Democrats Megaphone is too soft

2011-03-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

The Washington Democrats Megaphone is too soft

The Democrats do point out on occasion the Hypocrisy of Republicans in congress. But not often enough and not loud enough. The result is Democratic constituents feel their representatives don't do enough, and Republicans constituents feel their representatives do no wrong.

0: Number of Republicans Who Voted To Stop Taxpayer Funding for ‘Bridges to Nowhere’

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Karina

Despite claims that earmarks for the ‘bridges to nowhere’ were eliminated, Alaska has spent more than $71 million in federal funds on the two bridges:

The Gravina Island bridge is a $304 million project that would serve an island of 50 people, who can already access the nearby city of Ketchikan, Alaska, via a five-minute ferry ride.
The Knik Arm Crossing project will build a 1.6-mile long bridge and 18 miles of connecting roads at a cost of nearly $1.6 billion.

While the designation for the earmarks changed in 2006, funding for the ‘bridges to nowhere’ was included in funding for various infrastructure projects and Alaska chose to use or reserve the money for these two bridges specifically. With Republican leaders like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) saying Republicans had become “a party on the Bridge to Nowhere” and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) explaining “often, taxpayers’ money is spent unwisely on items like bridges to nowhere” House Democrats offered Republicans an opportunity to stop taxpayer money from going to the ‘bridges to nowhere.’ During consideration of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 (HR 662), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) offered a Motion to Recommit to:

Rescind all remaining funds – nearly $183 million – providing for planning, design, and construction of the Gravina Island and the Knik Arm bridges in Alaska – the “Bridges to Nowhere.”
Prohibit the use of any funds provided under the Surface Transportation Extension Act to finance these projects.
Reduce the deficit by approximately $160 million over the next decade according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Rep. Polis explained to his colleagues, “we have a choice-we can vote to continue these most egregious earmarks or we can stand by our words, our vows, and values and vote for this amendment and finally put an end to wasteful spending and pet projects”:
All House Republicans chose to continue funding the ‘bridges to nowhere’, with the Motion to Recommit failing by a vote of 181-246.

Marcy Winograd 2010 campaign well worth saving

2011-03-04T17:33:00.000-08:00

About

Passion for Change
Marcy Winograd is the co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Progressive Democrats of America. In her 2010 bid to unseat Jane Harman in the 36th congressional district, Winograd wants to put 10,000,000 Americans back to work repairing our country’s infrastructure, building rapid transit, and developing alternative energy to make America more secure. She pledges to lead the congressional Progressive Caucus to cut billions in government waste in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit taxpayer money to jobs, healthcare, and education.
History in the District
In 2006, Winograd’s grassroots campaign mobilized almost 40% of the primary vote in less than three months of campaigning to unseat Harman. Gore Vidal, Dolores Huerta, Daniel Ellsberg, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, Ron Kovic and local Democratic clubs all supported Winograd’s platform that called for an end to the war in Iraq and protection of constitutional rights. “Bombing and occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will only destabilize the region and undermine global security,” says Winograd. “We need to find another way to solve our problems. I will be proud to serve our country as we engage the world community in smart diplomatic solutions.”
Winograd’s passion for peace emerged during her high school and college days, when she participated in moratoriums against the Vietnam War and joined Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers legal defense team.
Democratic Party Involvement
Winograd volunteered on the Obama campaign, hitting the radio airwaves to promote his platform for change and phoning Florida and Pennsylvania to get out the vote in swing states.
She served as an Executive Board member of the California Democratic Party, successfully introducing resolutions to protect our vote, bring our troops home, and implement parole and sentencing reform. Winograd helped organize a Progressive Caucus within the California Democratic Party to lobby for an end to the occupation of Iraq, abolition of torture, and establishment of universal single-payer health care. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party honored Winograd as “Democrat of the Year.”
Community Leadership
In her role as community leader, Winograd testified at Sacramento legislative hearings to protect our vote from electronic manipulation and launched petition drives to support California Secretary of State Bowen’s efforts to ban hackable Diebold touchscreen machines from the voting booth.
Additionally, Winograd testified in Los Angeles at Federal Communications Commission hearings aimed at saving our free press from corporate take-overs. She testified at other federal hearings to safeguard our coastline from construction of a potentially dangerous liquefied natural gas terminal.
As a teacher and environmentalist, Winograd traveled to Mississippi to build awareness about the spraying of dangerous pesticides near schools and health clinics.
Courageous Leadership
A Co-Founder of LA Jews for Peace, Winograd has been a guest speaker at conferences promoting peaceful coexistence and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis living together in the Middle East. She has bravely spoken out against violence in all forms, whether it be Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes or Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel. Winograd supports an end to the lethal blockade of Gaza, as well as the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Media Outreach
A promoter of The Great Mind Series, televised forums featuring authors such as Gore Vidal, Dennis Kucinich, and John Dean, Winograd has been featured on CNN interviewing visionary thinkers. Previously, Winograd served as News Director at Pacifica’s KPFK in Los Angeles and National Public Radio’s KPCS in Pasadena. Early in her news career, Winograd won three Golden Mikes, the industry’s top honor, for outstanding news writing and broadcasting. Currently, her columns appear on the Huffington Post.
Labor Background
A graduate of the University of California, Winograd volunteered in Delano for the United Farm Workers union following graduation. Under the direction of Cesar Chavez, Winograd
organized grape workers seeking representation and relief from unsafe working conditions. During one organizing drive, she was driven off the road by a company supervisor. More recently, Winograd has lobbied LAUSD school board members to halt teacher lay-offs and use federal stimulus money for its intended purpose – to keep teachers at hard-to-staff schools.
Leadership in Education
A National Board Certified teacher, Winograd teaches at Crenshaw High School in South Los Angeles, where she hosts literary cafes for young poets and collaborates with teachers to promote college culture.
Winograd was a featured speaker in Beijing at a US-China education conference focused on student empowerment and curriculum engagement. “We must make education a national priority,” says Winograd, “otherwise we betray our children and fall further behind.”
Family Life
A resident of the Marina del Rey-Venice area, Winograd is married to Ira “Buddy” Gottlieb, a union-side labor lawyer representing workers in the arts, news, education, and transportation. Her daughter Gina Gardner is a photographer. An animal lover, Winograd has raised several rescue cats and dogs.

Winograd for Congress 2010
Campaign HQ: 13432 Maxella Avenue, C-16 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Mailing Address: 13428 Maxella Ave., #198 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Paid for by Winograd for Congress 2010

_______________________________

Winograd Weekend Cost of Wars Tour

May 12th, 2010

(Marina del Rey) Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36/Harman) will conduct a Cost of Wars Tour this Saturday, May 15th, as she listens to voters’ concerns, rallies support among volunteers and visits with campaign precinct walkers from West Los Angeles to San Pedro. Joining Winograd to talk about the cost of wars and veterans’ issues will be Rick Reyes, former United States Marine serving in Iraq, now Latino Outreach Director for Winograd for Congress. The tour precedes a congressional vote on a 33-billion dollar supplemental war appropriation to continue the occupation of Iraq and escalate the troop level in Afghanistan.
Says Winograd, “My opponent Jane Harman has consistently voted for war and occupation, even defying a majority of House Democrats to take us to war in Iraq. Despite her rhetoric, she continues to fund the escalation in Afghanistan where there is no military solution. I urge all members of Congress to vote NO on the new supplemental war appropriation.”
Winograd notes that according to the non-profit organization the National Priorities Project (NPP), the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost the 36th congressional district $2.7 billion dollars since 2001. The NPP states that the same amount of money could have provided the district with 300-thousand college scholarships to prepare youth for future jobs, or current jobs for 37-thousand music teachers or 47-thousand police officers — or 8-thousand affordable housing units or health care for a year for all district residents.
Says Winograd, “It’s not right for our district residents to go without jobs, health care, education, or housing while our government squanders billions on perpetual wars, multiplying our enemies and creating greater instability in the middle east. My Cost of Wars Tour is an opportunity to hear what district residents think about U.S. foreign policy and to issue a call to action to oppose the upcoming supplemental war appropriation and work for diplomatic solutions instead.”
Below are the stops planned for the Saturday tour:
MAR VISTA
9:00 am
“Bake Back the Democratic Party to End Perpetual Wars” Bake and Yard Sale
Tabling for Marcy
3532 Grand View Blvd. Mar Vista 90066
VENICE
9:30 am
“Bake Back the Democratic Party to End Perpetual Wars” Bake Sale
Bake Sale at 733 Palms Bl. Venice 90291.
LOMITA
12:00 pm
Car Wash for Marcy to Clean Up the House
2222 Lomita Boulevard, Lomita, CA, 90717
TORRANCE
12:45 pm
Food for Thought – Organic Farming Jobs for Veterans
Torrance Farmers’ Market
SAN PEDRO
1:00 pm
“Bake Back the Democratic Party to End Perpetual Wars” Bake and Yard Sale,
Tabling for Marcy
1078 West 37th Street 90731 – Rachel Brunke
SAN PEDRO
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Meet and Greet at the Home of Dr. Fred and Audrey Kennedy
1174 Sandwood Place., San Pedro 90731
MAR VISTA
7:30 – 9:00 pm
Rumor Mill Café Live Blogging Event with Marcy Winogad and Zack Kaldveer
“The Cost of War in the 36th District – Why Marcy Winograd MUST WIN”
11739 W. Washington Bl. 90066
$10 covers the food costs.
Only 50 Seats Available.

Tags: Afghanistan, Cost of Wars, Iraq, Jane Harman, Mar Vista, Marcy Winograd, Rick Reyes, San Pedro, Supplemental War Appropriation, Torrance, Winograd for Congress

3 Responses to “Winograd Weekend Cost of Wars Tour”

Joseph Ramirez says:
May 22, 2010 at 9:14 am
Wilmington has been neglected for years from the local, state and federal levels. We are a hard working, proudful community and heavily Mexican/Chicano. We are vitally important to the fabric of this nation and district. I hope in recent weeks leading up to election time there can be a strong push from the Winograd campaign in Wilmington. Wilmington residents do not vote in large numbers because we are always being neglected and ignored. Show you care about the needs of our community and we will be your biggest supporter.

____________________

Crowd Packs Winograd’s Headquarters’ Opening
March 15th, 2010

(Marina del Rey) On Sunday, 3/14/10, over a hundred supporters packed the grand opening of the new Winograd for Congress headquarters, located in the Villa Marina Marketplace, 13432 Maxella Ave., just a few miles from opponent Jane Harman’s backyard. Congressional candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36) told the crowd, “We stand at the crossroads of the past and the future. In the past we squandered our resources on permanent war and Wall Street bail outs. Our future holds great promise, however, if we transition from a war economy to a new Green economy, and if we put the needs of the people before the greed of Wall Street.”
Volunteers signed up to walk neighborhoods and phone voters from West Los Angeles to San Pedro. Musicians Tom English and Larry Dilg sang a tribute to Marcy, exhorting the crowd to, “Flex your vote.” Campaign manager Michael Jay told the crowd the work they do in the new headquarters will be the most effective way to achieve true representation in Washington.
Events coordinator Sheri Myers encouraged volunteers to hold house parties and organize fundraisers. “We’re going up against one of the richest members of Congress and we all need to contribute,” said Myers.
Volunteer coordinator Robbie Quan, a former Obama for President field organizer in Nevada, said, “What is at stake in this election is much bigger than this room, but everything we need to change things is right here. Together, our grassroots power can take down Harman’s corporate machine.”

Issues

Many Americans believe that 2010 will be the most important election of their lifetimes because there could be a dramatic shift in the balance of power. For each major issue identified, we have listed both the words and actions that Marcy Winograd has made as part of her election platform.
Economy, Labor and Environment
We need a Green New Deal: federal investment in public and private sector jobs, similar to the Works Progress Administration under the New Deal: massive federal stimulus in energy retrofits, infrastructure repair, solar and wind power.
Impose a fee on Wall Street for bank bonuses, stock trades, and lobbying. Use the money for job creation and federally-backed low-interest loans to small businesses.
Pass the Employee Free Choice Act with card check to uphold the right to organize a union.
Repeal so-called free trade agreements that outsource jobs and erode labor and environmental standards.
End the lock-out of 600 workers at Rio Tinto mine in Boron, California.

Focus on environmental justice involving communities of color and working class areas.
Ensure greater federal oversight of state environmental laws governing air, land, and water pollution.
Local Environmental Issues
Ban new offshore and onshore oil drilling.
Demand the FAA re-impose the jet ban at Santa Monica Airport.
Protect Marina del Rey & Playa Vista from over-development.
Speed up the clean-up at Harbor/Gateway/Torrance Superfund sites.
Work to relocate dangerous propane and butane tanks stored near residential neighborhoods in San Pedro.
Ensure oil companies in Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro are in compliance with environmental regulations.
Encourage federal contracts for aerospace to develop new energy and mass transit.
Foreign Policy

Iraq, Afghanistan
Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
End the occupations and air wars in the Middle East.
Invest in humanitarian aid and use diplomatic channels, working with regional stakeholders, to maintain peace and security.
Palestine/Israel
Promote equality and human rights for all in the Middle East.
Prosecute war crimes involving civilians in Gaza and southern Israel.
End the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
Remove Israeli settlements.
Support a two-state or one state solution approved by both sides of the conflict.
Armenia
Pass a resolution to recognize Armenian genocide.
Promote trade and commerce between Armenia and the United States.
Use our diplomatic power to end the blockades of Armenia.
Health Care
Enact a single-payer system that is publicly funded, yet privately delivered, an expanded Medicare program, where everyone is in and no one is out.
Protect the right of states to enact single-payer.
Demand a public option or Medicare Buy-In in any federal legislation.
End big drug company monopolies on exorbitant medication for cancer and other diseases; make medication affordable.
Housing
Freeze foreclosures for an interim period.
Create a Loan Officer Corps jobs program, employing loan brokers to work with banks and homeowners to modify loans.
Empower bankruptcy court judges to order bank modifications of home loans.
Do our best to keep Americans in their homes.
Require banks to give foreclosed homeowners the first right to rent their homes.
Require banks maintain foreclosed properties so that neighborhoods do not suffer blight.
Constitutional Rights
Reverse all Bush administration violations of constitutional rights.
Prohibit torture, extraordinary rendition, and preventative detention.
Protect and defend the Bill of Rights.
Education
Repeal the test-driven No Child Left Behind to invest in resources in reading and writing in early grades, small learning communities in high school, and drop-out prevention.
Lower class size.

Invest in higher education and offer college students direct federally-backed loans with affordable interest rates.
Women’s Rights
Protect a women’s right to choose. Require equal pay for equal worth.
Immigration Reform
Support comprehensive immigration reform; offer an estimated 12-million undocumented workers a path to earned citizenship.
Pass the Dream Act to grant citizenship to college graduates.
Gay Rights
Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Support marriage equality.
Fair Elections
Tax lobbyists to publicly finance elections, encouraging candidates to seek matching funds for small donations. Discourage the corporate financing of elections.
Election Protection
Ban touch screen voting machines. Ensure the paper ballot is the ballot of record.
Require random paper ballot precinct counts.
Media Diversification

Thank You
Dear Friends & Supporters,
Thank you for everything – for your generous donations, for your nationwide phone banking, for your tireless precinct walking in our district. We are building a movement – and change will come.
Though I am disappointed with the results of last night’s election – [...]
Read More
PDA Helps Marcy in Final Stretch
Tim Carpenter, Director of Progressive Democrats of America, walks past PDA’s California state leader Dr. Bill Honigman during the final hours of election day phone banking at Winograd headquarters.
Read More
Winograd for Congress Prepares for Primary Election
(Marina del Rey) Over 300 Winograd for Congress volunteers are phone banking and walking door to door in the 36th congressional district to get out the vote for the Tuesday, June 8th Democratic Party primary. Hundreds of volunteers have turned out to help with the effort, both at the Marina del Rey headquarters and at [...]
Read More

More Breaking News

Our District

June 5th, 2010

My 10 year old daughter Zoe came into the office on Monday and said that she wanted to call people to tell them about Marcy. Zoe made 60 calls all by herself! Can you make as many calls as Zoe?

I can call at least 60 voters!

It’s crunch time folks! With one four days until election day, we need everyone, and I mean everyone, to step up to the plate and make some calls. Our call totals have been steadily increasing each week and we need to put all our efforts into pushing Marcy over the top during this final stretch.

Have you made some calls this week? If not, what are you waiting for? If not now, when?

- Bill Lackemacher

Field Director

Winograd for Congress

Daniel Ellsberg, Former Military Analyst/Pentagon Papers
Ed Asner, Actor

Gore Vidal, Author
Ron Kovic, Vietnam Veteran, Author, Born on the Fourth of July
Jodie Evans, Co-Founder, Code Pink
Norman Solomon, Progressive Democrats of America
Dolores Huerta, Co-founder United Farm Workers of America

Ed Begley, Jr., Environmental Activist
Lila Garrett, Host of KPFK’s Connect the Dots
David Swanson, After Downing Street
Ray McGovern, Peace Activist, Retired CIA Analyst
Jim Hightower, National Radio Commentator
Bill Monning, Assemblyman; Global Majority; Chair, CA Assembly Labor & Employment Committee
Jim Beall, Assemblyman; Chair, Human Services Committee

Organizational Endorsements
DFA / Democracy for America
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
ILWU District Council
Mexican American Bar Association (MABA)
PDA / Progressive Democrats of America
Peace Action
Peace Action West
American Hellenic Council
Progressive Push
Citizens for Global Solutions
Americans for Democratic Action, Southern California Chapter
Armenian National Committee
Torrance Democratic Club
Gardena Valley Democratic Club
San Pedro Democratic Club
Progressive Democratic Club, Harbor Area
Santa Clarita Valley Democratic Club
Mira Costa High School Young Democrats (Manhattan Beach)

The United States Institute of Peace on the chopping block

2011-03-03T16:09:00.000-08:00

H.R. 1 John Boehner's new budget -> he's taking all 42,676,000 from the Organization shutting them down.
The USIP is a think tank with research papers and training for international conflict resolution.
The annual expenses 43 million and the @3.4 Billion for the Airborne Laser (ABL), could be better spent on a the cabinette level Department or Peace & NonViolence.
The United States needs Peace building skills at the highest levels of the Executive branch. If we don't have the skills to avoid the next War, we are doomed to repeat it.

You might expect a Peace think tank to be right out in front of the media countering every War Mongering Idea propagated from the Heritage Foundation and AEI. But no, they kept a much lower profile, working quietly in the background to help where they could (if invited)

When you look at the work of the USIP, it's not surprising that the Crony's in Congress saw the need to eliminate the program. The $42 Million was nothing, it was the $125 million they had to spend to embed War Hawk in every project and program the USIP engaged.
Just look at eh list of Hawks taken from the USIP web site. They should not have been surprised

http://www.usip.org/about-us/how-we-work

How We Work

The Institute achieves its goals by empowering others.

The Institute achieves its goals by empowering others with training and knowledge. We educate, inform, innovate and collaborate with partner organizations. We generate policy options and approaches that convene experts and support policymakers in the United States and abroad.
We use our convening power to bring together stakeholders to craft independent, bipartisan, and practical solutions. Efforts include:

the Task Force on United Nations Reform, co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator George Mitchell;
the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton;
the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen;
the Senior Working Group on the Middle East, co-chaired by former U.S. natinal security advisers Stephen J. Hadley and Samuel R. Berger;
and the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Perry.

The original Department of Peace Campaign

2011-03-03T15:40:00.000-08:00

The Department of Peace Campaign began in 2004 following Dennis Kucinich's run for President.

The idea to create a United States Department of Peace and NonViolence is brilliant.

Volunteer to Create a Federal Department of Peace

Dept of peace: www.dopcampaign.org
needs District Coordinators Volunteers.

Become a Leader in your Congressional District!
Assume a leadership role and become an effective citizen advocate for the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace!
Meet, organize and work with others in your community who are also committed to create a more peaceful and cooperative world!
Make a positive impact in the United States to support a world that works for everyone!
It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it.
And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Overview
Commit to playing a positive role as a volunteer for The Peace Alliance and the Campaign for a U.S. Department of Peace. There is no more powerful role you can play to help move this effort forward. Become a Congressional District team leader and join a team of energetic and inspired individuals coordinating each of the 435 congressional districts in the United States.
As a Congressional District team leader you will have the opportunity to work in your local community to garner support for the historic Department of Peace legislation by building a network of local volunteers. You and your volunteer team will: contact congressional offices, inform the local media, educate the public on issues related to the legislation, and assist in raising funds to support our joint effort to bring peace to our planet.
You do not need to be an experienced community organizer or have a background in the political process to take advantage of this exciting and inspiring opportunity. It is your commitment to, and enthusiasm for, working with others to bring forward a culture of peace that will make you an effective and productive leader! The Peace Alliance is committed to assisting you and to providing you with all the information and training you need to become the best Congressional District team leader you can be. We can promise you that you will find the experience energizing, exciting and one that will enable you to join with others in your community who share your desire for a positive future.
Congressional District Team Leader Guidelines
As a Congressional District team leader, you will be the contact person for your Congressional District and the main link to The Peace Alliance office. Congressional District team leaders should expect to spend several hours a week working in this role to be an effective advocate and organizer. Your role is not to do everything, but to facilitate the work of others who are interested in supporting a cabinet level Department of Peace.
Below you will find a suggested list of responsibilities for a Congressional District team leader. The Peace Alliance has many coaching tools available to assist you in these and other key areas. Each Congressional District group will find their own unique flow and creative work pattern and together we will move this greater vision forward. As you consider this opportunity, please reference our website, which offers useful suggestions for the work ahead.
Congressional District Team Leader Responsibilities
To serve as a Congressional District team leader and to be recognized on The Peace Alliance website as the contact for your congressional district, you will be asked to complete the following basic tasks on an ongoing basis:
Answer all emails and phone calls - from people responding to your Congressional District link on The Peace Alliance website, or from individuals requesting information about your local group and the possibility of their own potential involvement.
Establish and help facilitate a local group to work with you in these key areas: contact and meet with congressional staff and your Members of Congress, provide public education and outreach, interface with local media, and generate fund-raising events and opportunities. You can share the facilitation of your group with other group members and delegate tasks as appropriate.
Schedule regular contact times with your State Coordinator for updates, coaching and support (at least once a month).
Visit The Peace Alliance website on a regular basis to stay current and to initiate local action within your Congressional District to enhance the power of the national effort.
Please seriously consider this opportunity at whatever level you can help with. Thank you!
We can guarantee that it will be deeply rewarding and educational. Contributing your skills and energy to this important local task will have global implications as we work together to build a culture of peace.
Tips on Organizing in your Local Community: Holding a Local Meeting
The Peace Alliance Commitment
We are here to support you. We know that your desire to join with others in your community who share your desire for a peaceful and cooperative society will enable you to draw on your leadership skills to organize your congressional district. The national campaign will supply you and your team with relevant information, powerful trainings and ongoing updates that will inspire you and make it possible for you to make a significant difference in your community, in our nation and in our world.
Whether you are one or many, we will support you.
We are offering trainings in communities with groups over 45 team members.

Fox News Causes Brain Damage

2011-02-27T23:35:00.000-08:00

It took years before Americans realized that Lead in paint and Gasoline was causing brain damage to all of us.
With Fox News the evidence was right out in front of us. With the rise of Social media you could see the mimicry of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. No analysis, no critiques, no value added comments.

Now a University study documents these facts in a resent study.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/16/study-confirms-spin-fox-news-voters-stupid/

Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds

By
Thursday, December 16th, 2010 -- 4:53 pm

The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation's most viewed "news" network has the effect of dumbing down voters.
Turns out, they were right.
A University of Maryland study (PDF) published earlier this month found that people in the survey who had the most exposure to Fox News were more likely to believe falsehoods and rumors about national and world affairs when compared to those who paid attention to other news outlets.
In a summary carried by Alternet, the following falsehoods were most relayed by Fox News viewers:

91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs;
72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit;
72 percent believed the economy is getting worse;
60 percent believed climate change is not occurring;
49 percent believed income taxes have gone up;
63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts;
56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout;
38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP;
63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear).

The poll's findings seem to sync with those of an NBC News survey (PDF) taken during the height of America's health care reform debate, where Fox News viewers were found to be most likely to have believed wildly inaccurate interpretations of the legislation.
While Fox News and parent company News Corporation have long been criticized cheerleading Republican causes and conservative-allied business interests, it has been under more intense criticism of late over high profile donations to Republicans, deceptive video editing on multiple programs and even on-air GOP fundraisers.Though the station claims to run "news" programming during the daytime, liberal watchdog group MediaMatters recently revealed a leaked email that shows one of the network's top editors ordering anchors to use terminology favored by conservatives.
In a follow-up, the media blog released a second leaked email showing the same editor, Fox News Washington, DC managing editor Bill Sammon, directing staff to cast doubt upon climate data, even when it was not in question. The revelation was hailed by former Vice President Al Gore, a champion of climate change activism, who argued it proves the spin coming from Fox News is straight from the top.
And it doesn't help that one of their most-watched opinion hosts, conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck, is prone to making up outrageous falsehoods to scare viewers.
The network has big plans to expand it's brand into the future: According to anchor Chris Wallace, the 2012 Republican presidential primary elections will be "a production of Fox News," not unlike the Fox network's American Idol.
Virtually all the leading GOP candidates are paid contributors for the network, and over 30 Fox News personalities have endorsed Republicans in the past.
The Obama administration, similarly, has called Fox News "a wing of the Republican party."

The Voters have been Fooled once again.

2011-01-08T13:37:00.000-08:00

The Voters have been Fooled once again.

It's a shame really. Candidates of both parties make promises and we elected them - only to find that they do the opposite of what they told us.

Republicans claim to want smaller government. Republicans claim to spend less than Democrats - they don't.

The Republican takeover

Saturday, Jan 8, 2011 11:01 ET

Republican deficit hypocrisy off to a great start on defense spending

By Alex Pareene

AP/Salon

Sen. John Boehner and Robert Gates

Robert Gates would like to cut about $78 billion from our bloated military budget over the next five years. That is, as they say, a start -- we spend more on defense than every other nation in the world put together, and in the meantime the Republican plan for dealing with our apparently crushing national debt is to threaten to default. But those Republicans who promise austerity have one small problem with Gates' plan: They refuse to cut a single dollar of military spending, even when our Republican defense secretary politely asks them to.
Of course, Gates is only attempting to forestall deeper cuts in Pentagon spending that might be proposed by ... well, no one, because no one besides hippies ever proposes serious cuts in military spending. But the $78 billion in fat to trim was offered up just in case someone else came up with a plan to cut, like, $150 billion of the Pentagon budget. This is all the most discretionary of discretionary spending, of course, because we're not even talking about the money we spend fighting wars. That spending will grow for the next couple years -- we'll be sending 1,000 new troops to Afghanistan, for example, and they will need food and guns and tanks and things. (And drones! We need lots of drones, for assassinating people.)
But uselessness and waste don't matter to our new small-government Tea Party overlords in the House of Representatives. Missouri Republican Todd Akin -- chair of the "House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee" -- tried the old "while we support cuts, we can't support these cuts" argument:

"There are certainly wasteful and inefficient parts of the DOD that should be cut," said Akin. "At the same time, I find it stunning that the Obama administration thinks cutting almost $80 billion from our defense budget while we are at war is a responsible course of action. I have a number of concerns about the specifics as well as the overall priorities this action reveals. If Secretary Gates wants Congress to even consider supporting any of these proposals, he must personally ensure that Congress receives the information we need, rather than stiff-arming the Congress as has been the norm for the last few years."

Akin also argued that the fact that a cut to the Pentagon budget was even proposed proves, like everything else, that Obama is a commie who hates America:

"The only department undertaking a serious budget cutting exercise is the Department of Defense," said Akin. "Where are the similar reviews at any other executive department? Our military is at war, and our military is the only department asked to seriously tighten its budget?"

Yes, well, the nation is also facing, according to your party, a debt crisis, and the Department of Defense is responsible for more non-entitlement spending than any other department, by a substantial margin. Just in case you didn't get his point -- Obama hates America, is French, wears a dress, etc. -- Akin proposed an interesting hypothesis: "If the president and the secretary of defense want to get rid of the Marine Corps, they should come out and say that directly."
Yes, I am 100 percent positive that Robert Gates wants to get rid of the Marine Corps. He hates the troops.
Serious Rational Conservatives often like to push their glasses up on their faces and cluck about how we can't solve the deficit problem merely by taxing billionaires. I put forth that we also can't solve the problem by not taxing anyone while also not cutting spending on anything besides $100,000 earmarks for funny-sounding animal research at the University of Peoria.
But what do I know? I'm no Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who apparently wants to take all the money we get in military budget "savings" and spend it on ... the military.

"I'm not happy. We went into today's meeting trying to ensure the $100 billion in targeted savings were reinvested back into our national security priorities. We didn't expect to hear that before these efficiencies can be realized, the White House and OMB have demanded that the Pentagon cut an additional $78 billion from defense over the next five years."

Yes, right, we'll find $100 billion in efficiencies, and then efficiently send that money right back to Boeing.
Rep. Randy Forbes, who also now chairs an Armed Services subcommittee, had his own hysterical statement to issue. Hey, he thought, no one's mentioned the fact that we'll probably need to fight a full-on world war with China, yet! "Even more appalling, though, is the fact that the administration is not being honest with the threat we face with China or where our defense dollars are going," he said. Didn't you hear? China has airplanes, therefore we need newer, nicer airplanes.
Republicans love throwing billions of dollars at the Pentagon. They always have, they always will. It's not in any way surprising. But it will be fun, for a month or so, to watch the new government-shrinking House explain why it strongly supports various measures that substantially worsen the debt. The "I support cuts in general, but not this specific cut" argument will most likely be trotted out by Republicans for every single major government expenditure not related to helping unemployed people feed themselves.

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More: Alex Paree

The Domoic Acid Bacteria (Taxonomic Name?)

2010-12-27T09:55:00.000-08:00

Introduction

Brief History

Goals of this Research

1) Answer the following questions:
What are the key elements to creating domoic acid?
Which Bacteria are responsible for this?
Is this a product of chemosynthesis or photosynthesis?
Or a fatty acid being produced, or some other vital chemical for the mutual relationship between the bacteria and the diatom?
Can domoic acid be found in the archeological record? Did domoic acid exist 250 years ago?

Chapter 1

Research Papers

Mary Silver Toxic diatoms and domoic acid in natural and iron enriched waters of the oceanic Pacifichttp://domoicacid.pbworks.com/w/page/36647866/Research-Papers

Chapter 2

I reseached Mary Silver's paper Toxic diatoms and domoic acid in natural and iron enriched waters of the oceanic Pacific, I found the following statement. "" I am intrigued by this statement in that it speaks to the potential source elements for the chemical reaction that is required to H2O+NaCl+?+?+?=C22H16NO6
Ultimately we need to get it down to what we do and don't know for example

So again while this intruiges me, the statement its self is merely a general observation of conventional wisdom. Where do we turn to if we want someone the analyze the chemical reactions that are taking place? How many research projects do we need before someone asks the right question. And determines the source elements. When I say source elements I mean to say reactants in the chemical process that produces domoic acid.

Chapter 3: Identification and enumeration of cultured and wild Pseudo-nitz- schia (Bacillariophyceae)

http://www.cencoos.org/sections/news/MontBay_HAB_experiment_2010.shtml
These guys are tracking the Pseudo-nitzschia in real time, and publishing within four months.
Lots of great field research, some very cool technology and toys. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have any relevant data for my thesis criteria. Hopefully, they will find something during the synthesis period!

Back in 2007:
"It's not a single, uniform event--the blooms are spotty, both in time and in locations throughout the bay," said Mary Silver, professor of ocean sciences at UCSC. "When you look at satellite images, the blooms are almost like weather systems or cloud formations--they come and go on a day-to-day basis. But the animals are being affected."

BIOMEDICAL AND LIFE SCIENCES

FISHERIES SCIENCE

Volume 75, Number 3, 771-776, DOI: 10.1007/s12562-009-0081-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Direct contact between Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries and bacteria is necessary for the diatom to produce a high level of domoic acid

Kenji Kobayashi, Yoshinobu Takata and Masaaki Kodama

Abstract

Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries loses most of its ability to produce domoic acid when it is cultured axenically. However, domoic acid production recovers when bacteria from the original culture are reintroduced to axenic cultures, indicating a bacterial association with domoic acid production in this species. In order to determine the role of bacteria in domoic acid production, an axenic strain prepared from a nonaxenic strain of P. multiseries was inoculated into media in cellophane tubes, which were then placed in a bottle containing the original nonaxenic culture. Both strains showed characteristic domoic acid production similar to that previously observed. Domoic acid level in the cells of the axenic strain in the tubes was much smaller than that of the cells outside the tubes. These results show that direct contact between living bacteria and P. multiseries is necessary for producing high levels of domoic acid inP. multiseries.

For the latest Red Tide Forcast:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/

Keywords Co-culture of axenic and nonaxenic strains - Domoic acid - Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries

Fulltext Preview

The Political Forecast December 2010

2010-12-26T21:54:00.000-08:00

Political forecast

Network News

Sunday, December 26, 2010; 6:43 PM

Quote of the week
"I think it's fair to say that this has been the most productive post-election period we've had in decades."
- President Obama
Political Forecast

8House seats that states west of the Mississippi will gain in the 2012 cycle due to the 2010 Census's decennial reapportionment process. That's the largest share by far of the 12 seats shifting across states; the other four seats will be added to the Southeast. This also marks the first time that the population of the West will exceed that of the Midwest, making it worth keeping an eye out as the delegations of Western states begin asserting their growing clout in Congress.

13Senate Republicans who crossed party lines to support ratification of the New START treaty last week. The treaty was ratified by a vote of 71 to 26. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) voted against cloture but voted "yes" to ratification; Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was thought to be a possible "yes" vote, ultimately voted against both.

168House members who were missing in action on the final day of the 111th Congress last Wednesday. The previous day, about 80 members were MIA. The number included retiring and defeated members as well as many who had simply skipped town for the holidays. Despite its depleted ranks, the House passed its final major piece of legislation for the year, a 9/11 first responders health-care bill.

The best thing that happened to Republicans

The Democrats' four-year reign in the House came to an end. The end of the lame-duck session means Republicans will be in control next time the House convenes, giving the GOP a prominent seat at the table for at least the next two years. For good or ill, the Democrats accomplished a lot during their time with full control of the legislative and executive branches, and they did it largely without any GOP support. They passed a historic health-care bill, a stimulus package and financial regulatory reform. Republicans, who previously had to rely on the Senate filibuster to thwart Democrats, can now craft their own legislation and push their own priorities.

The best thing that happened to Democrats

President Obama got his mojo back. The president got many of his priorities passed in the lame-duck session, and though he didn't get everything he wanted (the DREAM Act or an end to the Bush tax cuts, most notably), his ability to work out compromises was notable. Large amounts of Republicans wound up voting for the START treaty and the 9/11 responders health-care bill, and even a few crossed over to support the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for gays in the military. For a president recovering from a "shellacking" on Election Day, it was a solid rebound.

Hold Congress Accountable

Enjoying the benefits of the 1970's Clean Water Act

Deep Propaganda - Fantasy Scenarios to build a case for the next WAR

The Elussive Accountable Government

Who writes our law?

10 comments so far...

2012 Election, Will Pollution Profiteers prevail for another 2 years/ 4 years ?

Al Gore: Climate of Denial

Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a Congress member on your side?

Congress takes aim at 401(k)s

America - No Freedom & No Liberty, because No Justice

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges

Los Angeles to send another War-monger to Congress for the 36th District

Can Honda break-Open the Oil Co's Monopoly in the Auto-market

Honda Announces the Plan to Build Solar Hydrogen Station on Grounds of Saitama Prefectural Office, FCX Clarity Used in Electric Vehicle Testing Program to Serve as Mobile Electric Generator

There Is Only One Party in the USA - the War Party

There Is Only One Party in the USA - the War Party

How do Governments Break Bad Habits?

The Bravest of Candidates Speaking Truth to Power

Voting on Weapons and War

March 8th, 2011

Nuclear Radiation is a Symptom of Crony Capitalism

Democrats Megaphone is too soft

0: Number of Republicans Who Voted To Stop Taxpayer Funding for ‘Bridges to Nowhere’

Marcy Winograd 2010 campaign well worth saving

About

Winograd Weekend Cost of Wars Tour

May 12th, 2010

3 Responses to “Winograd Weekend Cost of Wars Tour”

Crowd Packs Winograd’s Headquarters’ Opening

March 15th, 2010

Issues

Thank You

PDA Helps Marcy in Final Stretch

Winograd for Congress Prepares for Primary Election

Our District

June 5th, 2010

The United States Institute of Peace on the chopping block

How We Work

The Institute achieves its goals by empowering others.

The original Department of Peace Campaign

Fox News Causes Brain Damage

Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds

The Voters have been Fooled once again.

The Republican takeover

Republican deficit hypocrisy off to a great start on defense spending

The Domoic Acid Bacteria (Taxonomic Name?)

Introduction

Brief History

Goals of this Research

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3: Identification and enumeration of cultured and wild Pseudo-nitz- schia (Bacillariophyceae)

Direct contact between Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries and bacteria is necessary for the diatom to produce a high level of domoic acid

View Related Documents

Abstract

Fulltext Preview

The Political Forecast December 2010

Political forecast

Network News