Author Archives: trasze2aja

Here’s What It Costs Taxpayers to Fly Trump to Mar-a-Lago

by trasze2aja Posted on May 4, 2017

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When Donald Trump travels to one of his properties for weekends of golf and well-done steak, he brings a massive entourage of aides, Secret Service agents, and all the trappings of the world’s most powerful job. And it’s all on the taxpayer’s tab.

It’s still not clear how much all of that costs, but we now know how much money it takes to operate the biggest presidential accessory involved with these trips: Every hour Trump flies on Air Force One costs taxpayers more than $142,000. For just two weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago that Trump took in March, taxpayers paid $1.2 million. Again, that’s just for the plane that ferried Trump. That doesn’t count the cost of fighter jet escorts, the planes carrying Trump’s limousines, or any of the on-the-ground costs.

The figures come from Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the Department of the Air Force. Notably, Judicial Watch is the group that calculated the oft-quoted figure of $96 million as the tab for Obama’s family travel during his presidency. The group says it has also asked for figures for the cost of Secret Service protection and other expenses associated with Trump’s weekend trips, but those requests are still pending.

“We’re pleased the Air Force finally gave us some numbers for President Trump’s travel,” said Tom Fitton, president of the group, in a statement. Fitton vowed to go to court to get the other numbers. “Judicial Watch tracked some of the costs of President Obama’s unnecessary travel and we’re not closing up shop with a new administration.”

The figures do suggest that early estimates of the cost of Trump’s personal trips—as much as $3 million per weekend—might be in the right ballpark, but the exact amount remains difficult to tabulate. The FOIA responses Judicial Watch received detailed two separate trips, one of which included a stopover at an airport in Florida so Trump could hold an event with Secretary of Education Betsy Devos promoting a school voucher program. Each flight cost more than $600,000.

If Judicial Watch’s estimate of $96 million for Obama’s personal vacations is correct, it would mean that he averaged about $12 million a year on all travel. In other words, Trump is easily on pace to easily exceed his predecessors totals. Trump has spent seven of 13 weekends of his presidency at Mar-a-Lago, but the club is closing for the summer season. This weekend Trump makes his first trip to his New Jersey golf club, which will be a shorter flight, but will require moving Trump through the crowded New York City area. That could significantly increase his on-the-ground costs.

Taken from:

Here’s What It Costs Taxpayers to Fly Trump to Mar-a-Lago

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What It Costs Taxpayers to Fly Trump to Mar-a-Lago

Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

by trasze2aja Posted on December 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Bernie Sanders will unveil a sweeping new plan to fight climate change on Monday, calling for a carbon tax and an ambitious 40 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 to speed the transition to a greener economy.

The Democratic presidential candidate will use the crunch week of the climate change meeting in Paris to try to upstage rivals Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, releasing a 16-page plan aimed at showcasing his green credentials.

The plan goes beyond Barack Obama’s climate pledges, which aim to match the European Union in ambition by calling for a 40 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 on 1990 levels, according to a copy of the plan seen by the Guardian. The 1990 starting point is a more demanding target than the current US baseline of 2005.

Sanders will also call for a carbon tax, big investments in energy-saving technologies and renewable power sources, and promise to create 10 million clean energy jobs.

The climate meeting in Paris has attracted an unusual level of attention compared with earlier meetings, as Democrats and Republicans gear up for the first votes in the presidential primaries just over a month away.

A group of 10 Democratic senators flew to Paris to reassure the international community they would defend Obama’s climate plan. In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have tried to block a global climate deal by trying to repeal Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants.

Sanders’ plan – which will be released as talks aimed at reaching a global agreement to fight climate change kick into a higher gear – will feature the Vermont senator’s “take-no-prisoners” approach to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers in Congress.

He will call for banning fossil fuel lobbyists from the White House, and ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

“Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally,” the plan will say. “The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.”

Sanders will also promise to keep the pressure on industry for spreading misinformation about climate change, saying he will bring climate deniers to justice.

“It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America,” the plan will say.

And Sanders will not back away from his assertions about climate change as a security threat—despite ridicule from Republican presidential contenders.

“Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet,” the plan will say.

Sanders’s call for a ban on new offshore oil drilling and fossil fuel projects on public lands won praise from groups such as Greenpeace and 350.org which have campaigned to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change.

“He has broken free of the corporate and 1 percent money that has held back climate policy for far too long,” Annie Leonard, director of Greenpeace US, said in an emailed statement.

The plan appeared to be an attempt to regain ground lost to Clinton, as she took more ambitious positions on climate change.

Sanders was stung in November when the League of Conservation Voters delivered an early endorsement of Clinton – even though he scored far higher than the secretary of state in the campaign group’s green ranking score card.

Since the start of the campaign, the three Democratic presidential contenders have tried to outdo one another on their commitment to fighting climate change —making a striking contrast with Republican presidential candidates who deny climate change is occurring.

All three Democratic candidates have promised more ambitious climate actions than Obama.

O’Malley was the first off the blocks, unveiling his climate agenda in June in an opinion piece in USA Today, and continues to claim the strongest position by calling for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050.

Clinton meanwhile has slowly edged towards a stronger position on climate change as the campaign progressed, belatedly coming out against the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and hunting for oil in Arctic waters. She moved to outflank Obama on his renewable energy plan by calling for the US to get 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2027.

Climate change occupies a far higher profile in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries than earlier contests—in part because of Obama’s focus on the environment in his second term in the White House.

Democratic operatives see climate change as a potential wedge issue—a chance to paint Republicans as anti-science and out-of-touch for rejecting the science behind climate change.

Originally posted here – 

Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

Repeat After Me: There’s No Such Thing as Socialsecurityandmedicare

by trasze2aja Posted on December 12, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

You may see some headlines today that report on a new study showing that boomer retirees will receive way more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than they pay in taxes. But be careful. Technically, that’s true, but it’s like saying the combined population of China and Vietnam is 1.4 billion. It’s true, but all the heavy lifting is being done by China.

In this case, all the heavy lifting is being done by Medicare. According to the latest estimates from the Urban Institute, current workers are paying far less in Medicare payroll taxes than they’ll eventually receive in health benefits when they retire. (Just as current retirees are receiving more benefits today than they paid in taxes during their working lives.) That’s a problem, and it’s the reason we need to focus so much attention on rising health care costs.

But Social Security? It varies a bit depending on whether you’re single or married, but generally speaking taxes and benefits are pretty similar. The chart below shows the Urban Institute’s estimates for workers who will retire in 2030, and it’s pretty obvious that future retirees aren’t getting an especially sweet deal here. They’re just getting back what they put in.

Generally speaking, you’re always being conned when people talk about “entitlements.” That usually means Social Security and Medicare, but they’re very different things. Social Security is fine, and will stay fine with nothing more than tweaks. Medicare is a bigger problem, and it’s the one that needs the most attention.

From:

Repeat After Me: There’s No Such Thing as Socialsecurityandmedicare

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Repeat After Me: There’s No Such Thing as Socialsecurityandmedicare

Valley Fever, Explained

by trasze2aja Posted on August 14, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Cases of an illness known as valley fever have increased dramatically over the past decade. So what is it exactly? And who’s at risk? We went to California’s Central Valley to find out—watch the video above, then read this handy FAQ.

What is it? Coccidioidomycosis—commonly known as valley fever—is a fungal disease. Its spores live in the soil. If the soil becomes dry and dusty, people and animals can breathe it in, allowing the spores to grow inside their bodies.

What does valley fever feel like? It depends. Some people who get valley fever don’t have any symptoms at all; in others the disease resembles a cold or flu. Some develop a pneumonia-like condition from the fungus in their lungs. In rare cases, the fungus disseminates and can even attack the brain. According to the CDC more than 40 percent of people who become ill from valley fever may require hospital visits; the average cost of that visit is $50,000. Between 1990 and 2008 there were 3,089 reported deaths from valley fever, though some public health experts suspect that it was an underlying cause of many more deaths.

Who’s at risk? People who live in or travel to the southwestern United States—where the disease is endemic—are at risk. Within that area, working outdoors—at construction sites, archaeological digs, and other places that involve undisturbed soil—also seems to be a risk factor (though plenty of people who don’t have outdoor jobs—for example, this little girl—also get valley fever). Prisons have been hard hit; 18 inmates in California’s Central Valley have died of valley fever in the past few years, and many more have become ill. The state of California recently ordered the transfer of 2,500 prisoners out of two Central Valley prisons with high incidence of the disease; many of the prisoners set to transfer are black and Filipino, two ethnic groups that seem to be disproportionately affected by the dangerous disseminated form of valley fever. Women in their third trimester of pregnancy and people with compromised immune systems are also at higher-than-normal risk.

How is valley fever diagnosed? That’s one of the problems: In chest x-rays, valley fever is very hard to distinguish from pneumonia or even lung cancer—the fungal masses in patients’ lungs look almost identical to tumors, says Dr. Michael Peterson, chief of medicine at UCSF-Fresno. If doctors suspect valley fever, they can order a blood or sputum (phlegm) test, but outside of the endemic areas many doctors aren’t familiar with the disease. That makes it particularly hard for people who contract the disease while traveling to the southwest to get appropriate care. One small company manufactures a simple and quick skin test, but it’s not widely available yet since the company says it can’t afford the FDA’s marketing fee; Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who recently formed a valley fever task force, says he plans to petition the FDA to waive the fee.

Which states have the most cases of valley fever? In general, southwestern states:

Tasneem Raja

How common is it? Increasingly common:

Tasneem Raja

Why is valley fever increasing so quickly? One theory is that climate change is playing a role: As the weather gets hotter and drier, soil gets dustier—which means it’s easier for people and animals to breathe in the fungus. Some people believe that the rise is related to the population boom in the southwest: The increase in cases has occurred in the last decade, during which time millions of people have flocked to that part of the country. Not only are there more people to get sick, there’s also more construction, meaning that workers are moving around the previously undisturbed soil where valley fever spores seem to thrive. Antje Lauer, a microbiologist at California State University-Bakersfield, theorizes that the spores might do especially well in burrows where rodents have stored seeds.

Basically all of my fruits and vegetables are grown in California’s Central Valley. Am I going to get valley fever from my next salad? Probably not. Valley fever spores seem to prefer soil that hasn’t been cultivated, explains Lauer. She theorizes “that in agricultural soils, where there is a lot of additional organic matter from manure or scientific chemical or fertilizer being put into the soil, that the diversity of microorganisms goes up, because the diversity of certain nutrients goes up, and then valley fever fungus can’t compete any more.”

What can be done to prevent valley fever? The short answer: if you live in the Southwest, not much. People who work outdoors can wear special masks to limit their exposures, but for the rest of the population, it’s hard to avoid. As UCSF’s Peterson put it, “The only thing you can really do is in days where there are windstorms, there’s lots of dust in the air, do not go out and do heavy exertion, those kinds of things. Otherwise, it’s in the air.”

Where can I learn more about valley fever? The Reporting on Health Collaborative has a great valley fever series about the communities that have been hardest hit by the disease; the CDC has up-to-date information on incidence, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.

See original:  

Valley Fever, Explained

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Valley Fever, Explained

Conservatives Crawl Out Of The Woodwork To Claim IRS Persecution

by trasze2aja Posted on May 22, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Wayne Allyn Root is no fan of President Barack Obama. He’s a former Libertarian Party candidate for vice-president and a “birther” who has questioned whether the president was really born in America. (Root studied at Columbia University when Obama was there and has questioned whether Obama really attended the school.) Root has been audited by the IRS—twice. And in recent days, within the right-wing media, he has become something of a poster child for the IRS scandal, suggesting that the IRS targeted him because of his political activity.

On Fox News last week, he proclaimed, “I am the face of Obama’s IRS attacks.” In WorldNet Daily, he recently wrote, “As an outspoken critic of Obama, I’ve been under IRS attack since January of 2011. I am living proof of how bad it is, when it started and that it was directed at individuals, not just conservative groups.” Root has offered his services to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), should Paul need a congressional witness.

But the root of his troubles could be not his anti-Obama politics, but his own finances, for Root’s less-than-conventional tax returns might have indeed warranted a close look.

Continue Reading »

This article is from: 

Conservatives Crawl Out Of The Woodwork To Claim IRS Persecution

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives Crawl Out Of The Woodwork To Claim IRS Persecution

Judges Strike Down Arizona’s 20-Week Abortion Ban

by trasze2aja Posted on May 21, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday, judges on the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Arizona law that would have banned abortions at 20 weeks. The judges called the law “unconstitutional under an unbroken stream of Supreme Court authority.” This is the first 20-week ban to be struck down in court.

The judges wrote that Arizona “may not deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at any point prior to viability,” echoing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade 40 years ago that abortion should be legal up to the point that a fetus is can survive outside of the womb, which is usually construed as 24 weeks.

Anti-abortion state legislatures have passed a number of laws in recent years shortening the period in which abortion is legal. Arizona’s 20-week ban was not the first in the US, but it was the first one that national reproductive rights groups challenged in court. It was, at the time, the strictest in the country, as it dated the 20 weeks from a woman’s most recent menstruation rather than from the date of conception. (Taking basic biology and math into account, the bill actually banned abortion 18 weeks after the woman became pregnant). But after the Arizona law was passed in April 2012, other states passed even stricter rules; Arkansas banned abortions at 12 weeks in March 2013, and North Dakota banned them at 6 weeks a few weeks later.

Meanwhile, an anti-abortion lawmaker from Arizona has been trying to export the law. Republican Congressman Trent Franks introduced a bill last week that would impose a 20-week ban in Washington, DC as well.

Reproductive rights groups hope that Tuesday’s ruling sends a warning to other states that might consider similar restrictions. “Today’s decision is a huge victory in the fight to protect women’s fundamental reproductive rights, and it should send a clear message to anti-choice politicians that their attempts to deprive pregnant women of critical health care are clearly unconstitutional and will not hold up in court,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which joined with the ACLU to challenge the Arizona law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights also filed suit against another anti-abortion law in North Dakota earlier this month, and is expected to challenge the state’s 6-week ban as well. CRR and the ACLU also won a preliminary injunction last week blocking Arkansas’ 12-week ban from taking effect.

Link: 

Judges Strike Down Arizona’s 20-Week Abortion Ban

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Judges Strike Down Arizona’s 20-Week Abortion Ban

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

by trasze2aja Posted on May 13, 2013

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

By John Upton

Shutterstock

/ Jonathan FeinsteinMembers of the Vermont House think shoppers should be told which of these products contain GMOs.

A historic but cautious attempt to force food manufacturers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients passed the Vermont House by an overwhelming 107-37 vote last week.

If approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, the bill, H. 112,  would make Vermont the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

But the measure likely wouldn’t go into effect for two years, and it would not apply to meat or dairy. That means it would not mandate the labeling of AquaBounty fish, a transgenic Atlantic salmon that could receive U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval this year. And it would not affect Vermont’s celebrated dairy industry.

From Vermont Public Radio:

No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.

Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, reasserted that he thinks the state would lose a lawsuit on constitutional grounds. He said the law runs afoul of the First Amendment by compelling speech, and it could pre-empt federal authority under the constitution’s supremacy clause by enacting a law that the Federal Drug Administration has not.

“Nobody else has passed a similar bill. They all seem to be waiting for Vermont to go first and lead the nation,” he said. “What they mean is they don’t want to risk their taxpayers’ money; they want us to risk Vermonters’ money. That is a $5 million to $10 million risk, and one I am not willing to take.”

A ballot initiative that would have required GMO labels in California was defeated last year after Monsanto and other corporations spent nearly $50 million on ads opposing it. A national GMO-labeling bill was introduced recently in Congress, but it has little to no chance of becoming law.

Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and they’re widely used in processed foods. But shoppers who want to avoid them have no good way of doing so. Requiring food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods would allow people to say “no” to such products.

Big Ag and its supporters resist labeling, likening informational labels to warning stickers on cigarettes and liquor, saying such labels could “alarm” shoppers. Because activists fighting for mandatory labeling often oppose genetic engineering altogether, GMO supporters dismiss their arguments. Take a recent post on the Discover magazine website as an example (the contributor has previously ridiculed GMO-labeling campaigns, but in this post describes himself as ambivalent on the issue):

The “Right to Know” people … say they just want to know what’s in their food. This is a specious argument. The truth is they think there is something harmful about GMOs. Why else would they feel so strongly about labeling genetically modified foods? Yes, the Just Label it Campaign is couched as a consumer rights issue, but really it’s based on fear. Everybody knows this, so pretending otherwise is silly.

That would mean there are a lot of silly people in the world. As the Center for Food Safety points out, 64 countries including China, Russia, and all European Union nations currently have GMO-labeling laws in place. Vermonters could be the first Americans to join the trend.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

A (Very) Brief Benghazi Timeline Recap

by trasze2aja Posted on May 9, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I don’t want to spend too much time diving down the Benghazi rabbit hole again—seriously, I think I’d rather have my big toe cut off—but I do think it’s worthwhile to very briefly recap the three basic phases of Benghazi and what questions we have about them:

The months leading up to the attacks. Should the State Department have approved more security for both the Tripoli embassy and the Benghazi compound? Were they incompetent not to?

Quite possibly. Certainly, the State Department’s own investigation was scathing on this score (“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels…resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place”). But there was nothing new about this in yesterday’s hearing, and certainly no evidence of cover-up or scandal. At worst, it was misjudgment that reflects badly on State’s security operations. At the same time, it’s worth keeping in mind that hindsight is always 20-20. There were also plenty of legitimate resource constraints, budget shortfalls, and deliberate policy choices that contributed to this.

The night of the attacks. Was the military response to the Benghazi attacks incompetent and chaotic? That’s possible, but like everyone else, I’ve read through the timelines and the evidence is thin. Republican investigators have continually dug up examples of things they think the military should have done (scrambled F-16s, dispatched FAST teams, etc.) and in every case the military has explained why they made the decisions they did. Gregory Hicks repeated many of these charges yesterday, and he’s obviously angry about what happened that night. But the fact that he’s angry doesn’t make him right. So far, anyway, the military’s explanations have always struck me as pretty reasonable. They certainly sound as though they understand the military realities better than Hicks and the other Monday morning quarterbacks do.

It’s also worth noting that there was simply no conceivable motive for the military not to respond forcefully to the Benghazi attacks. Maybe there was confusion and maybe there were bad decisions, but nothing more.

The months after the September 11 attacks. Did the Obama administration try to cover up what really happened in Benghazi? This is the deepest rabbit hole of all, and the conspiracy theories have flown faster and thicker than I can keep track of. But after eight months of throwing mud against the walls, nothing has stuck yet. For several days after September 11, the intelligence community said that the attacks were preceded by protests, and that turned out to be wrong. But it was just wrong, not a cover-up. The intelligence community also believed—and still does—that the attacks were essentially opportunistic, not the results of weeks or months of planning. And Susan Rice, in her Sunday interviews, infamously mentioned the role of the “Innocence of Muslims” video that had sparked the Cairo protests earlier that day, and it’s fair to say that she probably put too much emphasis on that. But only a little. There was, and maybe still is, evidence that the video played a supporting role.

And of course there are the notorious talking points, which have been subject to a deconstruction effort that would make Jacques Derrida proud. Did the interagency process sand them down a bit too much before the intelligence community released a public version? Perhaps. Were they wrong not to mention the role of Ansar al-Sharia? Perhaps. Should they have been more forthright about calling the attackers “terrorists” rather than just “extremists”? Perhaps.

But again: At most, this is evidence of misjudgment, not cover-up or scandal. And frankly, there’s not much evidence even of serious misjudgment. Nor any motive for it. The Republican theory has always been that Obama didn’t want to admit terrorist involvement because this would reflect badly on him, but this has never made any sense, either politically or practically. There’s just no there there.

Finally, we did hear one new thing yesterday: Gregory Hicks’ claim that he was demoted after he spoke with congressional investigators and questioned the State Department’s handling of the crisis. If that happened, it was wrong and Hicks is right to be angry about it. But I’d remain cautious about this. Hicks is pretty obviously bitter, but even with only his side of the story available to us, we have very little solid evidence of mistreatment. Was he asked not to speak to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) without a lawyer present? Probably, but that’s pretty normal. Did he do it anyway? Apparently so, and it’s not clear why. Did he get an irritated phone call about it from Hillary Clinton’s top aide? He says he did, but that wouldn’t be surprising, and we have only Hicks’ characterization of the conversation so far. Was he demoted to a desk job in retaliation? Maybe, or it could be a routine, temporary assignment while his superiors wait for something to open up for him.

We don’t have the State Department’s side of this because, of course, it’s a personnel matter and they aren’t allowed to talk about it. So I suppose we’ll have to wait on the inevitable leaks. But I’d be very cautious about swallowing Hicks’ story whole. It simply didn’t strike me as wholly credible. But we’ll see.

Visit site: 

A (Very) Brief Benghazi Timeline Recap

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A (Very) Brief Benghazi Timeline Recap

Youngstown, Ohio, voters on fracking: “Yes, please”

by trasze2aja Posted on May 8, 2013

Youngstown, Ohio, voters on fracking: “Yes, please”

By John Upton

Jason Shenk

On Tuesday, voters in Youngstown, Ohio, gave the fracking industry carte blanche to continue pumping chemicals into the ground beneath them and pumping natural gas out.

A city charter amendment that would have outlawed hydraulic fracturing in the city was rejected by voters, with the unofficial final vote tally showing 3,821 votes against and 2,880 in favor. The ballot measure would also have banned new pipelines in the city and prevented oil-field waste from being transported through the city.

A fracking boom is underway in Ohio, especially in its east, where Youngstown is located. But the boom has not brought with it many jobs for Ohioans, despite promises otherwise, as most of the work is being done by specialists who’ve come in from other states. It has, however, brought with it water pollution problems.

Opposition to the ballot measure was spearheaded by a business-backed group calling itself Mahoning Valley Coalition for Job Growth and Investment. That group was formed especially to defeat the ballot measure, and it easily outspent the measure’s backers. In campaigning, the business group had described the ballot measure as unconstitutional, far-reaching, and unenforceable, and claimed it would send the wrong kind of message to the business community.

From the Youngstown Vindicator:

Susie Beiersdorfer, a member of the Community Bill of Rights Committee that supported the amendment, said, “It’s a sad day for democracy. With the resources we had, it was an incredible effort, but we were outspent by the opponents.”

But this isn’t the end for the committee, many of whom also are members of Frack Free Youngstown.

“We’re going to have to work a little harder the next time,” said Beiersdorfer, who also won the Green Party’s primary Tuesday for Youngstown council president. “We’ll be back. We’ll regroup and figure out what we’re doing. We’re going to continue to fight to protect health and public safety.”

“With tonight’s vote, the people of Youngstown have announced that the city is open for business,” Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber President Tom Humphries said in a statement after the votes were tallied. Mahoning County Democratic Party Chairman David Betras said the results demonstrated “the voters had no sympathy for those who want to hold us back.”

The city is open alright — wide open and ready for the injection of fracking chemicals.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read More – 

Youngstown, Ohio, voters on fracking: “Yes, please”

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Youngstown, Ohio, voters on fracking: “Yes, please”

The Enemy-Industrial Complex

by trasze2aja Posted on April 15, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

The communist enemy, with the “world’s fourth largest military,” has been trundling missiles around and threatening the United States with nuclear obliteration. Guam, Hawaii, Washington: all, it claims, are targetable. The coverage in the media has been hair-raising. The US is rushing an untested missile defense system to Guam, deploying missile-interceptor ships off the South Korean coast, sending “nuclear capable” B-2 Stealth bombers thousands of miles on mock bombing runs, pressuring China, and conducting large-scale war games with its South Korean ally.

Only one small problem: there is as yet little evidence that the enemy with a few nuclear weapons facing off (rhetorically at least) against an American arsenal of 4,650 of them has the ability to miniaturize and mount even one on a missile, no less deliver it accurately, nor does it have a missile capable of reaching Hawaii or Washington, and I wouldn’t count on Guam either.

It also happens to be a desperate country, one possibly without enough fuel to fly a modern air force, whose people, on average, are inches shorter than their southern neighbors thanks to decades of intermittent famine and malnutrition, and who are ruled by a bizarre three-generational family cult. If that other communist, Karl Marx, hadn’t once famously written that history repeats itself “first as tragedy, then as farce,” we would have had to invent the phrase for this very moment.

In the previous century, there were two devastating global wars, which left significant parts of the planet in ruins. There was also a “cold war” between two superpowers locked in a system of mutual assured destruction (aptly acronymed as MAD) whose nuclear arsenals were capable of destroying the planet many times over. Had you woken up any morning in the years between December 7, 1941, and December 26, 1991, and been told that the leading international candidate for America’s Public Enemy Number One was Kim Jong-un’s ramshackle, comic-opera regime in North Korea, you might have gotten down on your hands and knees and sent thanks to pagan gods.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from:  

The Enemy-Industrial Complex

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Enemy-Industrial Complex