So ends the decade. I think the 00's will be remembered by many as the decade that started with a robbery ( The BV$H Presidency) and ended with false hope ( the Obama Presidency). It was a decade as the author of the article @ the title link saw as one where the BIG Corps. have triumphed and have brought us to a world where the only two players left standing are the BIG CORPS. and BIG GOV'T and the two are rapidly merging. I expect this next decade will just be more of the same.
Follow by Email
Thursday, December 31, 2009
LESS THEN ZERO
So ends the decade. I think the 00's will be remembered by many as the decade that started with a robbery ( The BV$H Presidency) and ended with false hope ( the Obama Presidency). It was a decade as the author of the article @ the title link saw as one where the BIG Corps. have triumphed and have brought us to a world where the only two players left standing are the BIG CORPS. and BIG GOV'T and the two are rapidly merging. I expect this next decade will just be more of the same.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
SEA LEVEL RISE QUICKENING ALONG THE JERSEY COAST
@ the title link is a recent study that updates this video done two yrs. ago. A lot of new data on Global sea rise has been ( no pun intended) flooding in lately from all over the globe. Its a pretty bleak assessment of where things are going. If u add to this disaster the rapid acidification of the world's oceans it gets really ugly. Unfortunately, the recent summit on Global Warming in Denmark @ Copehagen was a failure with no real agreements. Its a pretty safe bet that were not going to see the minimal ( 2 ft.) or even the middle range ( 4 ft.) of rise by 2100. Its more likely we'll be seeing something more like 6 to 20 ft. It will vary depending on the particular geology of the coast. NJ will experience particularly rapid and severe effects because not only is the Ocean going to rise but the land is also sinking at almost the same rate as well.
Monday, December 28, 2009
THE BIG ZERO
Paul Krugman
@ the title link is Nobel Prize winning economists and NY Times Columnist Paul Krugman's article summing up how he views the decade that is coming to an end. ( not really it ends next Dec. 31st 2010) I think Paul has it just about right.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Corporatist vs. The Progressives
Miles MogulescuEntertainment attorney
Posted: December 23, 2009 02:32 PM
The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party
(This is the first of a series of blogs/articles that will try to put the growing disappointment of many progressives at President Obama's policies into a wider political and theoretical perspective about the divide in the Democratic Party between progressives and corporatists.)
If Barack Obama and today's Congressional Democrats were passing Social Security for the first time, instead of a creating a public program, they would likely be mandating that every American buy an annuity from a private, profit-driven Wall Street firm like Goldman Sachs (who could keep 15%-20% of their payments for overhead, profits and executive salaries) with the IRS serving as Wall Street's collection agency. If they were passing Medicare today, they would be mandating that every American buy a health insurance policy from profit-driven companies like Aetna, Humana and Wellpoint that would start paying benefits with 40% co-pays and $10,000 a year deductibles when they turn 65.
Therefore, when Senate "liberals" argue that their health "reform" bill, while compromised, is like the first iterations of Social Security and Medicare and provides a "starter home" that can be added to later, many progressives respond that its foundation is built on quicksand and that it's not incremental reform but a step in the fundamentally wrong direction.
Democrats and liberals once stood for providing a social safety net through government programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, which were administered by government employees for the benefit of the American people and not by private companies for the benefit of their shareholders and executives who receive multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. For over 60 years, they stood for the principal that health care should be a right and not a privilege and that Medicare should be extended to all Americans.
Democrats in Congress, under the leadership of Barack Obama, have now turned that principal on its head and made health care neither a right, nor a privilege, but an obligation for individual citizens and a government-mandated profit center for private corporations. For the first time in American history, Democrats are about to pass a bill that uses the coercive power of the federal government to force every American -- simply by virtue of being an American -- to purchase the products of a private company. At heart, the Democrats' solution to 48 million uninsured is to force the them to buy inadequate private insurance -- with potentially high deductibles and co-pays and no price controls -- or be fined by the federal government.
In effect, this represents an historic defeat for the type of liberalism represented by the New Deal and the Great Society and the ascendancy of a new type of corporatist liberalism. As Ed Kilgore recently wrote in an important and provocative article in The New Republic,
"To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, 'New Democrat' movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as 'the Third Way,' which often defended the use of private means for public ends... To put it more bluntly, on a widening range of issues, Obama's critics to the right say he's engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector."
Or as David Brooks wrote in The New York Times earlier this summer,
"[Obama and Clinton] Democrats learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America. Today, whether it is on the stimulus, on health care, or any other issue, the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership go out of their way to court corporate interests, to win corporate support and to at least divide corporate opposition."
The differences between progressive New Deal liberals -- what Howard Dean termed the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- and corporatist liberals or "New Democrats" were largely papered over for the past 8 years by common opposition to the free market absolutism and neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. In terms of health care reform, they were papered over by the hopes of many progressive liberals -- who were willing to give up fighting for Medicare-For-All as politically "impractical" -- of achieving a robust public option as an acceptable compromise in the context of a larger health insurance mandate.
For many of these progressive liberals, the idea of the public option, at least at the beginning, was that it would be so large and successful that it would prove the superiority of government-run health insurance over private profit-driven health insurance and would eventually evolve into a single payer system. They watched, with increasing concern, as a large and robust public option was first turned by House Democrats into a small and puny public option that would insure only a handful of Americans and provide little competition to private insurers, and then as the public option was dumped entirely by Senate Democrats, with no help by President Obama to defend it.
And as they have seen the end result of the Democratic Senate's health care bill, progressives have started to get angry. Stripped of the public option, progressives could now look through the Democratic health care bill to its essence: the permanent entrenchment of the corrupt private health insurance corporation as the nexus of the American health care system; the authoritarian liberal solution of solving the problem of the uninsured by using the coercive power of the federal government to force citizens to buy inadequate private insurance sold by oligopolies with their profits subsidized by taxpayer dollars; and the increased political power of the of the private health care industry into the indefinite future, fueled by government money that can then be used to lobby the government for more private benefits.
As a result, the past two weeks have seen a revolt from much of the progressive base of the Democratic Party, articulated by people like Howard Dean, Marcos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and by organizations like MoveOn, The AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Progressive Democrats of America. The ideological fault line between progressive Democrats and corporatist "New Democrats" has split wide open.
Obama campaigned, at least on the level of political imagery, as a progressive liberal. His campaign slogan was "Yes We Can", taken directly from the '60's era slogan of Cesar Chavez and The United Farm Workers Union, "Si Se Puede". He evoked the imagery of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. He talked about overthrowing the influence of special interests and lobbyists and transforming the way Washington does business. He promised transformative "Change" (although, as some critics pointed out at the time, he left the direction of "Change" so vague that voters of various stripes could read what they wanted into it). That's why a majority of progressive Democrats supported Obama over Hillary Clinton in the primaries, particularly after the more populist John Edwards withdrew. They didn't want to see a return to the centrism, corporatism, and triangulation of Clintonism.
But from the moment he was elected, Obama has governed not as a progressive liberal but as a corporatist liberal. Progressive liberals hoped Obama would be like FDR. Instead, he's been like Bill Clinton on steroids.
Obama's economic advisors, such as Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, were all drawn from the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. His foreign policy advisors were all liberal hawks like Hillary Clinton or even Bush administration veterans like Robert Gates. From day one, Obama continued Wall Street Republican Hank Paulson's financial policies of throwing money at the banks while demanding next to nothing in return in terms of making credit available to average Americans and small businesses or creating new jobs.
When it came to health care "reform", Obama's strategy was to cut deals with for-profit health care corporations. He cut a deal with big Pharma to continue banning Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices and to continue banning consumers from buying cheaper drugs from Canada. He cut a deal with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no effective national public option that might pay them lower rates that the for-profit insurance oligopoly. While he gave mild rhetorical support to the public option, he did nothing to actually fight for it , and, as Russ Feingold has pointed out, Joe Lieberman was really doing Obama's work in killing it.
Because of Obama's rhetorical and imaging skills, it has taken until the past week or two, with the death of the public option, for progressives to begin to wonder whether Obama was really their friend. And what's most remarkable, by teasing them with the hopes of a public option, he's so far held onto the vote of virtually every Congressional liberal for an essentially authoritarian corporatist health care bill.
So total has been Obama's success to date in defeating the progressive Democrats and enshrining the corporatist New Democrats, that even progressive talk radio veteran Al Franken and the closest thing to a European-style social democrat to hold national political office, Bernie Sanders, are not only voting for -- but are talking up the virtues of -- the Senate health "reform" bill. Although nearly 60 members of the House Progressive Caucus signed a letter promising to vote against a health care bill doesn't have a robust public option, unless, to everyone's surprise, there's a big enough revolt over the Christmas holidays among large progressive groups like the AFL-CIO (who's money and volunteers many Democratic Congresspeople need to get reelected), virtually all of those House Progressives will end up breaking their pledge and voting for a final Congressional Conference bill with no public option, a coercive mandate, and a tax on the "Chevy" health care benefits of union workers.
Only an African American President cloaked in the rhetoric and imagery of progressive change could have pulled off such a rout of progressives and such a virtually unanimous victory for the corporatists in the Democratic Party. The Clintons could never have pulled it off.
That helps explain why many progressive Democrats -- myself included -- are increasingly in a state of anger and despair. If after millions of progressives worked so hard to elect Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, the result is an almost total defeat of progressives in the Democratic Party -- or at least in the Congressional Democratic Party -- where do progressives turn? A progressive primary challenge to Democratic incumbents in 2010, or even to Obama's reelection in 2012, is probably futile and counterproductive. At the same time, as the 2000 Nader campaign so aptly demonstrated, the winner-take-all American electoral system makes the formation of a third party equally futile.
Historically, strong popular movements, like the labor movement and the civil rights movement, have pressured elected corporate Democrats to enact a measure of progressive change. And, as progressives come to understand the corporatist nature of Obamism, perhaps the best hope is that progressive organizations will be less anxious to be extensions of the White House and return to grassroots organizing. The question is whether Obama -- the one-time community organizer -- is susceptible to pressure from mass grassroots organizations. If not, the country, as well as Democrats and progressives, may be in for a hard time.
As it increasingly appears that Obama is the President of Wall Street, and not the President of Main Street, he is losing not only the left but the center. It's a myth that the path to winning the popular center in American politics is moving to the corporate center. If the only political choice given to American voters is using their taxes to help big government subsidize wealthy corporations, or the Republican message of shrinking the size of government and cutting their taxes, many who voted for Obama will return to the fold of the seemingly brain-dead Republican Party. Obama will likely face an even more conservative Congress after the 2010 election and even, like Jimmy Carter, could end up as a one-term President.
The hopes of millions of Obama campaign workers and voters that the Age of Obama would sweep in a new era of progressive change could be dashed. A generation of young voters could be turned off to politics instead of becoming permanent Democrats.
Let's hope, that with the defeat of the public option at Obama's hands, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party wakes up and begins to realize that it has a fight on its hand against the corporatist Democrats, and that Obama might not be its natural ally.
As Kevin Baker wrote in Harpers Magazine last spring, warning of the dangers of a failed Obama Presidency,
"Obama internalized what might be called Clinton's 'business liberalism' as an alternative to useless battles from another time...Clinton's business liberalism, however, is a chimera...a capitulation to powerful and selfish interest. ..a 'pragmatism that is not really pragmatism at all, just surrender to the usual corporate interests...
Franklin Roosevelt also took office imagining that he could bring all classes of Americans together in some big, mushy, cooperative scheme. Quickly disabused of this notion, he threw himself into the bumptious give-and-take of practical politics; lying, deceiving, manipulating, arraying one group after another on his side--a transit encapsulated by how, at the end of his first term, his outraged opponents were calling him a "traitor to his class" and he was gleefully inveighing against "economic royalists" and announcing, 'They are unanimous in their hatred for me--and I welcome their hatred.'
Obama should not deceive himself into thinking that such interest-group politics can be banished any more than can the cycles of Walls Street. It is not too late for him to change direction and seize the radical moment at hand. But for the moment... Barack Obama is moving prudently, carefully, reasonably toward disaster."
That was spring. Now it's the winter of our discontent. The moment for Obama to "change direction and seize the radical moment at hand" is fast receding. Will he continue to move "prudently, carefully, reasonably towards disaster?" If not, I worry for the future not only of progressives and Democrats, but of the country. President Palin in 2012?
Posted: December 23, 2009 02:32 PM
The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party
(This is the first of a series of blogs/articles that will try to put the growing disappointment of many progressives at President Obama's policies into a wider political and theoretical perspective about the divide in the Democratic Party between progressives and corporatists.)
If Barack Obama and today's Congressional Democrats were passing Social Security for the first time, instead of a creating a public program, they would likely be mandating that every American buy an annuity from a private, profit-driven Wall Street firm like Goldman Sachs (who could keep 15%-20% of their payments for overhead, profits and executive salaries) with the IRS serving as Wall Street's collection agency. If they were passing Medicare today, they would be mandating that every American buy a health insurance policy from profit-driven companies like Aetna, Humana and Wellpoint that would start paying benefits with 40% co-pays and $10,000 a year deductibles when they turn 65.
Therefore, when Senate "liberals" argue that their health "reform" bill, while compromised, is like the first iterations of Social Security and Medicare and provides a "starter home" that can be added to later, many progressives respond that its foundation is built on quicksand and that it's not incremental reform but a step in the fundamentally wrong direction.
Democrats and liberals once stood for providing a social safety net through government programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, which were administered by government employees for the benefit of the American people and not by private companies for the benefit of their shareholders and executives who receive multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. For over 60 years, they stood for the principal that health care should be a right and not a privilege and that Medicare should be extended to all Americans.
Democrats in Congress, under the leadership of Barack Obama, have now turned that principal on its head and made health care neither a right, nor a privilege, but an obligation for individual citizens and a government-mandated profit center for private corporations. For the first time in American history, Democrats are about to pass a bill that uses the coercive power of the federal government to force every American -- simply by virtue of being an American -- to purchase the products of a private company. At heart, the Democrats' solution to 48 million uninsured is to force the them to buy inadequate private insurance -- with potentially high deductibles and co-pays and no price controls -- or be fined by the federal government.
In effect, this represents an historic defeat for the type of liberalism represented by the New Deal and the Great Society and the ascendancy of a new type of corporatist liberalism. As Ed Kilgore recently wrote in an important and provocative article in The New Republic,
"To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, 'New Democrat' movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as 'the Third Way,' which often defended the use of private means for public ends... To put it more bluntly, on a widening range of issues, Obama's critics to the right say he's engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector."
Or as David Brooks wrote in The New York Times earlier this summer,
"[Obama and Clinton] Democrats learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America. Today, whether it is on the stimulus, on health care, or any other issue, the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership go out of their way to court corporate interests, to win corporate support and to at least divide corporate opposition."
The differences between progressive New Deal liberals -- what Howard Dean termed the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- and corporatist liberals or "New Democrats" were largely papered over for the past 8 years by common opposition to the free market absolutism and neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. In terms of health care reform, they were papered over by the hopes of many progressive liberals -- who were willing to give up fighting for Medicare-For-All as politically "impractical" -- of achieving a robust public option as an acceptable compromise in the context of a larger health insurance mandate.
For many of these progressive liberals, the idea of the public option, at least at the beginning, was that it would be so large and successful that it would prove the superiority of government-run health insurance over private profit-driven health insurance and would eventually evolve into a single payer system. They watched, with increasing concern, as a large and robust public option was first turned by House Democrats into a small and puny public option that would insure only a handful of Americans and provide little competition to private insurers, and then as the public option was dumped entirely by Senate Democrats, with no help by President Obama to defend it.
And as they have seen the end result of the Democratic Senate's health care bill, progressives have started to get angry. Stripped of the public option, progressives could now look through the Democratic health care bill to its essence: the permanent entrenchment of the corrupt private health insurance corporation as the nexus of the American health care system; the authoritarian liberal solution of solving the problem of the uninsured by using the coercive power of the federal government to force citizens to buy inadequate private insurance sold by oligopolies with their profits subsidized by taxpayer dollars; and the increased political power of the of the private health care industry into the indefinite future, fueled by government money that can then be used to lobby the government for more private benefits.
As a result, the past two weeks have seen a revolt from much of the progressive base of the Democratic Party, articulated by people like Howard Dean, Marcos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and by organizations like MoveOn, The AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Progressive Democrats of America. The ideological fault line between progressive Democrats and corporatist "New Democrats" has split wide open.
Obama campaigned, at least on the level of political imagery, as a progressive liberal. His campaign slogan was "Yes We Can", taken directly from the '60's era slogan of Cesar Chavez and The United Farm Workers Union, "Si Se Puede". He evoked the imagery of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. He talked about overthrowing the influence of special interests and lobbyists and transforming the way Washington does business. He promised transformative "Change" (although, as some critics pointed out at the time, he left the direction of "Change" so vague that voters of various stripes could read what they wanted into it). That's why a majority of progressive Democrats supported Obama over Hillary Clinton in the primaries, particularly after the more populist John Edwards withdrew. They didn't want to see a return to the centrism, corporatism, and triangulation of Clintonism.
But from the moment he was elected, Obama has governed not as a progressive liberal but as a corporatist liberal. Progressive liberals hoped Obama would be like FDR. Instead, he's been like Bill Clinton on steroids.
Obama's economic advisors, such as Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, were all drawn from the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. His foreign policy advisors were all liberal hawks like Hillary Clinton or even Bush administration veterans like Robert Gates. From day one, Obama continued Wall Street Republican Hank Paulson's financial policies of throwing money at the banks while demanding next to nothing in return in terms of making credit available to average Americans and small businesses or creating new jobs.
When it came to health care "reform", Obama's strategy was to cut deals with for-profit health care corporations. He cut a deal with big Pharma to continue banning Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices and to continue banning consumers from buying cheaper drugs from Canada. He cut a deal with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no effective national public option that might pay them lower rates that the for-profit insurance oligopoly. While he gave mild rhetorical support to the public option, he did nothing to actually fight for it , and, as Russ Feingold has pointed out, Joe Lieberman was really doing Obama's work in killing it.
Because of Obama's rhetorical and imaging skills, it has taken until the past week or two, with the death of the public option, for progressives to begin to wonder whether Obama was really their friend. And what's most remarkable, by teasing them with the hopes of a public option, he's so far held onto the vote of virtually every Congressional liberal for an essentially authoritarian corporatist health care bill.
So total has been Obama's success to date in defeating the progressive Democrats and enshrining the corporatist New Democrats, that even progressive talk radio veteran Al Franken and the closest thing to a European-style social democrat to hold national political office, Bernie Sanders, are not only voting for -- but are talking up the virtues of -- the Senate health "reform" bill. Although nearly 60 members of the House Progressive Caucus signed a letter promising to vote against a health care bill doesn't have a robust public option, unless, to everyone's surprise, there's a big enough revolt over the Christmas holidays among large progressive groups like the AFL-CIO (who's money and volunteers many Democratic Congresspeople need to get reelected), virtually all of those House Progressives will end up breaking their pledge and voting for a final Congressional Conference bill with no public option, a coercive mandate, and a tax on the "Chevy" health care benefits of union workers.
Only an African American President cloaked in the rhetoric and imagery of progressive change could have pulled off such a rout of progressives and such a virtually unanimous victory for the corporatists in the Democratic Party. The Clintons could never have pulled it off.
That helps explain why many progressive Democrats -- myself included -- are increasingly in a state of anger and despair. If after millions of progressives worked so hard to elect Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, the result is an almost total defeat of progressives in the Democratic Party -- or at least in the Congressional Democratic Party -- where do progressives turn? A progressive primary challenge to Democratic incumbents in 2010, or even to Obama's reelection in 2012, is probably futile and counterproductive. At the same time, as the 2000 Nader campaign so aptly demonstrated, the winner-take-all American electoral system makes the formation of a third party equally futile.
Historically, strong popular movements, like the labor movement and the civil rights movement, have pressured elected corporate Democrats to enact a measure of progressive change. And, as progressives come to understand the corporatist nature of Obamism, perhaps the best hope is that progressive organizations will be less anxious to be extensions of the White House and return to grassroots organizing. The question is whether Obama -- the one-time community organizer -- is susceptible to pressure from mass grassroots organizations. If not, the country, as well as Democrats and progressives, may be in for a hard time.
As it increasingly appears that Obama is the President of Wall Street, and not the President of Main Street, he is losing not only the left but the center. It's a myth that the path to winning the popular center in American politics is moving to the corporate center. If the only political choice given to American voters is using their taxes to help big government subsidize wealthy corporations, or the Republican message of shrinking the size of government and cutting their taxes, many who voted for Obama will return to the fold of the seemingly brain-dead Republican Party. Obama will likely face an even more conservative Congress after the 2010 election and even, like Jimmy Carter, could end up as a one-term President.
The hopes of millions of Obama campaign workers and voters that the Age of Obama would sweep in a new era of progressive change could be dashed. A generation of young voters could be turned off to politics instead of becoming permanent Democrats.
Let's hope, that with the defeat of the public option at Obama's hands, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party wakes up and begins to realize that it has a fight on its hand against the corporatist Democrats, and that Obama might not be its natural ally.
As Kevin Baker wrote in Harpers Magazine last spring, warning of the dangers of a failed Obama Presidency,
"Obama internalized what might be called Clinton's 'business liberalism' as an alternative to useless battles from another time...Clinton's business liberalism, however, is a chimera...a capitulation to powerful and selfish interest. ..a 'pragmatism that is not really pragmatism at all, just surrender to the usual corporate interests...
Franklin Roosevelt also took office imagining that he could bring all classes of Americans together in some big, mushy, cooperative scheme. Quickly disabused of this notion, he threw himself into the bumptious give-and-take of practical politics; lying, deceiving, manipulating, arraying one group after another on his side--a transit encapsulated by how, at the end of his first term, his outraged opponents were calling him a "traitor to his class" and he was gleefully inveighing against "economic royalists" and announcing, 'They are unanimous in their hatred for me--and I welcome their hatred.'
Obama should not deceive himself into thinking that such interest-group politics can be banished any more than can the cycles of Walls Street. It is not too late for him to change direction and seize the radical moment at hand. But for the moment... Barack Obama is moving prudently, carefully, reasonably toward disaster."
That was spring. Now it's the winter of our discontent. The moment for Obama to "change direction and seize the radical moment at hand" is fast receding. Will he continue to move "prudently, carefully, reasonably towards disaster?" If not, I worry for the future not only of progressives and Democrats, but of the country. President Palin in 2012?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
RULING COULD KILL BEACH PROJECTS IN NJ?
@ the title link is an alarmist article in the Philly Enquirer. The writer might as well have said Ruling is the end of the World. The first thing they teach u in journalism school these days is how to take a basically boring story and turn it into a tragedy or at least a drama. Anyway, this particuliar story has been all over the local newspapers the last couple of weeks and each reporter manages to get it wrong at the same time demonizing the home owners on the way.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
LEADERSHIP OBAMA STYLE
Great article @ the title link about Obama's leadership style. ( or is that lack there of?)
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Debate about Beach Access and Public Beach Projects Goes On
@ the title link an interesting story at APP.com about beach access and publically funded Beach projects. It seems more and more towns want the big Federal beach projects but don't want to allow access to areas that have mostly private beaches. Hey, whats the pt. of having the 5 mil. beach front home if the peasants are allowed to sit in front of it. The way these folks see it the peasants can pay to keep the beach nice and wide thats about it. Plus, they should consider it an honor.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
THE BIG FALL SNOW STORM !
The order of the day from North Carolina to Maine
It's over! Or is it just beginning? This was the seasons 5th major Nor-easter the big difference was the Arctic air in place on the east coast. The ocean also is still warm and full of energy so this storm had a double wallop. The beaches up and down the coast are taking a beating and the winter hasn't even officially started.
A Bonanza for K Street!
Mr. Marlowe must be placing that down payment on his Hawaiian vacation home as I write. The DC "sand lobby" he heads will be working hard all winter to, LOL protect you. Working hard shoveling huge amounts of taxpayer $$ into their own bank accounts I mean.
Local Pics!
Here's some local pics of my yard, house buried under 18" of the white stuff. Walked to the beach a few mins. ago and it's nice down on the boards and beach BIG surf and its cold brrrrrrr! Winter starts tomorrow, but it sure feels like it got here early. The irony of all this is this fall has been one of the warmest on record around here.
Friday, December 18, 2009
GREENWALD HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK AGAIN!
Glenn Greenwald hits another one out of the park. Read his article @ the title link. Another in the ongoing series on Health care reform but one that reaches even deeper and I think to what the core of this and many other ongoing political controversies are really about today. Glenn Greenwald like myself is a true radical ( getting to the root) of the issue. Take a few mins. and read his post today its really insightful.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
KEITH O- SPECIAL COMMENT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
Published on Thursday, December 17, 2009 by Countdown With Keith Olbermann
Special Comment: Ruined Senate Bill Unsupportable
Conservatives have destroyed this version of health care reform
Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the latest version of H-R 35-90, the Senate Health Care Reform bill. To again quote Churchill after Munich, as I did six nights ago on this program: "I will begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing: that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, without a war."
Last night on this program Howard Dean said that with the appeasement of Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut by the abandonment of the Medicare Buy-in, he could no longer support H-R 35-90. Dr. Dean's argument is informed, cogent, heart breaking, and unanswerable.
Seeking the least common denominator, Sen. Reid has found it, especially the "least" part. This is not health, this is not care, this is certainly not reform. I bless the Sherrod Browns and Ron Wydens and Jay Rockefellers and Sheldon Whitehouses and Anthony Weiners and all the others who have fought for real reform and I bleed for the pain inflicted upon them and their hopes. They have done their jobs and served their nation.
But through circumstances beyond their control, they are now seeking to reanimate a corpse killed by the Republicans, and by a political game played in the Senate and in the White House by men and women who have now proved themselves poorly equipped for the fight. The "men" of the current moment, have lost to the "mice" of history.
They must now not make the defeat worse by passing a hollow shell of a bill just for the sake of a big-stage signing ceremony. This bill, slowly bled to death by the political equivalent of the leeches that were once thought state-of-the-art-medicine, is now little more than a series of microscopically minor tweaks of a system which is the real-life, here-and-now version, of the malarkey of the Town Hallers. The American Insurance Cartel is the Death Panel, and this Senate bill does nothing to destroy it. Nor even to satiate it.
It merely decrees that our underprivileged, our sick, our elderly, our middle class, can be fed into it, as human sacrifices to the great maw of corporate voraciousness, at a profit per victim of 10 cents on the dollar instead of the current 20. Even before the support columns of reform were knocked down, one by one, with the kind of passive defense that would embarrass a touch-football player - single-payer, the public option, the Medicare Buy-In - before they vanished, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the part of this bill that would require you to buy insurance unless you could prove you could not afford it, would cost a family of four with a household income of 54-thousand dollars a year, 17 percent of that income. Nine thousand dollars a year. Just for the insurance!
That was with a public option. That was with some kind of check on the insurance companies. That was before — as Howard Dean pointed out — the revelation that the cartel will still be able to charge older people more than others; will — at the least — now be able to charge much more, maybe 50 percent more, for people with pre-existing conditions — pre-existing conditions; you know, like being alive.
You have just agreed to purchase a product. If you do not, you will be breaking the law and subject to a fine. You have no control over how much you will pay for the product. The government will have virtually no control over how much the company will charge for the product. The product is designed like the Monty Python sketch about the insurance company's "Never-Pay" policy ... "which, you know, if you never claim — is very worthwhile. But you had to claim, and, well, there it is."
And who do we have to blame for this? There are enough villains to go around, men and women who, in a just world, would be the next to get sick and have to sell their homes or their memories or their futures — just to keep themselves alive, just to keep their children alive, against the implacable enemy of American society, the insurance cartel. Mr. Grassley of Iowa has lied, and fomented panic and fear. Mr. DeMint of South Carolina has forgotten he represents people, and not just a political party. Mr. Baucus of Montana has operated as a virtual agent for the industry he is charged with regulating. Mr. Nelson of Nebraska has not only derailed reform, he has tried to exploit it to overturn a Supreme Court decision that, in this context, is frankly none of his goddamned business.
They say they have done what they have done for the most important, the most fiscally prudent, the most gloriously phrased, the most inescapable of reasons. But mostly they have done it for the money. Lots and lots of money from the insurance companies and the pharmacological companies and the other health care companies who have slowly taken this country over.
Which brings us to Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut, the one man at the center of this farcical perversion of what a government is supposed to be. Out of pique, out of revenge, out of betrayal of his earlier wiser saner self, he has sold untold hundreds of thousands of us into pain and fear and privation and slavery — for money. He has been bought and sold by the insurance lobby. He has become a Senatorial prostitute. And sadly, the President has not provided the leadership his office demands.
He has badly misjudged the country's mood at all ends of the spectrum. There is no middle to coalesce here, Sir. There are only the uninformed, the bought-off, and the vast suffering majority for whom the urgency of now is a call from a collection agency or a threat of rescission of policy or a warning of expiration of services.
Sir, your hands-off approach, while nobly intended and perhaps yet some day applicable to the reality of an improved version of our nation, enabled the national humiliation that was the Town Halls and the insufferable Neanderthalian stupidity of Congressman Wilson and the street-walking of Mr. Lieberman.
Instead of continuing this snipe-hunt for the endangered and possibly extinct creature "bipartisanship," you need to push the Republicans around or cut them out or both. You need to threaten Democrats like Baucus and the others with the ends of their careers in the party. Instead, those Democrats have threatened you, and the Republicans have pushed you and cut you out.
Mr. President, the line between "compromise" and "compromised" is an incredibly fine one. Any reform bill enrages the right, and provides it with the war cry around which it will rally its mindless legions in the midterms and in '12. But this Republican knee-jerk inflexibility provides an incredible opportunity to you, Sir, and an incredible license.
On April 6th 2003, I was approached by two drunken young men at a baseball game. One of them started to ask for an autograph. The other stopped him by shouting "Screw him, he's a liberal." This program had been on the air for three weeks. It had to that point consisted entirely of brief introductions to correspondents in Iraq or to military analysts. There had been no criticism, no political analysis, no commentary. I had not covered news full-time for more than four years. I could not fathom on what factual basis, I was being called a "liberal," let alone being sworn at for being such.
Last night on this program Howard Dean said that with the appeasement of Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut by the abandonment of the Medicare Buy-in, he could no longer support H-R 35-90. Dr. Dean's argument is informed, cogent, heart breaking, and unanswerable.
Seeking the least common denominator, Sen. Reid has found it, especially the "least" part. This is not health, this is not care, this is certainly not reform. I bless the Sherrod Browns and Ron Wydens and Jay Rockefellers and Sheldon Whitehouses and Anthony Weiners and all the others who have fought for real reform and I bleed for the pain inflicted upon them and their hopes. They have done their jobs and served their nation.
But through circumstances beyond their control, they are now seeking to reanimate a corpse killed by the Republicans, and by a political game played in the Senate and in the White House by men and women who have now proved themselves poorly equipped for the fight. The "men" of the current moment, have lost to the "mice" of history.
They must now not make the defeat worse by passing a hollow shell of a bill just for the sake of a big-stage signing ceremony. This bill, slowly bled to death by the political equivalent of the leeches that were once thought state-of-the-art-medicine, is now little more than a series of microscopically minor tweaks of a system which is the real-life, here-and-now version, of the malarkey of the Town Hallers. The American Insurance Cartel is the Death Panel, and this Senate bill does nothing to destroy it. Nor even to satiate it.
It merely decrees that our underprivileged, our sick, our elderly, our middle class, can be fed into it, as human sacrifices to the great maw of corporate voraciousness, at a profit per victim of 10 cents on the dollar instead of the current 20. Even before the support columns of reform were knocked down, one by one, with the kind of passive defense that would embarrass a touch-football player - single-payer, the public option, the Medicare Buy-In - before they vanished, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the part of this bill that would require you to buy insurance unless you could prove you could not afford it, would cost a family of four with a household income of 54-thousand dollars a year, 17 percent of that income. Nine thousand dollars a year. Just for the insurance!
That was with a public option. That was with some kind of check on the insurance companies. That was before — as Howard Dean pointed out — the revelation that the cartel will still be able to charge older people more than others; will — at the least — now be able to charge much more, maybe 50 percent more, for people with pre-existing conditions — pre-existing conditions; you know, like being alive.
You have just agreed to purchase a product. If you do not, you will be breaking the law and subject to a fine. You have no control over how much you will pay for the product. The government will have virtually no control over how much the company will charge for the product. The product is designed like the Monty Python sketch about the insurance company's "Never-Pay" policy ... "which, you know, if you never claim — is very worthwhile. But you had to claim, and, well, there it is."
And who do we have to blame for this? There are enough villains to go around, men and women who, in a just world, would be the next to get sick and have to sell their homes or their memories or their futures — just to keep themselves alive, just to keep their children alive, against the implacable enemy of American society, the insurance cartel. Mr. Grassley of Iowa has lied, and fomented panic and fear. Mr. DeMint of South Carolina has forgotten he represents people, and not just a political party. Mr. Baucus of Montana has operated as a virtual agent for the industry he is charged with regulating. Mr. Nelson of Nebraska has not only derailed reform, he has tried to exploit it to overturn a Supreme Court decision that, in this context, is frankly none of his goddamned business.
They say they have done what they have done for the most important, the most fiscally prudent, the most gloriously phrased, the most inescapable of reasons. But mostly they have done it for the money. Lots and lots of money from the insurance companies and the pharmacological companies and the other health care companies who have slowly taken this country over.
Which brings us to Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut, the one man at the center of this farcical perversion of what a government is supposed to be. Out of pique, out of revenge, out of betrayal of his earlier wiser saner self, he has sold untold hundreds of thousands of us into pain and fear and privation and slavery — for money. He has been bought and sold by the insurance lobby. He has become a Senatorial prostitute. And sadly, the President has not provided the leadership his office demands.
He has badly misjudged the country's mood at all ends of the spectrum. There is no middle to coalesce here, Sir. There are only the uninformed, the bought-off, and the vast suffering majority for whom the urgency of now is a call from a collection agency or a threat of rescission of policy or a warning of expiration of services.
Sir, your hands-off approach, while nobly intended and perhaps yet some day applicable to the reality of an improved version of our nation, enabled the national humiliation that was the Town Halls and the insufferable Neanderthalian stupidity of Congressman Wilson and the street-walking of Mr. Lieberman.
Instead of continuing this snipe-hunt for the endangered and possibly extinct creature "bipartisanship," you need to push the Republicans around or cut them out or both. You need to threaten Democrats like Baucus and the others with the ends of their careers in the party. Instead, those Democrats have threatened you, and the Republicans have pushed you and cut you out.
Mr. President, the line between "compromise" and "compromised" is an incredibly fine one. Any reform bill enrages the right, and provides it with the war cry around which it will rally its mindless legions in the midterms and in '12. But this Republican knee-jerk inflexibility provides an incredible opportunity to you, Sir, and an incredible license.
On April 6th 2003, I was approached by two drunken young men at a baseball game. One of them started to ask for an autograph. The other stopped him by shouting "Screw him, he's a liberal." This program had been on the air for three weeks. It had to that point consisted entirely of brief introductions to correspondents in Iraq or to military analysts. There had been no criticism, no political analysis, no commentary. I had not covered news full-time for more than four years. I could not fathom on what factual basis, I was being called a "liberal," let alone being sworn at for being such.
Only later did it dawn on me that it didn't matter why, and it didn't matter that they were doing it — it only mattered that if I was going to be mindlessly criticized for anything, the reaction would be identical whether I did nothing that engendered it, or stood for something that engendered it.
Mr. President, they are calling you a socialist, a communist, a Marxist. You could be further to the right than Reagan - and this health care bill, as Howard Dean put it here last night, this bailout for the insurance industry, sure invites the comparison. And they will still call you names.
Sir, if they are going to call you a socialist no matter what you do, you have been given full unfettered freedom to do what you know is just. The bill may be the ultimate political manifesto, or it may be the most delicate of compromises. The firestorm will be the same. So why not give the haters, as the cliché goes, something to cry about.
But concomitant with that is the reaction from Democrats and Independents. You have riven them, Sir. Any bill will engender criticism but this bill costs you the left — and anybody who now has to pony up 17 percent of his family's income to buy this equivalent of Medical Mobster Protection Money.
Some speaking for you, Sir, have called the public option a fetish. They may be right. But to stay with this uncomfortable language, this bill is less fetish, more bondage. Nothing short of your re-election and the re-election of dozens of Democrats in the house and senate, hinges in large part on this bill. Make it palatable or make it go away or make yourself ready — not merely for a horrifying campaign in 2012 — but for the distinct possibility also of a primary challenge.
Befitting the season, Sir, these are not the shadows of the things that will be, but the shadows of the things that may be. But at this point, Mr. President, only you can make certain of that. There is only one redemption possible. The mandate in this bill under which we are required to buy insurance must be stripped out.
The bill now is little more than a legally mandated delivery of the middle class (and those whose dreams of joining it slip ever further away) into a kind of Chicago stockyards of insurance. Make enough money to take care of yourself and your family and you must buy insurance — on the insurers terms — or face a fine.
This provision must go. It is, above all else, immoral and a betrayal of the people who elected you, Sir. You must now announce that you will veto any bill lacking an option or buy-in, but containing a mandate.
And Sen. Reid, put the public option back in, or the Medicare Buy-In, or both. Or single-payer. Let Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Baucus and the Republicans vote their lack-of-conscience and preclude 60 "ayes." Let them commit political suicide instead of you.
Let Mr. Lieberman kill the bill — then turn to his Republican friends only to find out they hate him more than the Democrats do. Let him stagger off the public stage, to go work for the insurance industry. As if he is not doing that now.
Then, Mr. Reid, take every worthwhile provision of health care reform you legally can, and pass it via reconciliation, when ever and how ever you can — and by the way, a Medicare Buy-In can be legally passed via reconciliation. The Senate bill with the mandate must be defeated, if not in the Senate, then in the House.
Health care reform that benefits the industry at the cost of the people is intolerable and there are no moral constructs in which it can be supported. And if still the bill and this heinous mandate become law there is yet further reaction required. I call on all those whose conscience urges them to fight, to use the only weapon that will be left to us if this bill becomes law. We must not buy federally mandated insurance if this cheesy counterfeit of reform is all we can buy.
No single payer? No sale. No public option? No sale. No Medicare buy-in? No sale. I am one of the self-insured, albeit by choice. And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health care reform. Pass this at your peril, Senators, and sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a lawbreaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must.
But if the Medicare Buy-In goes, but the Mandate stays, the people who fought so hard and so sincerely to bring sanity to this system must kill this mutated version of their dream, because those elected by us to act for us have forgotten what must be the golden rule of health care reform. It is the same one to which physicians are bound, by oath: First do no harm.
© 2009 msnbc.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Healthcare Updater: The Stab in the back!
Good article by Glenn Greenwald @ the title link. As the so called Health Care Reform fiasco winds down it's now pretty obvious that far from being an agent of progressive change Obama and his admin. are really Corp and Neo-con shills. If this disaster masquerading as Health care reform is passed millions of Americans will find themselves for the 1st time being FORCED by Law to buy private health Ins. or else Uncle sends you a bill. This policy is anthema to everything most Americans believe in Liberal or Conservative I predict the backlash will possibly hand Congress back to the Palinites and the other mouth breathers of the right. Leave it to the Dimocrats to squander a mandate for Change with this stupid Corp. giveaway. among so many others . In one yr. Obama has gone from a beacon of hope to what he really is.. just another Big Corp / Big Gov't shill. Welcome to the Liberal version of Fascism ( AKA Corporatism).
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
THE GEO-TUBE
THE GEO-TUBE
So, You say your beach Replenishment project isn't working? Then try to the Geo-tube ! Oh, it doesn't work any better, but what the hell it makes some contractor very wealthy anyway and thats whats important isn't it? The Geo-tube is nothing more then a fabric tube filled with sand. It's just another kind of sea wall and once the beach is gone in front of it this thing undermines and falls into the sea. Its cheaper then a wood sea wall or a stone wall is the only reason why its used. Hell, whats a few hundred million more for what are essentially fancy carbon fiber laced sand bags. Its all someone else's $$ right and rich people's vacation homes certainly deserve to be endlessly protected right? Its the hula hoop of coastal engineering!!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
HEALTH CARE UPDATER:
@ the title link an excellent review of the ongoing train wreck that is now being called Health Care Reform for some reason?
Friday, December 11, 2009
SCIENCE FRI: - OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Eminent Domain @ the Beach
Harvey Cedars beach front view this fall
@ the title link is a classic story that brings together two interesting topics we cover here often. Many mostly wealthy beach front owners are now demanding and winning substantial settlements for what they claim are "takings" that usually involve either Army Corp beach projects or easements for access to these Projects and the public beach.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
CLIMATEGATE
Published on Tuesday, December 8, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
by Richard Graves
Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine.
The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks.
One leaked archive could have been the result of an aggrieved staff member or rogue hacker, out to grind a political axe or wreak revenge upon a colleague. However, the University of Victoria was targeted in a similar attack, when two people disguised as network computer technicians attempted to penetrate the security of the facility and access the data servers of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals fled the scene. The network penetration effort was confirmed by University spokespeople in the National Post and was reported by Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.
"This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data," said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. "We don't know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police."
This campaign has been proved to be international in scope, with criminal acts of breaking and entering probable in both the UK and Canada, as well as coordinated with the sophisticated communications infrastructure founded and built by former tobacco lobbyists that were hired by fossil fuel interests, such as ExxonMobil, to cast doubt on the links between the sale and use of fossil fuels and the changing of the world's climate. This infrastructure was detailed by within Hoggan's book, as well as documented in extensive detail by projects like Exxonsecrets.org.
One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. Perhaps a little history is in order, as almost no news reports even referenced the fact that the Watergate scandal centered around the breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel, by a group of right-wing shadow operatives that a subsequent investigation by the FBI connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President, CREEP.
President Nixon was exposed as having commissioned the break-in, to uncover the state of the Democratic party, as he had given into fears of electoral defeat and resorted to desperate and criminal measures. Pioneering reporters Woodward and Bernstein made history for exposing the criminal conspiracy at the heart of the White House.
Conspiracy theory has recently become mainstream within the conservative movement in the United States, with both media figures and politicians implying that President Obama falsified his birth records, is setting up death panels to euthanize seniors, or impose communism upon the people of the United States.
The two policy issues that have aroused the most conspiracy theory have been Healthcare reform and Clean Energy Reform, with hugely profitable insurance and fossil fuel companies funding massive lobbying and disinformation campaigns. The Center for Public Integrity recently detailed the massive expansion in lobbying by polluting energy interests, leading to over 1,150 lobbying groups buying influence as the U.S. Congress sought to pass the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
The actual dollar amount spent is unknown, as disclosure laws require few details and have huge loopholes, but the Center calculated that an extremely conservative estimate would give you a minimum figure of more than $27 million dollars spent in direct lobbying from April to June of this year. In a major and still unfolding scandal, Bonner and Associates, an astroturf lobbying organization contracted to the coal industry's trade association, falsified letters to lawmakers from local civil rights, veterans, and other groups opposing federal climate legislation. This comes on top of the documented campaign of industrial espionage against environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, that was exposed last year by Mother Jones magazine.
The picture painted by these facts lead to the open question to if, as huge amounts of corporate money started being spent in unregulated funds, including to ethically compromised contractors and security firms, to defeat federal and international climate regulations, some of that money was diverted to fund a criminal conspiracy?
Could there be a criminal campaign to break into the climate research centers of foreign governments, review their archives for damaging snippets of text, and then elevate a fringe conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax by the world's scientists, civil society organizations, and governments to impose socialism upon the people of the world? If so, this story would be an eerie and ironic echo of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" that was embraced by many of the same groups currently promoting the ClimateGate talking points.
However, most journalists seem content to play into the false balance trap that has served the opponents of climate action so well over the years, by looking only at cherry-picked quotes and disinformation turned out by the climate denial industry. While the surface parallels between Watergate and ClimateGate may be strong, to uncover the truth will require a serious investigation by media, law enforcement, or even international security organizations.
An investigation into who is coordinating, funding, and leading a last-ditch effort to stall climate legislation through the use of criminal tactics and a well-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign seems to be beyond the capacity of the field of journalism. An industry so critically wounded by budget and staffing cuts that it is perhaps unable or unwilling to spend the resources or staff time to tackle serious investigative issues, even if the direction of a policy critical to the future development of the global economy depends on the outcome.
If so, the question remains, who will get to the bottom of ClimateGate? This could be a scandal bigger than anybody has imagined.
Richard Graves is the Director of Fired Up Media, an Associate Producer for LinkTV: EarthFocus, and a contributing editor for It's Getting Hot in Here.
ClimateGate Is Watergate Redux
by Richard Graves
Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine.
The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks.
One leaked archive could have been the result of an aggrieved staff member or rogue hacker, out to grind a political axe or wreak revenge upon a colleague. However, the University of Victoria was targeted in a similar attack, when two people disguised as network computer technicians attempted to penetrate the security of the facility and access the data servers of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals fled the scene. The network penetration effort was confirmed by University spokespeople in the National Post and was reported by Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.
"This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data," said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. "We don't know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police."
This campaign has been proved to be international in scope, with criminal acts of breaking and entering probable in both the UK and Canada, as well as coordinated with the sophisticated communications infrastructure founded and built by former tobacco lobbyists that were hired by fossil fuel interests, such as ExxonMobil, to cast doubt on the links between the sale and use of fossil fuels and the changing of the world's climate. This infrastructure was detailed by within Hoggan's book, as well as documented in extensive detail by projects like Exxonsecrets.org.
One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. Perhaps a little history is in order, as almost no news reports even referenced the fact that the Watergate scandal centered around the breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel, by a group of right-wing shadow operatives that a subsequent investigation by the FBI connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President, CREEP.
President Nixon was exposed as having commissioned the break-in, to uncover the state of the Democratic party, as he had given into fears of electoral defeat and resorted to desperate and criminal measures. Pioneering reporters Woodward and Bernstein made history for exposing the criminal conspiracy at the heart of the White House.
Conspiracy theory has recently become mainstream within the conservative movement in the United States, with both media figures and politicians implying that President Obama falsified his birth records, is setting up death panels to euthanize seniors, or impose communism upon the people of the United States.
The two policy issues that have aroused the most conspiracy theory have been Healthcare reform and Clean Energy Reform, with hugely profitable insurance and fossil fuel companies funding massive lobbying and disinformation campaigns. The Center for Public Integrity recently detailed the massive expansion in lobbying by polluting energy interests, leading to over 1,150 lobbying groups buying influence as the U.S. Congress sought to pass the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
The actual dollar amount spent is unknown, as disclosure laws require few details and have huge loopholes, but the Center calculated that an extremely conservative estimate would give you a minimum figure of more than $27 million dollars spent in direct lobbying from April to June of this year. In a major and still unfolding scandal, Bonner and Associates, an astroturf lobbying organization contracted to the coal industry's trade association, falsified letters to lawmakers from local civil rights, veterans, and other groups opposing federal climate legislation. This comes on top of the documented campaign of industrial espionage against environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, that was exposed last year by Mother Jones magazine.
The picture painted by these facts lead to the open question to if, as huge amounts of corporate money started being spent in unregulated funds, including to ethically compromised contractors and security firms, to defeat federal and international climate regulations, some of that money was diverted to fund a criminal conspiracy?
Could there be a criminal campaign to break into the climate research centers of foreign governments, review their archives for damaging snippets of text, and then elevate a fringe conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax by the world's scientists, civil society organizations, and governments to impose socialism upon the people of the world? If so, this story would be an eerie and ironic echo of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" that was embraced by many of the same groups currently promoting the ClimateGate talking points.
However, most journalists seem content to play into the false balance trap that has served the opponents of climate action so well over the years, by looking only at cherry-picked quotes and disinformation turned out by the climate denial industry. While the surface parallels between Watergate and ClimateGate may be strong, to uncover the truth will require a serious investigation by media, law enforcement, or even international security organizations.
An investigation into who is coordinating, funding, and leading a last-ditch effort to stall climate legislation through the use of criminal tactics and a well-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign seems to be beyond the capacity of the field of journalism. An industry so critically wounded by budget and staffing cuts that it is perhaps unable or unwilling to spend the resources or staff time to tackle serious investigative issues, even if the direction of a policy critical to the future development of the global economy depends on the outcome.
If so, the question remains, who will get to the bottom of ClimateGate? This could be a scandal bigger than anybody has imagined.
Richard Graves is the Director of Fired Up Media, an Associate Producer for LinkTV: EarthFocus, and a contributing editor for It's Getting Hot in Here.
Monday, December 07, 2009
CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!
There is an ongoing emergency happening on this planet and were all going to be effected by it. Read the article @ the title link for more info. If however,your a climate denier go instead to the Glenn Beck home page and read about ACORN and some other spooky left wing conspiracy you'll feel much better.
Friday, December 04, 2009
"A CELEBRATION OF LIFE BENEFIT !!"
@ The Beach Productions
Presents:
“A Celebration of Life Benefit”
Showing: The Paintings of Glenn Klotz
& The Sea Glass Jewelry & Art Objects of Glenn & Lori Klotz
The Place: The LA VA CAFÉ – 21st &
The Date & Time: Sunday Dec. 6th @
NO DOOR COVER : All donations will go to The American Heart Association
Art – Food & Music
Thursday, December 03, 2009
THE SUPREME CT. WADES INTO THE BEACH REPLENISHMENT DEBATE
The U.S. Supreme court is listening to a case this week concerning a Beach Project in Destin, Fla., I won't go into any detail about the case here. Read the article @ the title link about it. Depending on how they rule on this case the whole Beach replenishment game might find itself with some serious problems going forward or it might gain the Courts approval. We'll see.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
AN OPEN LETTER TO KEVIN POST:
First off, I'd like to thank Press reporter and journalist Kevin Post for mentioning me in his article today. That said, I'd like to say this about Kevin's response to my e-mail to him and to his critique of Dr. Pilkey. Your wrong Sir, the evidence for Global warming caused by human action ( industrialization) is over whelming at this juncture and action needs to be taken to lower future additions of green house gases into the atmosphere even though many of its effects cannot be reversed now or even lessened much in the short term. We as a species and as a civilization owe our children and grandchildren both our awareness and concern and more importantly whatever actions that can be taken to lessen the impacts and the severity of this unfolding calamity. Make no mistake about it this is indeed a disaster of global proportions even if it's full extant won't reveal itself for many decades. The human race ( Homo Sapiens) has been around for hundreds of thousands of yrs. and has had to deal with radical and rapid changes in the climate and in the sea level before and we 've survived both, sometimes barely. We 'll survive as a species through this change as well, of this I am almost certain, but were going to have to start to adapt and soon. The big difference this time around is there are billions of us now and our societies have spread everywhere and now maintain a significant presence on the all the world's coast lines. Sea rise is not even the worst of the possible out comes of this unfolding event and only one of the negative effects of the warming taking place and accelerating. Nevertheless, it is one of the effects that is readily measurable and observable. Unfortunately, it is not one of the effects that easily remedied. In the long run we will have to move back out of the way as the sea rises, we really have little other recourse. Much in the way of our infrastructure @ the beach will eventually be lost, some though is salvageable if we act in time. In the mean time we must stop building huge structures right on the shore line ( like REVEL) because these kinds of buildings will demand costly protection even when they knew in advance they were putting their investors at risk. The rest of us should NOT be made endlessly liable to protect these investments. Playing the role of the Ostrich in all of this is no excuse. Using beach replenishment as kind of magical protection is really no more or less then sticking ones head in the sand and refusing to face the facts. Nature doesn't care it will do its thing regardless.
The Political dimension
The last 8 yrs. were lost yrs. action wise because the powers to be in DC were politically and ideologically opposed to any action in this area and instead did everything in their power to deny and defame anyone or any group that has tried to bring about some change in this sphere. In my opinion the Bush administration were little more then global criminals as are the Chinese and the Indian leaderships now, or for that matter any other Gov't body or Corp org. that stands against doing something to slow the addition of even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
COMPLEXITY
Climate science is complex , but some things within it are not, just as some things within Genetic science are not. Also, just because their complex doesn't mean we shouldn't act. Complexity shouldn't be used as an excuse to do nothing. Medicine is complex and Drs. certainly do not have all the science when it comes to the human body but does this stop them from acting to heal patients as best as they can? Climate scientists have come to a consensus on what is pushing the climate and they've also come to some conclusions about how to defuse this component and others like methane ( an even more potent warming gas). So, is more study needed , of course and it goes on as the scientific community tweaks it's models and it's understanding of this phenomenon. But, should this lack of perfect clarity on the topic stop all attempts at acting to forestall even worse outcomes? No, absolutely not. Back in the 1970s it was discovered that chlorofluorocarbons were causing a thinning of the Earth's protective Ozone layer and that an Ozone hole had formed over the south pole. Action was suggested and a treaty was signed by most of the World's countries banning the use of certain classes of these chemicals. The science was complex and some interests wanted to stop any action or stall or dilute it but lucky for us this didn't happen and 30 + yrs. later the amounts of these gases are starting to recede and the hole is starting the long process of closing. Global warming is a similar situation in that the science for the most part although complex is @ some levels rather direct and even simple and a consensus has formed around a plan of action. Unfortunately, this time the forces opposed to any change are much more powerful then the refrigerant lobby and they are pulling out all the stops to kill any real action. If they succeed and it looks like so far they are, hell will be the price humanity and the planet pay for our inaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)