|
|
A great new website is called "War or Car?". It was created by Neil Sinhababu who posts also as Neil the Ethical Werewolf. Neil explains the concept.
Welcome to War or Car !
According to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes, the total cost of the Iraq War will be over $3 trillion. That's enough to buy a new Toyota Prius for every household in America. Here are some other things we could've done for the price of the Iraq War.
Neil will be updated the site daily from now until November's election. Neil is a great writer and this should be a daily reminder of that giving money to the military industrial congressional complex is money blown to smithareens.
http://warorcar.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reading the brilliant "Nixonland" by Rick Perlstein and just finished Book I which ends with the Republican surge of the 1966 elections including the little known Spiro Agnew winning the governorship of Maryland.
People scoffed at my wondering about a possible Schweitzer VEEP nod.
Today in Huffington Post, Glen Horowitz implores Obama "to get tough" and stop whining. He suggests that a "tough" Veep might help him.
"It's because Obama has reverted to the whiny, wimpy style that nearly allowed Hillary Clinton to wipe him out in September, 2007 -- until he found his backbone and actually started to stand up for himself."
So...
"Second, Obama needs a running mate with the toughness to go on the offense, not some blander version of Obama's confrontation-wary self. That means someone like Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Jack Reed, Brian Schweitzer, or even Hillary Clinton, not some lily-livered, lobbyist-friendly, uninspiring non-entity like Tim Kaine."
http://www.alternet.org/election08/93739/it's_time_for_obama_to_get_tough/?page=2
I am happy that my John Edwards is on the list of tough guys. He is a tough guy. You don't go up against big corporations and stare them down in negotiations without being tough and wicked smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are listening to News Radio AM 1450 KMMS in Bozeman. And this is “Democracy’s Edge” , the alternative voice here on the Edge of the Front Range.
We are here on the Edge of Democracy where the listeners are all lords and ladies of what Jefferson called a “natural aristocracy”. The more you know and the less you lie, gets you a seat at The Round Table. This is your weekly remedial civics class. This is where the counter elite meet to eat.
Welcome My Friends, Fellow Feral Cats of Freedom. Join we Ferals as we cough up hairballs ... |
|
|
|
|
|
"We have to let them drill for oil and gas. It's the patriotic thing to do, " said a homeowner in a subdivision near the Yellowstone River in a discussion on whether to lease the oil and gas rights to Big OIL and GAS.
Only two days ago I got my usual e-mail from the Western magazine "New West". In its Bozeman news section it alerted me to the sale of oil and gas leases coming up on September 9 with the comment period ending, YIKES!, today. Thanks for the notice. http://www.newwest.net/city/article/oil_and_gas_leases_up_in_gallatin_county_yellowstone_and_boulder_riverbeds/C396/L396/
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
considers the sale of school trust land each quarter for oil and gas
leasing, and are currently in the preliminary lease sale stage. And
they are moving fast. Public comment closes on Friday, Aug. 1st, with
the sale set to take place on Sept. 9th.
"There's some definite potential up there", said a water quality spokesperson. Potential for making a mess of one of a great river? This is one of the rivers they used to shoot "The River Runs Thru It". This is the river where they shot "The Horse Whisperer".
A majority of the parcels involve the riverbeds of the Yellowstone and
Boulder Rivers, 14 in the bed the Yellowstone and 18 in the Boulder
River. Click here to see a map of the parcels.
Riverbeds? Well, we are assured by the Dept of Natural Resources (one of my friends says "The trade-off doesn’t make sense, unless the “Natural Resource” part of your name applies only to commercial development, as opposed to wildlife and fisheries") that drilling is not allowed in a riverbed. Not now, but we've seen how companies coming into states and into whole countries can get he rules changed. What about diverting the river? When they just do exploration they often use explosives? What kind of explosives? We have a lot of questions and, as usual, only find out about this process at the last minute. Who "nominates these parcels? Why when we have a surplus do we want to invade this narrow valley and put in jeopardy the water for a lot of ranches as well as our tourism here?
In a response to one of my neighbors up the Boulder, the director, Mary Sexton replies:
Thank you for your comments to DNRC regarding oil and gas lease nominations on or near the Yellowstone, Boulder, and Shields rivers. First it is important to understand DNRC riverbed leases do not allow drilling within the riverbed. All riverbed leases have a “no surface occupancy” restriction.
I would like to provide some clarification of our process for oil and gas leasing on State trust lands:
We receive nominations for leasing of State lands for oil and gas exploration and development. The nominations go to public bid.
We have four lease sales per year. In recent years, we have leased an average of 300,000 acres per year for oil and gas exploration.
State riverbed leases do not allow drilling within the riverbed. All riverbed leases have a “no surface occupancy” restriction.
Drilling occurs on adjacent private, Federal, or other State land also under lease.
On other oil and gas leases outside of the riverbed, the Department reviews the nominated tracts and attaches restrictions if needed. These tracts are usually isolated parcels surrounded by private or Federal land that is also leased.
Before drilling occurs on State leases, proposals to develop must undergo environmental review.
I want to also note that leasing riverbeds for oil and gas development is not new for DNRC. We currently have over 27,000 acres of riverbeds under lease, including 6000 acres on the Yellowstone. The leased riverbed lands generate about $1 million per year for Montana schools.
The DNRC is committed to making sure any oil and gas activities on state trust lands are done in compliance with all environmental laws and protect the future productivity and value of those lands.
Thank you again for contacting DNRC. I hope this addresses your concerns.
Mary Sexton
DNRC Director
We ranch here in Sweet Grass County. All our water for our cattle, our crops, and ourselves comes from The Boulder. In a time where we are trying hard to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and trying to wean ourselves off our addiction to oil, why are we auctioning off the leases on The Boulder and The Yellowstone? I'm not against drilling, but I am against oil profiteers and extortionists who find a way to flim flam the public into giving them sweetheart deals with little consequences in case things go wrong.
I would love to have a whole pile of cash right now to buy a new tractor, and buy a retirement condo somewhere. I read the story of the people near Shreveport, Louisiana who are instant millionaires because of the huge discovery of natural gas deposits. But I've read the history too of boom and bust towns all over the West. I've seen what a bunch of bad actors can do to a community.
I'm looking for answers to alleviate my sleepless nights now that the gas people have moved in permanently to this county. Worry is what the latest version of feudal lords use to keep power. I don't like that tactic. So somebody please help me answer some of my concerns.
Note: Cindy comments over at NewWest.net and she does not have the advice that I am looking for.
By Cindy, 7-30-08
Our
schools are in great need for funds since logging was stopped and the
federal gov't no longer pays their fair share to them. Also roads and
the needs of this state are many since jobs have been lost due to the
environmental movement as much of the land belongs to the Federal
Government. It was at one time belonged to the people but now I think
it belongs to the minority groups with the most money like the ACLU.
No, Cindy it's not the ACLU or the Sierra Club or the Spotted Owl. I think we need to look just a little deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there common dreams,
common hopes, or common causes? Like the common cold are common
interests to be avoided? Our Founders struggled mightily with these
questions and decided to err on the side of keeping democracy at bay;
not eliminate it, but keep it sedated and safely tethered to the porch
rail. Sheldon J. Wolin explores what our Founders hoped for and what they feared in his new book, "Democracy, Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Totalitarianism". This is a rich book that is impossible to skip even one sentence. So I've been writing about it a little at a time.
In Chapter 11 ... |
|
|
|
|
|
The Obama VEEP speculations are hitting a fevered pitch. Boring white men are on every pundit's list and also now include a boring white woman, Kathleen Sebelius. I don't think any of these people are at the top of the list. Obama hinted to Tom Brokaw on Sunday that he would pick a VP who would help him govern. Since Obama sees himself as an international kind of guy, foreign policy and international relations is going to be his thing. So he'll pick somebody who will do the boring domestic stuff like saving the Many from the ravages that The Few have done to this nation. But Obama is more of a libertarian so he won't pick an economic populist. So forget people like Sherrod Brown or John Edwards. A perfect moderate/Libertarian pick would be Arnold Schwarzenegger. He couldn't succeed Obama if something happened to him because Arnold was born in Austria. Instead, Nancy Pelosi is next in line. That would make a good insurance policy for Obama. Nobody likes Pelosi. The only thing going against Arnold is his size. Obama likes being the tallest and the handsomest. Fall back position might be Brian Schweitzer. Wider and not taller than Barack. And smilier.
Oh, who cares? It's boring just talking about this. Let's talk instead of Turkey. Did you know that Turkey's Supreme Court is considering banning the President of Turkey and his party from politics for 5 years? How cool is that! They have been so misbehaved and so religious that they might be banned. Imagine if our court said "The Republican Party cannot operate for a period of 5 years until they get rid of all that religiosity including their gospel of greed." Then we would be left with the conservative corporate party of the Democrats. That would leave an opening for a new party formed from the Rainbow Coalition i.e. the party of The Many composed of laborers, farmers, artisans, technicians, peaceniks, and environmentalists.
Ah what a nice dream.
UPDATE: Aw, shucks. Turkey's Supreme Court says the party can stay.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aD3hbmsdxHwc&refer=home
Erdogan's party escaped a ban when the country's high court
rejected charges that he sought to introduce Islamic law in
violation of a constitutional mandate for a secular government.
Good news is that the Turkish leader seems to have learned his lesson.
After the ruling, Erdogan last night pledged to keep Turkey
``on the road to the EU,'' said the court case is ``a chance to
solve social tensions'' and promised his party will never
challenge Turkey's secular principles.
He made a similar speech a year ago after his Justice and
Development Party won general elections by a landslide. Opponents
said he failed to live up to that promise by proposing Islam-
inspired legislation, including an end to the headscarf ban for
students -- a measure that was key to the indictment by
prosecutors to shut down his party.
``One of Erdogan's greatest virtues is that he learns the
lesson of his mistakes,'' said Sahin Alpay, a professor of
politics at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul. ``I think he will
seek a different approach to pursue reforms that won't put him in
confrontation with his opponents.''
See what a little ass whuppin' will do? Now about that impeachment deal....
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Cass Sunstein, a legal advisor to Obama, debated Glenn Greenwarld on Democracy now on July 22, 2008, he was in essence, appearing as Bush and Cheney's lawyer. He dismissed the idea of impeachment:
CASS SUNSTEIN: Well, there has been a big debate among law
professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent
[sic] authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator
Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court
has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the
Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's
an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the
President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people
in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to
foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested
that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush
administration is wrong--let's be very clear on that--but the notion
that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of
what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors.
And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is
not impeachable. Amy Goodman asks Greenwald to respond:
GLENN GREENWALD: You know, I think this mentality that we're
hearing is really one of the principal reasons why our government has
become so lawless and so distorted over the past thirty years. You
know, if you go into any courtroom where there is a criminal on trial
for any kind of a crime, they'll have lawyers there who stand up and
offer all sorts of legal and factual justifications or defenses for
what they did. You know, going back all the way to the pardon of Nixon,
you know, you have members of the political elite and law professors
standing up and saying, "Oh, there's good faith reasons not to impeach
or to criminally prosecute." And then you go to the Iran-Contra
scandal, where the members of the Beltway class stood up and said the
same things Professor Sunstein is saying: we need to look to the
future, it's important that we not criminalize policy debates. You
know, you look at Lewis Libby being spared from prison.
And now you have an administration that--we have a law in this
country that says it is a felony offense, punishable by up to five
years in prison and a $10,000 fine, to spy on Americans without the
warrants required by law. We have a president who got caught doing
that, who admits that he did that. And yet, you have people saying,
"Well, there may be legal excuses as to why he did that." Or you have a
president who admits ordering, in the White House, planning with his
top aides, interrogation policies that the International Red Cross says
are categorically torture, which are also felony offenses in the United
States. And you have people saying, "Well, we can't criminalize policy
disputes."
And what this has really done is it's created a two-tiered
system of government, where government leaders know that they are free
to break our laws, and they'll have members of the pundit class and the
political class and law professors standing up and saying, "Well, these
are important intellectual issues that we need to grapple with, and
it's really not fair to put them inside of a courtroom or talk about
prison." And so, we've incentivized lawlessness in this country. I
mean, the laws are clear that it's criminal to do these things. The
President has done them, and he--there's no reason to treat him
differently than any other citizen who breaks our laws.
"We've incentivized lawlessness in this country." If the "right" people do it, it's not illegal. It's the old Nixon line, "If the president does it, it's not illegal." It's basically back to the divine right of kings and nobles to screw their servants because they can. It's their right. The Nation reported what Sunstein said also that Keith Olbermann reported on: "prosecuting government officials risks a cycle of criminalizing public
service, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts,
like the impeachment of President Clinton, or even the slight
appearance of it."
Oh, come on. Impeachment is in the constitution for a reason. The Founders were under no illusions about people making a power grab.
Prof. Sunstein has a new book out called "Nudge". He believes in the old marketing ploys of putting the thing you want somebody to buy at eye level or first on the buffet table. You can nudge people in the right direction without the awful "mandate" of a government. Okay. So see this article of impeachment, we are going to use it on Bush and Cheney. Then maybe the next president will be nudged into STOP SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! It's called stopping more crime. It's the deterrence, stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I wrote recently on the chilly and chilling performance of Professor Cass Sunstein on "Democracy Now" where he debated Glenn Greenwald on FISA and then explained his theory of "Nudge" to Amy Goodman. His shocking statement on the justification for Senator Obama's vote on FISA left constitutional lawyer and columnist Greenwald shaking his head and vehemently protesting. That's what spokespeople for the unruly unwashed masses tend to do. His recent column has a comment on a interview that Jane Hamsher did with conservative Bruce Fein's call for impeachment and prosecution of the Bush crime family. It is a comment ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Francis Moore Lappe named her 2005 book "Democracy's Edge". She examines what we have now and declares it a "thin democracy". She challenges each of us to start feeding what we have so that we can enjoy "living democracy". My co host of our weekly alternative radio show and I thought "On Democracy's Edge" would be a great name for our show. But we had listeners objecting the the name. They used a definition of democracy that says that it is rule by the mob. It is the "tyranny of the mob". I asked callers to find out other definitions ... |
|
|
|
|
|
1. First Furball of Truth:This story really burns me: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/92430/
Using the bone density measurements or "T scores" of a 30-year-old
woman as a standard, the new condition, osteopenia, had "boundaries so
broad they include more than half of all women over 50," writes
Kelleher. And it didn't hurt that 10,000 bone density measuring
machines appeared in doctors' offices to detect the new disease -- only
750 existed in 1995 -- many owned and financed by Merck, whose
anti-bone-thinning drug Fosamax came online in 1995. No wonder doctor visits for thinning bones increased by 5 million from 1994 to 2003, according to the Associated Press.
Along with the cholesterol scam, this is yet another example of our populace being drugged into oblivion. I want cures not medications. 2. Breaking Good Furball of news. The Teamsters are backing out of the group who want to drill in ANWR. Tom P has a diary on it. www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/24/104851/358 href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/24/104851/358">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
