I found this video on YouTube while trying to prove to Madie that our Goldendoodle comes from wild herds in forests outside of Paris.

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last September, the EPA released a statement about its plan to ban the sale of “the most toxic rat and mouse poisons and “rodenticide products that use loose bait and pellets.” Its reason for doing so was “to better protect children, pets, and wildlife.” The EPA had previously announced in 2008 that “rodenticide manufacturers would have three years to adopt limits on the sale of the products” after the agency had gone through “thirteen years of studies, hearings, reports and legal battles.”

According to PRWatch, the EPA became aware that rodenticides “were finding their way into the food chain” by the early 1980s. Poison control centers in this country had been receiving 12,000 to 15,000 calls annually regarding the exposure of children under the age of six to rat poison.

From PRWatch:

In 1998, the Clinton administration’s EPA deemed that rodenticides had to taste bitter, so kids wouldn’t eat the products, and be colored with a bright dye, so it would be obvious if they did. The EPA backed down from these requirements in 2001 after George W. Bush took office and made the measures “voluntary,” reportedly due to industry pressure.

After seeing no drop in the number of children being poisoned by rodenticides, in 2004 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit to force the EPA to take action, and a New York district court criticized the agency for reversing itself and caving to pesticide manufacturers. The court wrote, “the EPA lacked even the proverbial ‘scintilla’ of evidence justifying its reversal of the requirement it had imposed, after extensive study, only a few years before.” In response, the EPA took steps to regulate the products. Those rules were intended to go into effect this year, but were delayed by the resistance of Reckitt Benckiser and two other rodenticide manufacturers, Liphatech and Spectrum Group.

The EPA estimates that the unreported child exposure rate may be four times as high as the 12,000-15,000 calls to poison control centers each year, and some believe the number to be ten times as high. Poisoned young children can experience internal bleeding, bloody urine, bleeding gums, and blood coming from their ears. African-American and Hispanic children living below the poverty line have been disproportionately affected. A New York study found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison between 1990 and 1997 were African-American and 26 percent were Latino.

Known as anti-coagulants, the chemicals in the rodenticides prevent blood from clotting or coagulating. In addition to the ill-effects of rodenticides on young children mentioned above, poisoned children can suffer coma, anemia, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, and bloody stools. For decades, many thousands of young children have become ill “after touching or ingesting rat poison that was applied ‘loose,’ in pellet form.” According to MSNBC, the EPA reported that rat poisons “are, by far, the leading cause of (pesticide-related) visits to health care facilities in children under the age of 6 and the second leading cause of hospitalization.”

The poisons have also had deleterious effects on wildlife.  Wild animals—including bald eagles and bobcats— “have been found dead with lethal levels of a super-toxic rodenticide in their systems.”

One would have hoped that the three manufacturers of rodenticides who have delayed implementation of the new EPA regulations, would be terribly concerned about the ill-effects that their products have had on both children and animals…and maybe have felt a responsibility to comply with the new requirements. Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of d-CON®, doesn’t appear concerned at all. The company, a member of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), filed suit in federal court to prevent EPA’s new rules from going into effect. Reckitt Benckiser claims the restrictions on use of rat poisons would probably lead to “potentially significant public health consequences.” Todd M. Wynn, the director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force spoke out in defense of the companies who have not complied. He said, “There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society.”

Aaron Colangelo, who is an attorney for the NRDC, said, “It is outrageous to say it is ‘acceptable’ for tens of thousands of kids to get poisoned each year.” He told the Center for Media and Democracy that “there is not an undue economic burden associated with reformulating these products.”  Colangelo pointed out that the rest of the industry had complied with the new rules without adverse economic impact and that “the health care costs for treating these kids certainly outweigh the economic costs of reformulation.” He added, “Kids find it everywhere. Outside their apartment complex, or in public parks, or in schools, or in public housing. Little kids will put anything in their mouth.”

Colangelo thinks it disgraceful that “a few ‘hold-out bad actors from the chemical industry’ are further delaying EPA regulation of the rodenticides, despite decades of evidence of harm.” Said Colangelo, “It should not take this long to do something simple like protect toddlers from rat poisoning.”

AFTERWARD

From ThinkProgress:

 For years, ALEC has successfully killed these kind of regulations on environmental toxins and pollutants on behalf of corporations. At their annual conference in New Orleans this year, ALEC distributed a pamphlet titled “The Many Benefits Of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment,” complete with pictures depicting happy wildlife and a healthy environment. Companies like Koch Industries, BP, WalMart, and others join forces to fund this little-known organization that works behind the scenes to fight the dirty battles that no corporation would want to be publicly associated with.

SOURCES

Pesticide News Story: EPA Seeks Independent Scientific Review on Banning Certain Mouse and Rat Poisons (EPA)

Cancellation Process for Certain Rodenticide Products (EPA)

Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an “Acceptable Risk” for ALEC (PRWatch/Center for Media and Democracy)

ALEC Deems Kids Eating Rat Poison An ‘Acceptable Risk’ (ThinkProgress)

to ALEC – Your Safety is a Non-Issue (Daily Kos)

Corporate Education Reform and ALEC’s Definition of Acceptable Risk (Huffington Post)

On the News With Thom Hartmann: President Obama Denounces “Trickle-Down Economics,” and More (Truth-Out)

Decades on, EPA on verge of curbing use of rat poisons: Activists hope new rules will slash number of U.S. kids being sickened each year   (MSNBC)

FYI

The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA (Turley Blawg)

Smart ALEC: The Organization That May Be Helping Corporations Write Legislation for Your State (Turley Blawg)

The annual study, the Environmental Performance Index, found runaway pollution, particularly in the form of fine particulate matter. This includes PM 2.5, or the 2.5 micron size of the particulates, which are 500% above the level considered safe for human beings.

The listing also includes overall pollution where India came in at 125 out of 132.
Yet, D. Saha, a scientist in the “Air Lab” at India’s Central Pollution Control Board, insisted that the air pollution in India is really not like those of other countries and that no comparison can be made due to India’s “different terrain.” He insisted that the study should not raise “undue alarm.” Sounds like India came only in the top ten of the cleanest countries as opposed to the dirtiest. Saha, however, was finally honest when he admitted that “we have other pressing problems like poverty, focus on them.” That is the scientist entrusted with dealing with pollution.

Source: NY Times

This is a remarkably creative and striking structure that fits well in the movement to turn our cities green, including proposals to turn the top of buildings into farms and gardens. There are already farms operating in places like New York city.

This country should be serious with such proposals and make the greening of urban centers a priority for the federal and state government. This is a win-win situation where the environment and human living conditions are both benefited from such new initiatives.

Source: Digg

Police suspect arson since there was not lightning in the area. The fire required firefighters to lay over 800 feet of hose but they were too late to save the tree. They then had to deal with huge branches falling a hundred feet down upon them.

The problem with arson and other related laws is that there is often no special code provision for the burning of historic locations. However, judges will often sentence the culprits at the top of a range in such a case. Of course, even our government can at times show little care for historical trees.

Source: Orlando Sentinel

It appears that Italian officials may have gotten the idea from the novel from Jacopo: “Why not just kill them? I’ll do it! I’ll run up to Paris – bam, bam, bam, bam. I’m back before week’s end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?”

The black rats on the island off the coast of Tuscany and Corsica were introduced from boats and rapidly bred. Roughly 1000 tourists visit the four-square mile island every year.

Now, the military will drop 26 tons of poison pellets on the island. Putting aside the environmental damage that such poison could cause the sea and island from runoff and contamination, my chief question is what happened to tens of thousands of dead rats. The danger of a displacement effect on another species (let alone the smell) is considerable.

Source: Telegraph

The girl is a member of the primitive Awá tribe and appears to have wandered from her village. Luis Carlos Guajajaras, leader from a separate tribe, claims that the loggers tied to her a tree and set her alight as a warning to other natives last October or November. There have been roughly 450 tribes people murdered in Brazil between 2003 and 2010.

Many years ago, I went to the Amazon and saw the deforestation of the jungle in some of the deepest areas. There was obvious collusion with the government and the result was horrific. Not only has the Brazilian government allowed the destruction of millions of acres of unique ecosystems and thousands of tribal villages, but mankind has lost unique species in the burning.

If shown to be true, however, this murder would eclipse prior crimes in its savagery and rage.

Source: Telegraph

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

The United States recently ended its formal military occupation of Iraq and removed most of its combat troops after more than 8 years and thousands of troops and civilian deaths and injuries.  Our troops did their job under difficult situations, but the havoc that our invasion and occupation of Iraq created will remain for generations.  When we look at the impact of Shock and Awe and the constant barrage of bullets and bombs, it is a wonder that even more civilians were not killed.  Most estimates put the Iraqi civilian deaths over 100,000 and more than a million people displaced from their homes.  However, the repeated use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus weapons in particular, may be the cause of Iraqi infants and children being born with horrific abnormalities in alarming numbers.

“Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.  “We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine,” Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.  As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.  ‘ “There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we’ve never seen them until now,” she said. “So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I’m unable to provide a medical term.” ‘  Reader Supported News  When I read the linked article I was shocked and saddened by the human toll that is still being felt by Iraqi parents.

A British scientist, Dr. Christoper Busby has studied the huge increase in birth defects in Fallujah and his results are scary.  “The report’s conclusion states:

“Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields.”

“As doctors, we know Mercury, Uranium and Bismuth can contribute to the development of congenital abnormalities, and we think it could be related to the use of prohibited weapons by the Americans during these battles,” Alani said.  “I made this link to a coroner’s inquest in the West Midlands into the death of a Gulf War One veteran… and a coroner’s jury accepted my evidence,” he told Al Jazeera.  “It’s been found by a coroner’s court that cancer was caused by an exposure to depleted uranium,” Busby added, “In the last 10 years, research has emerged that has made it quite clear that uranium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man, certainly in the form that it takes when used in these wars.”  In July 2010, Busby released a study that showed a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in Fallujah since the 2004 attacks. The report also showed the sex ratio had declined from normal to 86 boys to 100 girls, together with a spread of diseases indicative of genetic damage similar to but of far greater incidence than Hiroshima.  Dr Alani visited Japan recently, where she met with Japanese doctors who study birth defect rates they believe related to radiation from the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  She was told birth defect incidence rates there are between 1-2 per cent. Alani’s log of cases of birth defects amounts to a rate of 14.7 per cent of all babies born in Fallujah, more than 14 times the rate in the affected areas of Japan.”  Reader Supported News

That last statistic is beyond shocking.  The rate of birth defects in Fallujah is 14 times the rate after our nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II!  We have debated for years about why we invaded Iraq in 2003 and the alleged lies that led us into that invasion.  We have discussed the huge sacrifice that our military and its families have suffered during this war, but for some reason the media just doesn’t want to talk about the human carnage that our political decision to invade Iraq has brought to the Iraqis themselves.

What should the United State be doing to alleviate the pain and suffering that we have caused?  Shouldn’t we be doing medical studies to determine what can be done, if anything, to reduce these horrific birth defects?

This should not be a partisan issue.  I realize that not everyone agrees with me that we went to Iraq on intentionally false and misleading intelligence.  However, I would hope that everyone who sees these pictures and reads these statistics will understand that the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus weapons is dangerous and immoral and should not be continued.

How many babies have to die over these next few years before we understand the lasting damage that we have caused?  Since it seems to be our use of these weapons that have caused this ongoing epidemic of birth defects, shouldn’t the United States be doing something to stem the tide?  What do you think the United States and its allies should be doing?

Additional source:  AlJazeera

What is particularly impressive is that 3 million of those viewers were in the last twelve months.

Again, I can only thank you for your friendship and your contributions on our blog. With our emphasis on civil liberties, it is heartening to see so many people from around the world visiting our blog. It is a wonderful reminder that we are not alone in our concern for individual rights and liberty.

Well done, everyone, and congratulations.

We have tried to create something special at this site for the discussion of legal and policy questions in a civil and substantive manner. The success of the blog is due entirely to you. I view posts as merely creating a foundation for broader discussion, much like cases in a law class. It is what you bring to the discussion that makes this blog unique. We will continue to improve the site and I am always interested in suggestions on how to improve the site further. The nice thing about this competition is that it introduces new people to the blog and I hope some of them will decide to stay and contribute to our discussions. More importantly, I needed something to overcome the performance of the Bears this season!

Congratulations to the other winners and competitors in this year’s competition. This competition often allows us to explore the ever widening array of legal blogs and I encourage you to check out some of the other sites among the top 100 blogs.

Thanks again everyone for pushing so hard to help improve the blog and to secure this top spot.

You can vote at this site by clicking on the “opinion” category and we need your vote. A quick registration is needed to prevent cheating in the competition.

Please spread the word and let’s see if we can put the blog over the top. For those who say this war is over, think of how the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor and do the right thing:

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.

In combination with the U.S. refusal to sign on to cuts in carbon emissions, the move against the pollution tax reaffirms for many environmentalists around the world that the U.S. is now a foe rather than an ally in the fit against global warming and pollution.

This move to force the airlines to pay for their pollution follows an earlier decision by a senior adviser to the court against the U.S. airlines.

The Europeans have always sought to force internalization of pollution costs to encourage companies to reduce emissions or pay for the damage caused by their activities. The idea that the U.S. airlines should get a pass on such emissions has caused condemnations through the continent.

In response, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US “will be compelled to take appropriate action” if the EU goes ahead with the scheme. It appears that “appropriate action” does not involve committing to carbon reductions.

Source: Spiegel

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.

Last night, I made our traditional Cioppino soup — a tradition started by my late father, Jack Turley. I hated the soup as a kid so fate has left this tradition to me. I am now as addicted to the soup as my father was. On Christmas Eve, we then went to Midnight mass at St. Mary’s of the Lake to hear my 84 year old mother sing in the choir. Today, I am cooking the beef as well as the Yorkshire pudding, horseradish. and gravy. We will have the entire family clan over to the house.

Waiting For Santa were notes from the kids and homemade cookies with milk. Below is the note from my son Aidan. Not surprisingly, Santa was won over by the note and delivered many of the requested items.

Dear Santa:

How’s your reindeer doing? Well don’t answer right now. Have some cookies and milk. By the way, how was your trip? And was I good this year? I’ve got so many questions. But I know you’re running late and can’t answer many. But right now please relax. I know how much work you’ve done.

Nice meeting you.

Sincerely Aidan

P.S. I ‘m a big fan.

Christmas List

Raindow maker
3rd Book in my series
Science Kit
Nutcracker
Leather boots
Candy
New Violin Book/Rosin
Squishy toy
Square pixleized clock

For her part, Madie (6) added on her note that “the cookies are only for you” and then added “P.S.: I am scared of you. From Madie to Santa Claus.”

The Turley family wishes everyone a happy and safe holiday. I will be toasting our blog family tonight and give thanks for the wonderful community we have created at this site.

Best wishes,

Jonathan Turley

We are currently one of the most visited civil liberties blogs in the country. We often conflict with VC on issues like privacy and Supreme Court cases. That ideological difference makes this year’s competition even more intense. You can vote at this site by clicking on the “opinion” category and we need your vote. A quick registration is needed to prevent cheating in the competition.

Please spread the word and let’s see if we can close the remaining gap. While I respect our counterparts at VC, we deserve this honor. After all, to paraphrase Stuart Smalley, “We’re good enough, we’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like us!”

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.

During the Cold War a phrase “The Enemy Within” became popular. It was a reference at first to Communist subversion exemplified by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunt.  Later it was used with other issues such as in Robert F. Kennedy’s book “The Enemy Within” which dealt with corruption in the Labor Movement, specifically Jimmy Hoffa and his teamsters. Recently, Michael Savage, right wing talk show host, wrote a book using that same title, though in this case referring to liberals and progressives as being seditious. The connotation of this phrase is that the group so labeled represents an internal movement that is so dangerous to the interests of the United States, that it can be seen as subversive.

Some may be shocked then by the title of this post. Almost all of us have grown up thinking of the Chamber of Commerce as a uniquely American Institution. Throughout the US whether in cities or in hamlets, the business community has banded together to promote local commerce and build interrelated networks. When we think of this, we think mainly of local small businesses, which are the backbone of this nation’s economy. To be honest until this week I’ve never give much thought to the Chamber of Commerce until as a MoveOn.com member I received a petition from an affiliated new organization called SumOfUs.

“SumOfUs is a brand-new global movement of consumers, investors and workers using our collective economic power for good. Together, we will work to hold the world’s corporations accountable to the public interest and move our global economic system towards social equity, democratic principles, and long-term sustainability.” http://googlequitthechamber.org/about/

The purpose of the petition was to get Google to follow the lead of other large corporations and quit the US Chamber of Commerce. The petition made various claims regarding the US Chamber of Commerce which I’ll deal with in this post.

However, I wouldn’t present this post without doing some research on the “Chamber” and its’ activity to look into the validity of the claims being made by the SumOfUs organization. In doing this research I came to realize that in my opinion the United States Chamber of Commerce is an organization that does not act in the best interests of this country and that one can call it subversive, even though it is not treasonous. These are my reasons for this belief.

My supposition was that “chambers of commerce” were a uniquely American institution and I discovered I was wrong in that belief. The first chamber of commerce was founded in France in 1599. This type of institution is defined as:

 “A chamber of commerce (also referred to in some circles as a board of trade) is a form of business network, e.g., a local organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses. Business owners in towns and cities form these local societies to advocate on behalf of the business community. Local businesses are members”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_of_commerce

Contrast the information contained in the above link with this information on the United States Chamber of Commerce:

 “The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is an American lobbying group representing the interests of many businesses and trade associations. It is not an agency of the United States government.”

“the Chamber claims a direct membership of 300,000 businesses, and 3 million through its various affiliates such as state and local chambers.^[6] Some of the Chamber’s members and donors are Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Texaco, and Aegon “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce

We see that rather than a business networking organization, as are most local Chambers of Commerce. The US Chamber is specifically a lobbying organization. In fact it is the largest lobbyist in our country. Not only is it the largest lobbyist in the US, but its major source of support comes from a small number of multi-national corporations, whose natural interests are not those of the United States, or of its people.

“Although the Chamber has misrepresented itself and claimed to represent 3 million businesses (later modified to 300,000 after a Mother Jones exposé), in reality it actually represents a small group of multinational corporations. In 2008, half of its donations came from just 45 corporate donors. In 2009, nearly half of the Chamber’s money came from a single donation from the health insurance industry trade association. Moreover, the Chamber doesn’t appear to truly care about jobs or small businesses — evidenced by the fact that the Chamber killed legislation to create millions of new clean energy jobs and expand America’s competitive advantage in clean energy technology.”http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/11/23/131597/uschamber-obama/

Journalist, pundits and TV News Readers constantly reference the USCOC as an organization working in the interests of American Business. I contend that this is not the case. My opinion is that the interests of American Business and those of the multi-national base support of the USCOC are actually inimical to each other. The basis of my belief is first based on the logic of the contention. Were I the CEO of a multi-national corporation my correct interest would be in succeeding in the Global Marketplace. This would entail looking for the largest markets by population, catering to those populations and also finding the cheapest labor possible. In my long range planning as a multi-national CEO the tribulations of the US labor market, the needs of US based businesses and their inability to compete in the global market would be of little concern. The total populations of China and India in 2011 are 2.5 billion people; US population is 314 million. http://www.geohive.com/ As these and other population centers increase, their sheer numbers make them more attractive than a US market of declining income and vanishing industrial capacity.

Above I’ve laid out the schematics of my argument that the USCOC represents a subversive element in our country that will in the end succeed in making America indistinguishable from a third world nation. Now let me present some specific arguments that lead me to this conclusion.

1.-“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is responsible for many of the policies that have made America the most unequal in terms of income/wealth distribution in the industrialized world. On tax policy, the Chamber has pushed efforts to repeal the estate tax while helping to pass the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Corporate tax loopholes promoted by the Chamber ensure that corporations like ExxonMobil pay zero corporate income taxes while regular American workers foot much of the Treasury’s bill. The Chamber also opposed the creation of a minimum wage, and has lobbied against nearly every increase in the federal minimum wage. “

2.-”The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t even necessarily represent American businesses. As first reported by ThinkProgress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently began a fundraising program soliciting foreign corporations to give to the Chamber’s account that in turn was used to run attack ads during the midterm elections. The Chamber admitted that it fundraises from foreign donors, but has refused to reveal how it finances its political campaign expenditures. ThinkProgress noted that the Chamber has aided its foreign members by lobbying this year to kill a bill to close tax loopholes for businesses that ship jobs overseas, and has even sponsored seminars to teach businesses how to ship their jobs to places like China.”

3.-”The U.S. Chamber of Commerce often places the profits of its member companies over American foreign policy objectives. Last year, the Chamber lobbied against President Obama’s efforts to place economic sanctions on Iran. In 1941, the Chamber was one of the most outspoken opponents of intervening in World War II (Chamber officials feared that war would give Roosevelt more power and wartime spending would lead to higher deficits, then higher taxes).”

4.- “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has worked to give corporations unfettered control of government. For instance, the Chamber successfully filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case to roll back nearly a century of campaign finance laws. Because of the Chamber’s efforts, corporations can spend unlimited amounts in American elections. Now the Chamber is attempting to repeal legislation aimed at discouraging American businesses from bribing foreign governments.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/11/23/131597/uschamber-obama/

My argument here has been specifically about the USCOC being an American organization, whose interests and actions are inimical to the interests of the United States in the global marketplace, focusing more on the needs of their chief funders which are multi-national Corporations. Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Texaco, Aegon, GE, Exxon and even Ford are no longer American companies, even if some were founded by Americas in America. They are multi-nationals and their interests are perforce not coincident to the interests of this country, or its’ people. The United States Chamber of Commerce is primarily supported by multi-national entities and its lobbying efforts are focussed upon the needs of these non-american entities. This must be recognized so that people can understand that not only does the USCOC work against the interests of the America people, but it also works against the interests of American businesses.

There are further arguments detailing the pernicious nature of the USCOC that can be found at this link: http://googlequitthechamber.org/reasons/  I think you will find them informative and persuasive. They discuss the opposition of the USCOC to worker’s rights; civil rights; women’s rights; LBGT rights; environmental responsibility; global warming; health care reform; net neutrality; and many other issues. The USCOC in my opinion is a pernicious lobbying organization. It probably has acted within legal boundaries and therefore it has a right as an organization to act in what it defines as its own interests. However, I think people should generally be aware of the nature of this institution and use that information to decide whether its policies ad efforts should be supported, or opposed. I’ve presented my opinion with what I consider to be evidence supporting my contention. I invite the reader to examine it and come to their own conclusions.

FLOG THE BLOG:  Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog?  WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.

~Submitted by Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger

The destruction of the nearly 100-year-old Condit Dam will help salmon and other critters in the area. Below is another destruction. I am assuming that the barge is tethered because this seems like a pretty precarious way of destroying a dam — sort of like sawing off a tree branch will sitting on it. Now get dressed . . .

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category.

Andy Warhol, said in 1968 that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Forty-Three years later the remark has become ubiquitously prescient. The world is awash in a celebrity culture and America is at the acme of this “culture”. From one perspective this is merely the harmless fluff that people use in order to distract themselves from the depressing things their lives have offered. It is the triumph of “kitsch” over substance in the business of being famous. This has been true throughout mankind’s history. The lives and activities of the powerful have been followed by the masses with avid interest and have been the fodder of discussion around what served as the ancient’s water coolers, perhaps the public wells. Without a doubt in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh’s comings and goings were constant conversational topics. Today, in a much different context, the American multitudes avidly follow the lives of the powerful, rich and famous, via innumerable outlets including Facebook and Twitter.

The question I’m broaching here is if this is a historic human trait, are there negative aspects of it that threaten the functioning and stability of our society? My own answer is that I’m not sure one way or another, but I am concerned about what I see all around me and perhaps would like the writers here to talk me down, so to speak. Now one might rightly ask what does this have to do with the law and the other topics we treat here on a daily basis. Only this week we have had news bulletins and stories about the sentencing of Michael Jackson’s doctor to four years in prison. On that same day no doubt there were dozens of news stories that had greater effect on our lives, yet every network paid much attention to it on their nightly news. At the risk of offending Michael Jackson fans, the death of this once famous “Pop Star”, self titled “King of Pop” if you will, was hardly worth the attention paid to it, when issues of economic collapse, wars, revolutions, genocides and famines raged throughout the media frenzy. Yet, I must say that the media knew their audience and this story catered to that audience. I understand the need for, and I myself have need of distraction from the woes of the world, so it is not as if I hold myself apart from the indulgence. Frequently instances of self loathing come to the fore as I slavishly behold the spectacle that our media creates for us surrounding people and issues that embarrass our attention, as they play out before our wide-eyed gazes.

If I mention Kim Kardashian, most of our highly astute readers and I have a vague notion of whom she is and how famous she has become. Yet probably, like me, you have absorbed a certain set of facts about her, while never watching her TV shows, nor reading articles about her. Yet other than being the daughter of one of OJ’s lawyers and the subject of  a viral porn video,  Kim is a person of shallow thought and little accomplishment. At this point in her life she has a TV show and an extensive Wikipedia page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian , which is larger and more detailed than Professor Turley’s page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley . My guess is that she is a hell of a lot richer from her celebrity, than the Professor is from his own celebrity and TV appearances. I don’t have to convince any of you that celebrity gazing is a rampant phenomenon, growing rapidly with the spread of computing devices. Given that it is a long time human preoccupation though, is the expansion of it by today’s burgeoning technology dangerous?

I stated previously that I’m uncertain as to this trends danger to our society and I am, but let me give the basis of my uncertainty. Being in my late 60’s I’ve obviously been around for awhile and have seen the world change from what was science fiction in my youth, to reality in my dotage. The natural human tendency of the aged is to decry the ever changing present, in favor of the glowingly remembered past. Knowing this tendency in older folks, my confusion stems from the possibility that I am just viewing the expanding role of celebrity in our world, through the lens of my own inability to adjust to it. While I think I know myself well, I am as capable as the next person of self-deception and so in fairness must allow for it. My prevailing belief, while acknowledging my possible error of age, is that this upward trend of celebrity-gazing is quickly allowing our society to be distracted and ultimately taken over by an American version of Aristocracy. As with such Aristocratic advantage in the past, our new Aristocrats will continue to control/rule our lives for their personal benefit. Here are the reasons that persuade me.

First, celebrity distracts us from the world around us and its ubiquity blurs our focus on how the world is run and how we the 99% are being cheated. This distraction becomes one of desire for a rich lifestyle and the possibility of our achieving it. This is the American Dream after all. The abused child Norma Jean Baker can grow up to become the most desired woman in the world, Marilyn Monroe. She can marry an athletic icon; a distinguished intellectual playwright and even have sex with a President. Despite the tawdriness of her end, she remains an icon of achievement and therefore a role model to be copied. This week the TV music competition the “X Factor” had a night of Michael Jackson songs and on four occasions referred to this self-medicating, putative pedophile as the “Great Man”, an inspiration to us all. I think it is possible that within a hundred years religions may be founded based on worship of the miracles wrought by “Great Men”, celebrity Gods like Michael, or Elvis another drug abuser.

Celebrity confers an air of gravitas to people whose words and deeds bespeak the opposite. What do Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common besides a presidential nomination battle? They made appearances on the covers of Time and Newsweek, in stories that treated them with seriousness and gravitas. Celebrity gives a person instant credibility with the public. The wit who said “I don’t care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right” wasn’t wrong. Publicity grants celebrity, which bestows gravitas on even the infamous. With the air of gravitas celebrity bestows and millions from a giant corporation, it becomes possible for a “B” movie actor off limited intellectual prowess, to become a man considered by many Americans to be our greatest President.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/146183/americans-say-reagan-greatest-president.aspx

Another effect of celebrity is that it really does diminish and destroy our common and individual moral and ethical values. When a football star like Tim Tebow, bestows praise on Jesus for his game victories, isn’t his devotion really a trivialization of his God? The idea that the Creator (or co-creator) of this incredible universe cares about the result of a football game, or a player in it, is beyond sacrilege. Yet celebrity holds Tebow up as a righteous young man of great moral fortitude. This goes beyond religion and into other areas of achievement. Thus Donald Trump, a man of inherited wealth who has gone into bankruptcy three times, can write instruction books on how to get rich. George W. Bush, a failure in business and a man of no known self achievement can become President simply based on his family name. Once attaining office this man can then use a great tragedy to hasten the destruction of our countries hallowed, if often ignored, constitutional traditions.

The idea that fame itself, or fifteen minutes of it, is a desirable achievement is also a destructive force that affects our people and our country. I see parents whose children have been killed hours before, sitting and primping for TV interviews exploring their grief, my stomach churns and I wonder how it is possible for them to perform an interview. I then realize of course that the desire to be on TV will cause people to do anything, no matter how degrading or humiliating for their chance of fleeting fame. We hunger to be the “celebrity” we see on TV and we have redefined the notion of celebrity into an achievement that may be little more than brief notoriety.

If achievement is redefined into achieving celebrity status, then it makes sense to shoot John Lennon, for instance, because you can become an immortal via murder. Lee Harvey Oswald’s fame will always be tied to that of JFK. Now this was true in the past with John Wilkes Booth, but the difference is Booth was probably seeking revenge rather than notoriety. Mark David Chapman was seeking fame in Lennon’s death and he achieved it. However, examples are replete with those who’ve achieved celebrity via less vicious routes, yet were willing to take shortcuts to fame even if it entailed actions that were bizarre or humiliating.

I began with a quote from Andy Warhol, who in one sense I appreciate and in another sense loathe. He is to be appreciated by my lights, in that in his pursuit of his art career he demonstrated equal prescience to that of Marshall McCluhan,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan  in understanding the direction Culture was heading towards with the development of mass media. Warhol used his understanding and intelligence to market himself as an artist and to create a commercially successful brand. He was a supremely self-involved cynic, who used his art to recreate his dystopian vision of the world in his work. He became a celebrity among celebrities and in the process helped generate the current state of celebrity in our culture. As a creature of this culture I can’t hold myself above it, but I can feel pain at what we’ve become. Is this the ravings of an old fogy, or do you the reader sometimes feel the same?

We are up against two very popular sites: Ann Althouse and Volokh Conspiracy. Both are conservative legal sites and are highly regarded. The latter is a site founded by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and is run by 19 conservative law professors, including my colleague Orin Kerr. While I often disagree with their conclusions, I have always found it very substantive and thought-provoking. Ann Althouse is one of the oldest legal sites with a very large audience placing her in the top three most visited legal sites in the world — a remarkable achievement.

I must confess that maintaining this site and my day job does not leave me much time to visit other sites. However, this competition highlights the remarkable array of top sites available to readers, including those in the opinion category. Other categories include sites that I have always found insightful and provocative like Scotusblog, BLT, Simple Justice, How Appealing, Sentencing Law and Policy, and TaxLaw Prof. I recommend, however, that you look at the other sites — including many appearing for the first time.

Our blog is described as follows:

Maybe it’s our journalism bias, but we like when D.C.-based constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley opines on the news of the day and isn’t always satisfied with the version recounted in media reports. In February, he went straight to the source to tease out the sequence of events that cost an Indiana deputy attorney general his job. Of course, we also get a kick out of the occasional random, off-topic posts, especially the penguin videos he shared after his son Ben pointed them out.

Benjamin was thrilled by the reference to his penguin selection.

This is always a fun competition, win or lose. Last year, the competition turned ugly with a misinformation campaign by a regular from one of the other competing sites (again among the opinion blogs this year) that told pro-gun sites that I am a leading anti-gun advocate — and encouraged all gun owners to vote against our blog in defense of gun ownership. It spoiled an otherwise friendly contest among blogs. All blogs should be rightfully proud of their accomplishments and common purpose — and intense loyalty of their regulars contributors.

Good luck to all of the blogs this year and thank you ABA Journal. Now go and vote!

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

From Climate Science Watch (March 18, 2010): To the libertarians, the widely-shared scientific assessment that human-caused climate change will likely produce major harmful consequences — and the communication of this evidence to the public by the leading climate scientists — poses a particularly serious threat. An informed public concerned about the likelihood of harmful impacts of unchecked global climatic disruption is more likely to call for significant government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In order to block proactive government policymaking and keep corporate interests unregulated, libertarian groups have focused a significant part of their efforts on climate change on distorting the science to confuse public opinion, denying the seriousness of the problem, and, most recently, impugning the integrity of the climate science community. The Koch brothers have stepped forward with deep pockets to bankroll such efforts.

Many people have already heard about the libertarian billionaire businessmen brothers Charles and David Koch who have helped to found and/or fund a number of non-profit organizations and think tanks—including the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), the Federalist Society, the Reason Foundation, and the Heritage Foundation—whose aim seems to be the advancement of the Kochs’ agenda “that government taxes and regulations impinge on prosperity.”

What many people may not be aware of is the number of academic centers/institutions that the Kochs are also helping to fund at both public and private colleges and universities—including Florida State University, West Virginia University, Brown University, Troy University, and Utah State University.

I’m going to focus on just one of these Koch-funded academic centers in this post—the Mercatus Center, a conservative think tank located at George Mason University in Virginia—and on Susan B. Dudley, a woman who worked at Mercatus and was then appointed to a regulatory position at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2007.

THE MERCATUS CENTER

In a 2004 Wall Street Journal article, the Mercatus Center was described as “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of.” Previously known as the Center for the Study of Free Market Processes, the Mercatus Center was founded by Richard Fink—with a grant from Charles Koch. Koch currently serves on the center’s Board of Directors—as does Fink who is also an executive vice president and a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc.

Jane Mayer wrote the following in Covert Operations, an article that appeared in the New Yorker in 2010: The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation.

Public Citizen, a group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, has called the Mercatus Center  “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and other corporate interests.” Richard Fink claims, however, that the center does not actively promote the Koch company’s private interests. He said that Koch “has other means of fighting its battles” in Washington and that they never had a nonprofit advance their agenda. Some people would disagree.

Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in environmental issues, told Mayer that “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the E.P.A., and Mercatus has constantly hammered on the agency.” Another environmental lawyer who spoke to Mayer said that Mercatus was “a means of laundering economic aims.”  The lawyer described the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”

Rob Stein, a Democratic strategist, told Mayer that the relationship between George Mason University and Mercatus is an unusual arrangement. “George Mason is a public university, and receives public funds. Virginia is hosting an institution that the Kochs practically control.” Stein claimed that Mercatus was “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”

According to Sourcewatch, Mercatus “has engaged in campaigns involving deregulation, especially environmental deregulation.” It has been reported that fourteen of the twenty-three regulations that George W. Bush put on his hit list were first suggested by academics who worked at the Mercatus Center.

In 2010, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute released a study that named Koch Industries as one of this country’s top ten polluters. That same year, Greenpeace released a report titled Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine. In the report’s executive summary, Greenpeace stated that Koch Industries had “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition.” (Greenpeace also reported that Koch foundations have contributed more than $48 million in grants to “climate opposition groups” since 1997—and that more than half of that has been donated since 2005.)

MEET SUSAN B. DUDLEY

Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, wrote in 2007 about George W. Bush’s re-nomination of “a veritable rogues’ gallery of anti-environmental figures to key posts in federal agencies.” O’Donnell said that Susan B. Dudley, one of the nominees, was “a true anti-regulatory zealot. As director of regulatory studies at the industry-funded Mercatus Center, Dudley was like a wrecking ball out to smash key safeguards.” He added, “Putting Dudley in this key federal post would be like naming comedian Michael Richards to head the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.”

According to Lee Fang of Think Progress, George W. Bush appointed Susan B. Dudley, the director of the Regulatory Studies Program at the Mercatus Center, to head the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)—after the center had attacked the “EPA regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gases by challenging the science of climate change.” (Dudley’s was a recess appointment in 2007.)

O’Donnell said that as head of OIRA Dudley would have one “of the most obscure yet powerful jobs in Washington. The person in this position can, largely without public scrutiny, interfere with actions of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, and become a conduit for industries seeking to avoid federal health, environmental and safety standards.”

The Cost is Too High: How Susan Dudley Threatens Public Protections, a report produced by Public Citizen and OMB Watch in 2006, said that while Dudley worked at Mercatus, she “attacked proposed regulations in formal submissions to government agencies and orchestrated campaigns to derail other safeguards already on the books.” The report also claimed that Dudley displayed “an extreme anti-regulatory ideology” and “questioned the merit of regulation altogether in congressional testimony and regulatory comments, and she has urged weakening, if not eliminating entirely, public safeguards.”

Dudley worked to oppose public health regulations as a “hidden tax” that hinders profits when she was at Mercatus. She opposed all of the following: EPA plans that would have set tougher standards for smog; lower-polluting cars and SUVs—as well as cleaner gasoline; air bags in cars; stronger regulations for arsenic in drinking water; measures that could help curb global warming. (Think Progress)

Dudley has been quoted as stating that the “evidence regarding global warming and human contribution to it is mixed, and…if a slight warming does occur, historical evidence suggests it is likely to be beneficial, occurring at night, in the winter, and at the poles.” In her testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety/Committee on Environment and Public on April 24, 1997, Dudley said: “Ozone in the troposphere, like ozone in the stratosphere, has the beneficial effect of screening ultraviolet radiation, which is known to have various health and welfare effects including melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, cataracts, and crop and fishery damage.”

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a nonprofit consortium of more than seventy universities that offer Ph.D.s in atmospheric and related sciences, doesn’t see it the same way Dudley does. UCAR has said the following about ozone in the troposphere:

Ozone occurs naturally at ground-level in low concentrations. The two major sources of natural ground-level ozone are hydrocarbons, which are released by plants and soil, and small amounts of stratospheric ozone, which occasionally migrate down to the earth’s surface. Neither of these sources contributes enough ozone to be considered a threat to the health of humans or the environment.

But the ozone that is a byproduct of certain human activities does become a problem at ground level and this is what we think of as ‘bad’ ozone. With increasing populations, more automobiles, and more industry, there’s more ozone in the lower atmosphere. Since 1900 the amount of ozone near the earth’s surface has more than doubled. Unlike most other air pollutants, ozone is not directly emitted from any one source. Tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight, particularly ultraviolet light, with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are emitted by automobiles, gasoline vapors, fossil fuel power plants, refineries, and certain other industries.

And this is what UCAR said about the negative impacts of tropospheric ozone:

While stratospheric ozone shields us from ultraviolet radiation, in the troposphere this irritating, reactive molecule damages forests and crops; destroys nylon, rubber, and other materials; and injures or destroys living tissue. It is a particular threat to people who exercise outdoors or who already have respiratory problems.

Ozone affects plants in several ways. High concentrations of ozone cause plants to close their stomata. These are the cells on the underside of the plant that allow carbon dioxide and water to diffuse into the plant tissue. This slows down photosynthesis and plant growth. Ozone may also enter the plants through the stomata and directly damage internal cells.

Rubber, textile dyes, fibers, and certain paints may be weakened or damaged by exposure to ozone. Some elastic materials can become brittle and crack, while paints and fabric dyes may fade more quickly.

When ozone pollution reaches high levels, pollution alerts are issued urging people with respiratory problems to take extra precautions or to remain indoors. Smog can damage respiratory tissues through inhalation. Ozone has been linked to tissue decay, the promotion of scar tissue formation, and cell damage by oxidation. It can impair an athlete’s performance, create more frequent attacks for individuals with asthma, cause eye irritation, chest pain, coughing, nausea, headaches and chest congestion and discomfort. It can worsen heart disease, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Prior to Dudley’s appointment to OIRA, Scott Silver, executive director of Wild Wilderness, wrote in an email exchange with Media Transparency that “Dudley would be the most anti-regulatory zealot within the Bush Administration, bar none. Her ideology is based upon a core belief that regulations are generally bad and there should be no regulation unless it can be proven to be cost effective and supported from within the market place.”

The Cost is Too High report said that Dudley’s radicalism put her “right at home at Mercatus”—which was “founded by corporate interests and endowed by large corporations, free-market oriented foundations, and leaders from the corporate world”  and “has long operated at the intersection of money, power, and influence in order to promote corporate special interests at the expense of the public interest.”

Note: Susan B. Dudley is a Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration and is serving as the Director of the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

EPA Nemesis: Mercatus Center Another Koch Think Tank (Sourcewatch/Center for Media and Democracy)

Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group Mercatus Center (Greenpeace)

From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial: Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groups (Think Progress)

The White House’s Agents Of Environmental Corruption (Think Progress)

Koch’s Web of Influence (Center for Public Integrity)

Koch-Powered Tea Party Pushes Climate Denial Bill In New Hampshire (Think Progress)

Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. (The New Yorker)

The White House’s Agents Of Environmental Corruption (Think Progress)

Does Bush know how to pick ‘em or does he know how to pick ‘em? (Daily Kos)

The Cost is Too High: How Susan Dudley Threatens Public Protections (Public Citizen & OMB Watch)

Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot To Head ‘Super-Powerful’ Public Safety Office (Think Progress)

Stop Susan Dudley: The air you breathe depends on it (Public Citizen)

Dudley Do-Wrong of George Mason University (Media Transparency)

With Senate on break, Bush appoints officials: The three, including a contentious regulatory director, most likely would not have been approved by lawmakers. (Los Angeles Times)

I Am OMB and I Write the Rules (Washington Post)

On First Day Of New Congress, Koch Operatives Met With GOP Chairman Planning To Gut The Clean Air Act (Think Progress)

ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection (The Nation)

Exclusive: Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Denies Climate Change, Shrugs Off His Carbon Pollution (ThinkProgress)

The Koch Energy and Commerce Committee (Turley Blog)

Koch Industries multibillionaire Koch brothers bankroll attacks on climate change science and policy (Climate Science Watch)

The Most Important Think Tank You’ve Never Heard Of (Richard C. Young)

Rule Breaker: In Washington, Tiny Think Tank Wields Big Stick on Regulation (Mercatus)

Meet Koch Industries (Oil Watchdog)

Mercatus Center—Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial [REPORT] (PolluterWatch)

Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial [REPORT] (PolluterWatch)

Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial 2011 Update (Greenpeace)

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (Greenpeace)

The Kochs’ Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation (The Green Market)

Does This Matter? Eliminating the EPA? (Watchdog Progressive)

REPORT: Koch Fueling Far Right Academic Centers At Universities Across The Country (ThinkProgress)

FSU Accepts Funds From Charles Koch In Return For Control Over Its Academic Freedom (ThinkProgress)

Billionaire’s role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions (St. Petersburg Times)

VIDEO: Why Oil Billionaire David Koch Is Secretly Funding Astroturf To Repeal CA Clean Energy Law AB 32 (Think Progress)

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial (Think Progress)

Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) – Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group (Greenpeace)

Climate Change Deniers Without Borders: How American oil money is pumping up climate change skeptics abroad—and how they could derail any progress made in Copenhagen. (Mother Jones)

Bush Obstructs EPA, OSHA, CDC Regulations (Mother Jones)

Koch Industries and Lobbying in Washington (Desmogblog)

Koch and George Mason University (Desmogblog)

Still Hiring Tree Haters (Tom Paine)

Another big time fox nominated to be gatekeeper to the henhouse (Watching the Watchers)

Charles Koch’s Assault on Academic Freedom (Mother Jones)

In Washington, Tiny Think Tank Wields Big Stick on Regulation: With White House Ex-Staffers, Mercatus Helps Zap Codes It Says Restrict Business (Wall Street Journal)

Statutory Interpretation in the Era of OIRA (Georgetown University law Center)

Testimony of Susan E. Dudley
Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety
Committee on Environment and Public Works
April 24, 1997

The principle of forcing companies to internalize the cost of their pollution produces certain efficiencies. A rational actor seeking wealth maximization will try to externalize the costs of production to the greatest extent possible. Cost internalization gives the actor an incentive to reduce those costs by abating their pollution. Germany has been a leader in such policies, including implementing an internationalization of costs associated with packaging. Faced with costs of disposal of packaging, companies responded by reducing packaging.

United Continental and American Airlines have led the fight to avoid paying their costs of pollution. Yet, in her interim opinion, Juliane Kokott, the ECJ’s advocate-general, rejected claims that this tax impinged on American companies and America itself: “EU legislation does not infringe the sovereignty of other states or the freedom of the high seas guaranteed under international law, and is compatible with the relevant international agreements.”
In the meantime, the Obama Administration opposes the pollution tax being applied to U.S. companies. Obama Administration officials insist that U.S. airlines should be allowed to pollute in Europe as they do in the United States — without paying such costs.

Airlines account for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions and that percentage is quickly rising. The tax will add between €6-€12 per ticket for a transatlantic flight.

Source: FT

Serafin Marin, a native of Barcelona, delivered the final death blow or estocada to the thrill of the crowd. Some paid 1,500 euros just to watch the bull killed. By the way, a leading bullfighter could charge up to half a million euros for each appearance. The bull gets . . . well, the bull just gets it.

While the ban goes into effect on January 1st, this is the end of the bull killing season.

Organizers are demanding millions in compensation over the ban and there is a plan for a class action. This would mean that any sport found harmful by the government would require compensation. That would be akin to dogfighters suing over the ban on that “sport.” I do not know the Spanish translation, but the court should dismiss the action as just . . . well . . . bull.

Source: Telegraph

Evidence disclosed by the House shows that the bankrupt solar company was well-known to be poorly structured and unlikely to survive. Indeed, one government review predicted that the company would run out of cash in September 2011. The company failed on Sept. 6th.

That was long before the company was made the President’s poster child for federal support in September 2009. After receiving $527 million in federal funds over two years, the company filed for bankruptcy.

While the Bush administration set the loan guarantee program in motion, it was the Obama Administration that ignored various warnings and selected the company for a massive media campaign by both Obama and Biden — the latter praising the “permanent jobs” created by the loan.

A DOE staff on August 20, 2009, obtained noted “The issue of working capital remains unresolved… the issue is cash balances, not cost. [Solyndra] seems to agree that the model runs out of cash in Sept. 2011 even in the base case without any stress.”

One email disclosed today warned:

“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

Another e-mail warned that “this deal is NOT ready for prime time.”

That did not stop the Obama White House from going primetime with both the President and Vice President. It is the type of calculation that made Las Vegas what it is today. Faced with warnings of a losing hand, the Obama Administration doubled down.

It is not the sheer waste of hundreds of millions in federal funds but the sheer stupidity of this move that has shocked many folks. The fact that a campaign donor was pushing these loans and repeatedly meeting with top staffers does not help the optics — particularly during a month when the White House has been accused by a general of pressuring him to support the business project of another major donor.

The fact is that the Republicans are justified in pursuing this controversy — an opportunity, if not a gift, given to the GOP by this White House.

Source: Yahoo

Various people have come forward to say that Thomas is dedicated to animals and particularly loved Sache. Thomas says that she left water for the dog when she left him for a day and that he was on a fasting regimen for a day due to a skin condition. Thomas went to “flyball tournament” with her other dogs and did not take Sache because the dog has a “social anxiety disorder.” in which her other dogs participated in a ball-chasing competition. She fed the dog on Friday and left her on Saturday to return on Sunday. On Sunday, however, her landlord came into the shop only to find the dog dead and a room that looked “ransacked.” A state witness testified that the place smelled pungent when he entered and seemed to lack proper ventilation.

Now here is the interesting question: if the dog died of natural causes unconnected to the abandonment, is there still as crime? The prosecutor says yes and the cause of death does not matter. Leaving the dog for a day was animal neglect. Yet, what if an expert would testify that the dog died with an hour of being left alone. Clearly it is not neglect to leave a dog for hours at a time. Many people leave their dogs during the work day for up to 8 hours.

Pinellas County Judge Donald Horrox, however, found evidence in the two-day trial showed she suffered a serious “lapse of judgment” and rejected the need to know why the dog died after a jury found Thomas guilty.

Thomas, 31, was sentenced to 12 months probation with 30 days in the Pinellas County Jail. She will be allowed to keep her five other dogs with restrictions.

Source: Tampa Bay as first seen on ABA Journal

The memo details how Bayer performed facially inadequate testing on the pesticide clothianidin and then EPA accepted the results to release the pesticide without adequate proof that it would not harm the bee population. The EPA gave conditional approval in 2003 and let Bayer sell the product.

The EPA memo dated November 2, 2010 says that the EPA accepted the flawed research and only told the company to complete further safety testing by a certain deadline. The company did not complete the research for years and instead fought to get extensions on its conditional permit. The final testing was reportedly flawed — performed in another country with bees that were located on a small patch of treated crops surrounded by thousands of acres on untreated crops. The EPA quickly embraced the defective study and gave full registration to clothianidin in 2007 during the Bush Administration. Yet, even in the Obama Administration in November, 2010, the EPA did not act when the company filed for another extension.

On a political level, this is a fascinating story since many Republican candidates have been calling for the elimination or reduction of the EPA to help the economy. The loss of the honeybees represents a catastrophic blow for agriculture in the United States. Even if you are a candidate with little concern for public health or the environment, this is an example of how pollution or harmful chemicals hurt the economy.

On a legal level, the story would create an interesting question if true. The company stands accused of doing rigged and delayed field testing in order to get a defective product to market. The result is claimed to be the devastation of honeybees that are vital to farms and other businesses. Can they now sue? The problem will be proving causation in such a massive tort case. Of course, a trial would produce greater scrutiny than was the case at the EPA.

I am also concerned that this memo had to be leaked. Once again, neither the agency nor Congress informed the nation of this evidence for years as the world has searched for a cause of the loss. Even if this is not found to the cause or only cause, there remains questions of why this company was able to introduce such a chemical into the environment with so little scrutiny. The reliance on industry testing has long been controversial and the lack of serious scrutiny during both the Bush and Obama Administrations shows how industry continues to exercise a disturbing degree of control over the data used to evaluate their products.

Source: PR Watch

Today I came across this fascinating exposition on a facet of American History often overlooked in our educational syllabus. The Boston Tea Party, from which today’s Tea Party takes its’ name, was actually a revolt against the dominance of the largest Multi-national Corporation of its’ time and its’ monopoly of the ubiquitous tea trade. The power of this entity came through its political dominance of the British Monarchy and with its’ compliance and enforcement of this Corporation’s needs. Contrast the actual positions of today’s “Tea Partier’s” with those whose names they usurp. I think you will find this a fascinating video and I will comment after the fold.

Even if you didn’t watch this whole video, I’m sure you got enough information to understand that the Boston Tea Party was about fighting the bestowal of government privileges, including tax cuts, to a large, influential corporation. Today’s “Tea Party” is a movement created by wealthy corporate interests, guided by a powerful lobbyist, Dick Armey, and is committed to ensuring that corporations have no regulations whatsoever. I had previously documented that here:

 http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/tea-party-and-the-myth-of-a-grassroots-movement/

 This is a fact that it seems none dare mention in the Mainstream Broadcast Media, excepting MSNBC. The average viewer is led to believe, by the bloviating pundits, that this is a “grass roots” movement of average folk, fed up by too much government involvement in their lives. The “Tea Party” has been invested by the same punditry, with the mantle of being a “populist” movement. In fact, the only resemblance to them and certain “populists” of the past is that there is a racialist percentage among them.

Today’s TP’ers are essentially anti-constitutionalists, in league with those who would be theocrats, working in the service of corporate interests. They bandy about epithets for the rest of American’s, the majority of Americans I must say, that call their opponents socialists, communists and fascists. Although all of these epithets could hardly characterize either the Democratic Party, or the President they revile, they gain currency through the repetition of the corporate “Big Lie” and are given equal treatment by the media.

The only way for real American’s to battle these anti-constitutionalists is by constantly exposing the lies and the memes they use to give themselves legitimacy, such as taking on the mantle of an historic American move towards independence. Admittedly, these are harsh words and do not necessarily represent the views of this blog or its proprietor.

Enough, however, is enough. I cannot abide the hypocrisy being displayed here, nor can I abide watching a field of Republican candidates, kowtowing to this movement, who are themselves made up of clowns, knaves and even much worse. Oh, do I long for the days of Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower before him. The current crop of Presidential hopefuls in the GOP isn’t fit to step into the shoes of their Republican forebears, who were demonstrable realists with no small intelligence.

The worst part of it is that although the whole contingent of Republican Presidential hopefuls pretend to represent themselves as the people’s protectors, their history strongly suggests quite the opposite. Their greatest weapon thus far has been to seize the political initiative and attain power through erecting a Potemkin Wall of popular support. They have done this by redefining American History, the Constitution and given new meanings to words. The TP’ers have successfully infiltrated our Congress  with preachers of cant and no-nothingness and because of this, we must perforce expose and oppose them, or watch the very heart of our government, our Constitution, shredded by the hypocrisy by which they justify their actions.

In November 2009, federal agents seized guitars and fingerboard blanks that were allegedly made from illegally harvested Madagascan rosewood and ebony. Last week the agents seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. From a Reuters report the latest raid is related to a shipment of sawn ebony logs from India that was imported by Gibson illegally, violating the Lacey Act.

Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz insists that the raid is simply because the wood was finished in the United States and is based on Indian law being enforced in the U.S. The company released a press statement saying “The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India.”

The Lacey Act does enforce the laws of other countries to prevent companies from using the United States for trafficking in illegal goods. Ironically, the Act was originally passed to stop the destructive sale of our own domestic resources (particularly bird feathers) but has become a law protecting the natural areas of other nations from the same threat. The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378) was the brainchild of Iowa Rep. John F. Lacey, who wanted to block the trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, transported or sold. It was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900.

Thus, it is not in anyway odd for the U.S. to enforce the law of another country. Moreover, the affidavit below claims a series of false or misleading statements in the documentation related to this shipment. The agent details what is alleged to be “fraudulently” labeled wood that is an attempt to evade an Indian ban on exports of unfinished wood.

The affidavit below details what is a classic Lacey Act violation with both the content of the shipment and the recipient. Regardless of Juszkiewicz’s politics, this shipment would have been flagged based on these allegations.

It does appear that, if the wood were finished in India, this might not be a violation under Indian law. Moreover, it is the type of violation that can easily occur if you do not use a local attorney to verify such questions. However, it is also true that companies often claim ignorance of local laws will supporting unlawful shipments of wood and other items. The point is that purchasing companies are equally responsible when they import unlawful goods. In my view, the 2009 allegations, detailed in one of the articles below, present a more serious concern in the importation of the wood from Madagascar — an area that has been ravaged by illegal harvesting and corruption.

Conservative bloggers and radio hosts have suggested that this is political retribution for Juszkiewicz’s support of conservative candidates. Gibson appears to be fueling the political allegation with Twitter postings to conservatives.

One report says that either Juszkiewicz or the company is warning that people who now have Gibson Guitars could see their instruments seized by the government. It is a clever tact to work up citizens but it is highly unlikely. It is true that purchase or possession of unlawful material is prohibited under Lacey. The act makes it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law whether in interstate or foreign commerce. Yet, it is rare to see actions taken against individual owners of prior sold products like a guitar. The focus of enforcement is on those in the stream of commerce, particularly shippers, manufacturers, and retailers.

Juszkiewicz objects that his employees are being treated like “drug dealers” though his own relations with his employees may need from fine tuning. The company has also been named in 2009 as the number one “worst to work for” in a survey by glassdoor.com.

Here is the statement of the Federal Agent: 20110819154237897

For a good discussion of the history of the two cases, click here and here

I have been admittedly snarky of the coverage for days, particularly the last 24-hours when the hurricane was a Cat-1 hitting hundreds of miles away. Having lived through pretty big hurricanes in Louisiana, I have a respect for the storms but there was never any predictions of serious rain in my area. For days, I have been checking the various weather sites only to find predictions of two inches of rain and strong winds on Saturday night (with clearing on Sunday). I would then turn on the television or go on the Internet and find live, round-the-clock, breathless coverage of the “misery” and “destruction” coming to Washington. At no time did the forecast predict anything more than roughly a couple inches of rain and high winds. There was clearly a chance for power outages due to the soaked soil and winds, but the coverage in this area was positively apocalyptic.

In addition to ratings, the hysteria did produce record sales at stores as people prepared for the apocalypse with bodies stacked like firewood in the streets.

Everything closed despite the fact that only two inches of rain and some strong winds were predicted. This morning, the coverage continues with reporters showing the same pictures of a couple of trees down to fill time. The rest of the coverage is largely “things that did not happen” stories. My favorite this morning on Channel 4 (NBC) was how in Alexandria the harbor man thought that people who tied up their boats for high tide might have to come back and tie the boats for lower tide. The reporter then went to show how the water has not risen and how high water could have been a problem in causing flooding — if there was high water. As predicted in the actual forecasts for days before the hurricane (as opposed to the news coverage), we had some trees down, some power outages, and rain. Various forecasters (here and here) objected to the overblown claims in places like Washington before the storm hit.

I was not alone in feeling a significant loss of credibility for our local media in the hype leading to the storm — which seemed overtly disconnected to the actual predictions of rain and wind. Of course, at the coast, there were some curious moments such as the reporter who gave a live account while covered in what appears toxic foam.

We decided not to join the apocalyptic preparations and instead invited a couple of the friends of the kids over for a hurricane party and sleepover. Our power went off for exactly twenty seconds, but we had a grand time and watched “Cats v. Dogs” while devouring bags of popcorn. The overkill coverage will only make it more difficult for media and the government to get people to believe them next time when there is a serious threat, in my view.

Of course, most everything is still closed today as we clean up the carnage of blown leaves and soggy lawns in our area. In your view, was Irene overblown?

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Bogger

It is a big deal when you read that New York City is shutting down their transit system and ordering evacuations due to the impending hurricane that is making its way up the Eastern coast.  It also concerned me because my daughter is now in NYC and is unable to get out before Monday.  I can only imagine the devastation that will occur all the way from the Carolinas up to the Northeast due to Hurricane Irene.   When you read the stories and see the pictures of the havoc and sometimes death that is the result of these kind of natural disasters, it is hard to understand why some politicians are clamoring that the government should not pay for relief unless there are corresponding spending cuts!  Congressman and Republican candidate for the Presidential nomination, Dr. Ron Paul goes even further and states that the government should not respond at all to these disasters.

“Taking his anti-government ideology to its logical extreme, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told NBC News’ Jo Ling Kent today that there should be no national response to Hurricane Irene, and that government responses should revert back to how they were over 100 years ago. “We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940 1950 1960,” he said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time.” Of course, the Gulf Coast sometimes deals with them less well thanks to a botched national response. Paul, who has called for abolishing FEMA, dismissed the organization because it is “a great contribution to deficit financing.”   Think Progress   Rep. Paul wants the United States of America to go back to the turn of the 20th Century when it comes to disaster relief.  Maybe he would prefer we go back to the year 1900 in our scientific knowledge or our technological advances too?

Rep. Paul’s fellow Congressman, Rep. Eric Cantor would only agree to government aid if the aid was followed by spending cuts of equal amounts!  “Cantor raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when, in the aftermath of the 5.8 magnitude earthquake that rattled the East Coast and originated in his district, he said Congress will help those hurt by the earthquake but will require finding offsets for any federal aid.  “When there’s a disaster there’s an appropriate federal role and we will find the monies,” Cantor said during a news conference in Mineral, Va. “But we’ve had discussions about these things before and those monies will be offset with appropriate savings or cost-cutting elsewhere in order to meet the priority of the federal government’s role in a situation like this.”  Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring on Friday declined to say where Republicans would look to make cuts to pay for a potential storm aid package.”  Huffington Post  Let me make a guess that Rep. Cantor is not thinking of raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for disaster relief!

As the linked Huffington Post article suggests, not all of Rep. Paul’s and Rep. Cantor’s fellow Republicans agree with the “no government” response or tying aid to spending cuts.  “As East Coasters brace for what some say will be a historic pummel by Hurricane Irene, at least one lawmaker is fuming over a requirement by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) that any potential emergency disaster aid be offset by spending cuts.  “It is sinful to require us to cut somewhere … in order to provide emergency disaster assistance for American citizens,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) told The Huffington Post on Friday.  The Louisiana Democrat pointed out that this weekend is the sixth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated his district and cost the federal government more than $100 billion. That recovery effort would have been delayed “by years” if Congress had required the same kind of spending cuts to offset aid, he said.”

I want to make it clear that the gentlemen who have come out against any government response at all or for paying for that response with spending cuts elsewhere are not wild-eyed radical terrorists, but leaders of their Party.   If I read these quotes correctly, Rep. Paul is telling current and future victims of any large multi-state disaster that you are on your own if Hurricane Irene destroys your town and home.   Rep. Cantor seems to be telling victims that they may get help, but only if Congress can agree on additional spending cuts to offset the wild spending spree that disaster relief is alleged to be.  Dr. Paul is on record of being a Christian and that the United States is a Christian country, but he does not think the Christian nation should help those in need after a natural and multi-state disaster.  Lew Rockwell.com  What would Jesus think?

With all of this self–reliance being demanded by Ron Paul and Eric Cantor and others, and the claim that we are a Judeo-Christian nation, you would think that disaster relief would be a high priority.  Why is it that politicians on both sides of the aisle preach self-reliance and Judeo-Christian values when it comes to Main Street, but Wall Street conglomerates and Big Oil and the extremely wealthy need and deserve Billions in tax give aways?  I have never been good at math, but something doesn’t add up here.

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger

Of course, one of the favorite factoids that I share with visitors is the different color of the marble of the Washington Monument showing where the construction was stopped. Construction began in 1848 and continued until 1854. When donations dried up, the construction stopped. When construction resumed years later, the quality of the stone and work was so bad, marble was later removed. When construction resumed in 1879, it was impossible to find exact matches for the marble.

Personally, I think that they should leave the scar as one more interesting record of the monument. We all have scars to brag about.

It is amazing that a ninety-five-year-old man could survive such physical punishment. These are likely Africanized bees.

Thankfully, there is a legal angle. Authorities believe that the bees were sent into a frenzy by an effort of a fumigator to get rid of a hive on a nearby apartment roof. The man simply walked by and was attacked.

The question is liability. While bees can be an act of God, this could also be viewed as proximately caused by a negligent effort to get rid of a hive. Obviously, you cannot simply say “bees will be bees” if you are the cause of the swarming. We have previously seen some interesting causation cases with bees. In this case, assuming that the exterminator did not first wrap or contain the hive, it could be viewed as a case of negligence with the foreseeable result of a swarming of the bees.

Ages ago, I worked as an assistant bee keeper at the Chesapeake Center for Environmental Research as a summer intern. For a guy who have never liked bees, it was not my favorite job which included taking out shelves for kingdoms of bees. As I recall, the researcher was trying to reverse the process leading to Africanized bees. I much preferred working in the swamp like summer, but it certainly left a long impression on me.

Source: NBC

It is well known that you don’t mess with seismologists who are known throughout the world as the bad boys of the geek world. Indeed, I recall that after Canter’s cuts, the lead USGS seismologist walked up and gave him the il colpo di grazia or the kiss of death. Being part Italian, I shuddered at the time but Cantor’s aides just assumed it was a pharmaceutical lobbyist.

My greatest concern is that Cantor also defended cuts in the National Weather Service and NOAA — and there is a hurricane approaching Washington.

The epicenter was in Mineral, Virginia. The quake was four miles deep. Of course, I tried to tape students around me for my protection from flying debris but few would stand still long enough — ungrateful imps.

Everyone was evacuated outside into the quad so I decided to go home to work. I didn’t get far. In perhaps the stupiest possible move, the State Department closed off 21st street — presumably to allow its own people to evacuate. However, they kept it closed causing a bottleneck of cars. If this were a serious emergency with aftershocks, they would have created bumper to bumper traffic while the closed street remained virtually clear of people and cars.

The EPA is attempting to curb the plethora of dangerous pollutants from these outmoded plants, including mercury, smog, ozone, and greenhouse gases.

The Edison Electric Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council are taking the lead in fighting such efforts — insisting that it will cost utilities up to $129 billion. The reason this effort deserves attention is that it is coming during an election where the EPA has become a central campaign issue. It seems no accident that some political operatives are flogging the issue as industry ramps up to try to get Congress to block the EPA’s effort to protect public health.

The Congressional Research Service has issued a report that seriously questions the industry claims of a “train wreck” caused by the regulation. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act and about two-thirds do not even have scrubbers — a lack of abatement technology that is more often found in third world countries. CRS noted that many are no longer competitive and probably would have to be replaced anyway.

However, it is the health benefits that are the most impressive — and shockingly ignored by critics. The EPA estimates that just an “air-transport rule to clamp down on smog” will prevent 21,000 cases of bronchitis and 23,000 heart attacks — and save 36,000 lives. There could be as much as $290 billion in health benefits.

What is striking is how “family oriented” politicians often ignore the harm done to children and families from pollution. This should be a no-brainer for a developed nation to force the closure of such outdated plants. It is not like the industry did not have plenty of time to deal with these facilities. Many opposed the protection previously given the plants, which have now had decades of operation below accepted environmental standards.

I also fail to understand why the Administration has not fought harder and more directly on this issue — emphasizing the lives and health of the public in the debate. Again, it appears like the Administration seems almost timid in supporting such efforts. It has again allowed the industry to initially frame and control the debate. While I have been highly critical of some of the decisions of President Obama, this is one that he should point to with pride and use as a critical distinguishing policy with his opponents.

Here is the report from the Congressional Research Service: CRS-EPA

Source: Washington Post

About 20 years ago, I was on a delegation to Taiwan and one of my areas of discussion was environmental protection. On the flight over to Taipei, our government sanctioned the Taiwan government for the sale of endangered species body parts in medicines and products. When I arrived, that is all the President and ministers wanted to discuss. They were quite angry and insisted that you could not buy such things as tiger bone on the island.

After days of denials, I decided to investigate the matter myself. I left the meeting early and got into a cab. The Justice minister had just denied that such products were openly sold in Taiwan so I asked the cab driver where I could buy tiger bone. He immediately said “Snake alley.” He offered to drive me that night and I accepted. After driving through the city that night, we walked me down a narrow alley with underaged girl prostitutes on either side behind thin curtains. It was horrible with some girls who looked as young as ten. We then emerged in Snake alley — so named because people often came to drink snake blood as an aphrodisiac. I watched as one large snake was killed and drained into a pint cup and given to a young man. The snake’s beating heart was placed on the table in front of him. He paid a wad of money and drank the blood and was served a snake soup. In addition to open sex acts on display, there was a wide array of endangered species body parts for sale from dozens of open tables. I bought a few and took them to the meeting the next day. I explain that it took me literally minutes to find a place to buy these. The minister looked shocked and then had an interesting response. Instead of again denying the availability of such products, he said that the Chinese culture is ancient and that he can personally attest that these ancient remedies work.

Rhino horn is also believed to combat cancer and is now more expensive than gold or cocaine — fueling the slaughter of the animals. Even museums have been broken into to get at the horns.

The problem (as discussed above) is that many Chinese officials harbor these notions of special healing qualities from such products. Yet, Britain is clearly correct that only an educational campaign by these countries will stem the slaughter.

Source: Independent

Jonathan Turley

The lobstermen then brag about destroying the purpose of the ceremony on their local blog, Goodmorninggloucester.org. Joe Ciaramitaro, who runs the blog, insisted oddly that “It’s really not meant as a slight toward Buddhism at all. We’re just having fun.’’ I would really like to know what constitutes a slight in Gloucester. I can now see what constitutes fun on the Degelyse. Here are some of the pictures.

Whether you agree with the monks or their faith, it is incredibly nasty and disrespectful to pull this type of stunt. In the video on the blog, the lobsterman taunt the Buddhists. I do not understand how adults could work so hard to be disrespectful to people in a religious-based ceremony. If this story is and these pictures are true, it is not just disrespectful, it is disgraceful. Even if satire, it released a torrent of anti-Buddhist mocking across the blogoshere.

Update: I reached out to speak with Joe Ciaramitaro who insists that they were just engaging in satire. He also noted that he is a practicing Buddhist. It is an ironic twist given the anti-Buddhist sentiment shown after the posting on this and other blogs. However, Mr. Ciaramitaro insists that his site often uses such satire.

Source: Boston.com

Among the ongoing battles in anthropology and paleontology since the mid-Nineteenth Century to now, is the distinction between the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man. Specifically this devolves down to what happened to the Neanderthals, since the fossil record appears to show their extinction about 20,000 years ago. My assumption is that most readers are familiar with a lot of this material. It is easily attainable through Google or Wiki. What I find most interesting in this ongoing debate is the impact that Social Darwinism might have played in the original depiction of Neanderthals and in the assumptions made by some scientists about this species.

“Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies predicated on the idea of survival of the fittest.^[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,^[2], Fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

The first skull of the Neanderthal had been discovered in 1926, but it was the discovery in 1856, in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany that gave the species a name. We all know that the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in 1859 set off a firestorm of both intellectual excitement and angry social resistance. By the end of the Nineteenth Century scientists, sociologists, physicians, philosophers, and politicians had misused Darwin’s phrase “survival of the fittest” to justify a host of theories that boiled down to two intertwined propositions. The first was that White People represented the apogee of human civilization and the second that among white people the Anglo-Saxon Teutonic strain represented the elite. This justified Eugenics, Imperialism and even the attempted genocide of the Native Americans. In politics, it also represented a definite anti-democratic strain, articulated prominently by Theodore Roosevelt, who believed that those of Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic origin should rule the Nation since the “rabble” was incapable of civilized behavior without their strong leadership.

These theories dominated most intellectual thought from the 1870’s through the 1940’s and was adapted accordingly to each new political situation that arose. “Marcellin Boule (1 January 1861 — 4 July 1942) was a French palaeontologist. He studied and published the first analysis of a complete Homo neanderthalensis. The fossil discovered in La Chapelle-aux-Saints was an old man, and Boule characterized it as brutish, bent kneed and not a fully erect biped ^[1]. In an illustration he commissioned, the Neanderthal was characterized as a hairy gorilla-like figure with opposable toes, according to a skeleton which was already distorted with arthritis. As a result, Neanderthals were viewed as highly primitive creatures in subsequent decades.”

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellin_Boule

Even before Boule, the discovery of Neanderthal and subsequently Cro-Magnon skeletal remains had become intermixed with racial theories. This was because the skeletal remains of Cro-Magnons were considered to be anatomically those of modern man, while Neanderthals were heavier boned with sloping skulls. Historically, there seems to be no typically Neanderthal remains discovered for perhaps the last 20,000 to 30,000 years. It wasn’t implausible to believe they had become extinct and further that they had lost a battle of survival with the Cro-Magnons, due to the superiority of the Cro-Magnon (modern human) strain. These discoveries were so exciting to the populace in general that it led to many popular depictions of both species. The Neanderthals were depicted as darker skinned, with ape-like bodies and faces. The depictions were strikingly similar to the caricatures of Africans also popular then.

It is little wonder to me that the theories of Neanderthal extinction dovetailed completely into the Social Darwinist concept of survival of the fittest, among what they wrongly characterized as “races” and conflated with ethnicity. With Social Darwinist undertones, it became the dominant theory among anthropologists and paleontologists that the Neanderthal was more primitive socially, technologically and intellectually. This led to their extinction, whether by direct violence or an inability to compete for the necessities of life. Anthropology, Archaeology and Paleontology have always been of great interest to me intellectually. In my readings, one of the most striking things I’ve noticed is the reticence of these sciences to explore or accept new ideas that go against the group’s common wisdom. There is a stultification of ideas in these sciences as the current “stars” of their firmament feel threatened by new ideas that challenge careers spent advocating particular beliefs. Just as Schliemann’s theory that Troy was real was ridiculed by the then Archaeological Establishment, only to be proven correct, so was any suggestion that the Neanderthal may have interbred with the Cro-Magnon’s and modern humans may represent the hybrids of this interbreeding.

Yesterday a story reported on MSNBC brought this to mind, although I was familiar with the ongoing argument.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33721697/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/did-neanderthals-have-sex-modern-man/

 There is genetic evidence now that Neanderthals did interbreed with Cro-Magnons coming intoEuropefromAfrica. While this by no means fully settles the question of the fate of the Neanderthals, it does lend credence to the work of Erik Trinkaus, who has led the derided minority faction that believed there was interbreeding.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Trinkaus

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory

 We have been brought up to believe that science is a pure search for the truth, backed by solid theories, proven by experimentation. This isn’t always the case. Scientists are human beings first, with all the frailties that connotes. Jealousy, egotism, greed, and other less than scientific behavior are as rife within the scientific community as with any other profession. Prejudice, in my opinion has played a significant role in the “Social Sciences” since their inception. In this instance I use, I do believe that the popularity of an underlying Social Darwinist perspective had a strong influence for many years as to how we viewed the Neanderthal.  

 There is rarely, if ever, perfect proof of any social science theory, that is to be left to what we call the “Hard Sciences”. Consider for instance the belief as to when the Neanderthal’s became extinct, if indeed they have. This is because we haven’t found any Neanderthal skeletal remains after about 20,000 BCE. The world though is a large place. We also know that around 8,000 to 10,000 BCE much land became flooded. Perhaps the “extinction” date exists only because we have not yet found subsequent evidence. When “social scientists” base their careers on only one system of belief, perhaps informed by their own prejudice, they pervert what we know as the Scientific Method and can often inhibit the growth of knowledge, which after all is the true purpose of science.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

Their shrinking ice floe habitat under constant assault by climate change, polar bears are taking to the water to preserve their species.  One female swam the equivalent distance between Boston and Washington D.C. in an effort to find more suitable habitat. The migration has caused a sad side-effect, as according to study author, George Durner, a USGS research zoologist, “Bears that engaged in long-distance swimming were more likely to experience cub loss.” Five of eleven polar bears that made these swims lost their cubs in the process.

Scientists have been tracking mother polar bears since 2004 by means of collar data collectors, but recently they noticed mysterious gaps in their data. Subsequent inquiry determined that these  gaps were caused by the bears’ swims in the icy water.  GPS data was then examined on 50 of the female bears to verify the swims of more than 30 miles.

Though constant for decades, summer sea ice has been shrinking constantly since 1995. In 2010, sea ice coverage was at the third lowest figure since data started being collected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  There is no evidence to suggest polar bears made these incredible survival swims before the effects of global warming became so dire. “We’re pretty sure that these animals didn’t have to do these long swims before, because 687-kilometer stretches of open water didn’t occur very often in the evolutionary history of the polar bear,” said study co-author Steven Amstrupp, chief scientist for the conservation group Polar Bears International.

The bears seemed to have arrived at consensus on the issue of climate change, risking their cubs in the process, even as their more evolved counterparts on land continue to wrestle with the phenomenon. Perhaps the bears can lead the way.

Source: National Geographic News

~ Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

The latest incoherence from the Right has to do with incandescence, as in incandescent light bulbs. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, a bill mandating higher efficiency standards, passed by massive majorities in Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, has put the kibosh on inefficient incandescent light bulbs. Obviously, an example of socialism/communism/fascism run amok.

H.R. 2417 is a bill sponsored by Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) that will save the incandescent light bulb. The debate on the debt ceiling did not hinder the vote on this critical legislation. The vote was Yea: 233, Nay: 193, but required a two-thirds majority because it was brought up by the method of “suspension of the rules.”

Barton seems to be concerned with the mercury content of compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). This was the same Barton who was not concerned with the 1,235 pounds of mercury that are released into the environment every year from just one coal-fired  power plant. As can be seen from the chart above, the worst case exposure to mercury from a broken CFL is equivalent to eating a 6 oz. can of tuna.

However, all of this faux outrage is moot. Philips, GE, and Sylvania, are producing incandescent light bulbs that meet the EISA standards. The Philips line is called EcoVantage.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the economic benefits of switching to more efficient light bulbs will include:

savings of $100 to $200 plus per year in the form of lower electric bills in each American household.

H/T: Kevin Drum, Stephen Lacey.

The cuts from Congress are above those asked by the Administration. Trillions of cuts are being worked out in light of budget shortfalls.

Hundreds of millions will be cut from the Joint Polar Satellite System, a reorganized satellite system and hundreds of millions more will be cut from NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities budget. NOAA is already a lean organization with an expanding mission. Other countries are increasing oceanic and weather monitoring to protect lives and property. However, with yet another war launched by President Obama, we can hardly be tossing away money on the environment and science while tossing cruise missiles at Tripoli.

Source: Science Mag

Canada remains a major exporter of asbestos despite the worldwide consensus on its dangers to human health. What is shocking is that the listing on the Rotterdam Convention would only require Canada to warn buyers of the dangers of asbestos in causing cancer and other illness — not bar its exportation. Yet, Canada has blocked even that listing.

However, the same government refusing to even list asbestos as a hazardous material is now moving to remove asbestos as a danger from the Canadian Parliament Buildings built in 1927. The initial cost estimates are $863 million Canadian.

Source: Slate

Jonathan Turley

The culprit is was Josh Seater, 21, who said he had been drinking and “I had a pleasant buzz.” Nevertheless, he admitted that “I knew I did wrong when I did it” particularly when an officer came running toward him.

A pint of urine diluted in 8 million gallons would seem to present little threat to human health, particularly since an open reservoir presumably has far greater amounts of bird droppings and even dead animals falling into it. I have never been a supporter of the view that “the solution to pollution is dilution” — a view that supports dumping in the oceans by calculating their “receiving capacity.” However, this seems worse for the environment to treat such a huge quantity of water and then dispose of it over the unpleasant thought of the fouling of the waters.

Notably, the reservoirs are drained twice a year to remove everything from paint cans to animal carcasses.

City Commissioner Randy Leonard, however, insists that there was a potential public health risk created by Seater.

There would be an interesting question presented by the response of the city if Seater is charged. If he is charged criminally, the city could demand restitution. It could also sue him civilly for the costs. Treating the water cost $8000 and the water itself is valued at $28,000. That would be a charge of $36,000. Yet, most experts would presumably say that the dumping of the water was an entirely unnecessary and extreme response. IF so, should Seater be responsible for the cost? This would be a akin to someone denting a car only to have the owner take the car to an auto yard to be crushed in response.

Besides, if it is any solace to the Portland citizens, he was drinking Coors, which is mainly water anyway.

Nevertheless, the court may conclude that, while extreme, the city was well within its rights to dispense with the water to assure its customers about the purity of its water supply. That would make this a very expensive night out for Josh Seater, who is unemployed.

He could face a misdemeanor charge.

Source: AP

The power company listed the outage as “deer with wings.”

The company was not the first electrical experts to identify the phenomenon of flying horses, deer, and houses . . .

Source: Seattle

PI

The Commission wants the city to ban the sale of goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in its borders as part of its campaign to discourage “impulse buy” animals.

There remains no ban on impulse buy legislation, however.

This story hits home after our recent tragedy. Last year we lost Trigger, our Beta fish, who seemed as old as a sea turtle. We gave him a sea burial at the creek near our house and held a moving ceremony on the small wooden bridge. With the grieving process at an end, the kids want a new fish. Clearly, we may want to buy locally.

Source: NBC

The police insisted that they had no choice after the cow tore down a couple of fences, but onlookers said the taserings did nothing but irritate the cow.

Doug Hirsch (boyfriend of Bordeleau) stated “It was almost like [the police] wanted to punish the cow for ruining their afternoon.’’

Police, however, say that the cow had already been free for a couple of hours. Sergeant Michael Pickles stated that the police used tasers three times and that it motivated the cow to return to an area to be controlled. At least this was not another case of cow taserings for fun.

A complaint has been filed against the police.

Source: Boston

The WHO reports places cellphones in the same category as pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust.

Reports of this kind should worry the industry. If a link is established, the industry could be rocked by massive liability and follow a trajectory similar to the tobacco industry. Here you have knowledge of the long simmering debate but also significant differences between phones on their respective levels of radiation.

The Environmental Working Group list the following as the best phones in terms of their low radiation levels:

1. LG Quantum [AT&T]
2. Casio EXILIM [Verizon Wireless]
3. Sanyo Katana II [Kajeet]
4. Pantech Breeze II (P2000) [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone]
5. Samsung Mesmerize (Galaxy S) [CellularONE, U.S. Cellular]
6. Samsung Fascinate [Verizon Wireless]
7. Samsung SGH-a197 [AT&T GoPhone]
8. Samsung Contour (SCH-R250) [MetroPCS]
9. Samsung Gravity T (SGH-T669) [T-Mobile]
10. Samsung SGH-T249 [T-Mobile]

Source: Baltimore Sun

This occurred during a huge coronal mass ejection (CME), an burst of plasma that sent solar particles shooting into space at breathtaking speed of 1 million mph.

The suicidal comet was a member of the Kreutz family of comets that orbit a few hundred thousand miles of the sun. Our condolences to 19th century astronomer Heinrich Kreutz.

As with civil libertarians, environmentalists have long been dismissed by the White House as having no where to go in the next election. Accordingly, Obama continues to rollback on environmental protections such as his radical expansion of coal permits as well as his opening up of pristine areas of the East Coast to oil exploration.

The effort to protect the lands was blocked by Congress but environmentalists wanted the Administration to fight on this ground. Various business groups and conservative members of Congress heralded the President’s move. At risk are some of the most pristine untouched lands left in the country.

Source: Yahoo

The church says that it prunes to keep branches of hanging too low. Now it is looking at a fine of $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning for a total of $4,000. That’s right. $4,000 for pruning your own trees.

I just happen to dislike excessive pruning of trees — a point of continual debate with my wife. Indeed, I do not like virtually any pruning of tree. Yet, property owners should retain some discretion over their own trees.

Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division, says that the city has had a tree ordinance since 1978 and it will continue to be enforced. The article below notes “the state Division of Forestry recommends that anyone trimming trees should be certified by the National Horticulture Board.” Really? You are supposed to get an expert to trim your trees?

I admire the effort to preserve trees and the legendary beauty of Charlotte. Indeed, I understand that there may be reasonable limitations on cutting down trees. However, this strikes me as excessive regulations.

Source: Charlotte

This video caused me to look up waterspouts after one of the kids peppered me with questions. It turns out that waterspouts do not suck up water despite their appearance. The water seen in the main funnel cloud is actually water droplets formed by condensation. Moreover, waterspouts have their own unique measurements like earthquakes and hurricanes. For waterspouts it is the Szilagyi Waterspout Index that ranges from -10 to +10.

Now get dressed and go face the world.

There are now reports of additional possible tornadoes in the area. This week’s tornado tied the tornado in Flint, Michigan, on June 8, 1953, as the deadliest on record.