The Pictures Tell the Story

President Obama raised more money from more contributors without taking any PAC funds. I believe that means more votes. The top contributors to his campaign were schools and tech companies while Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney's top contributors list reads like a who's who from the banking scandal that plunged the globe into recession. Speaking of the great state of Massachusetts, it was the 4th top state contributor to a campaign, but it wasn't Romney's. 

The sectors that topped the list of contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign?  Agribiz, construction, defense, energy (oil) and finance/insurance.

 Mortgage Banking
 

 

Finance and Credit                              

   Oil and Gas

 

59 of 95 top individual contributors sent their funds to the conservative party.
 

The top 100 individual donors to super PACs, along with their spouses, represent just 1.0% of all individual donors to super PACs, but 73% of the money they delivered.
 

The top 100 donors give 57% of the money, the top 1% of donors give 62% of the money.
 

My guess is that next election cycle the right will be all over eliminating the electoral college. To that I say tit for tat, no more outside money and to that end corporations are not people much less citizens so one human citizen, one human vote.

 

 

Thanks to Opensecrets.org for making this info gathering so easy!

The Best Government Money Can Buy? LinkTV

The cost of election campaigns has spiraled out of control-- on average, U.S. representatives spend more than 25% of their time fund-raising. This documentary asks who provides the money? What effect does it have? And is it in the public interest?

GE's Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

Thursday 24 March 2011 by: David Kocieniewski, The New York Times News Service Report


General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Read the whole article at Truthout


And if you think they're alone;

How Offshore Tax Havens Save Companies Billions - NPR March 2011
- On today's Fresh Air, Bloomberg News reporter Jesse Drucker, who has written extensively about corporate tax-dodging, explains how companies like Google, Pfizer, Lilly, Oracle, Facebook and Microsoft have managed to reduce their tax rates by hundreds of millions — and in some cases, billions — of dollars by taking advantage of offshore tax havens.

Bailed-Out Firms Have Tax Havens, GAO Finds - Washington Post January 2009
- American International Group, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are among the companies that are getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers while having subsidiaries in locations where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Most U.S. Companies Avoid Federal Income Taxes - USATODAY (AP) August 2008
- Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. The study by the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday said about 68% of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

Top Iraq Contractor Skirts US Taxes Offshore - Boston Globe March 2008
- Shell companies in Cayman Islands allow KBR to avoid Medicare, Social Security deductions. More than 21,000 people working for KBR in Iraq - including about 10,500 Americans - are listed as employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard here in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone number in the Cayman Islands.

Are you voting republican because you think they're fiscally responsible?

Resolution Banning Corporate Personhood Introduced in Vermont

AlterNet / By Christopher Ketcham
235 COMMENTS

On the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, Vermont politicians are moving to deny corporations the rights that humans enjoy.

"Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires," wrote Stevens. "Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

Read the rest of the story at AlterNet.

Pause the TV and take a little time to learn about the history, and original purpose, of the American Corporation:





Click here to view all 23 parts.

Republicans Seek Cuts to Energy Star, Weatherization, Advanced Energy Research, Puppies..

Start with the obvious: There are no cuts to America's bloated military budget, which was somewhere north of $660 billion in 2010, more than the rest of the world's defense spending combined. And there are no cuts to the sprawling, opaque Department of Homeland Security, which costs more than $50 billion a year. In maintaining global empire and expanding the security state, every dollar is sacred.

There are also no cuts to fossil-fuel or corn-ethanol subsidies. No corporate contributor to the Republican Party will find anything to fear. The bill might as well be called the Thumbing Liberals In the Eye Act of 2011. It's a laundry list of targets conservatives have been after for decades, most of which will make no appreciable difference to the nation's fiscal health.

Here are a few proposed cuts that might be of particular interest to Grist readers:

Energy Star Program: $52 million a year.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants: $2.5 billion a year.

DOE Weatherization Grants to States: $530 million a year.

Amtrak Subsidies: $1.565 billion a year. (There are no cuts to highway subsidies, of course.)

Technology Innovation Program: $70 million a year. (Wait, I thought support for innovation was "post-partisan"!)

Applied Research at Department of Energy: $1.27 billion a year.New Starts Transit: $2 billion a year.

Subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: $12.5 million a year.

Title X Family Planning: $318 million a year.
Appalachian Regional Commission: $76 million a year. (Why do we need this? They already have coal mines there!)

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: $200 million a year.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: $150 million a year.

National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program: $56.2 million a year.

Read the whole story HERE.

Wal-Mart Is Not a Person

"We the People are the first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution; and from its adoption until the Robber Baron Era in the late nineteenth century, people meant human beings. In the 1886 Santa Clara case, however, the court reporter of the Supreme Court proclaimed in a “headnote”—a summary or statement added at the top of the court decision, which is separate from the decision and has no legal force whatsoever—that the word person in law and, particularly, in the Constitution, meant both humans and corporations.

Thus began in a big way (it actually started a half century earlier in a much smaller way with a case involving Dartmouth University) the corruption of American democracy and the shift, over the 125 years since then, to our modern corporate oligarchy."

"McCain-Feingold was a good bipartisan achievement by conservative senator John McCain and liberal senator Russ Feingold to limit the ability of corporations to interfere around the edges of campaigns."

"But the law offended the members of the economic elite in this country who call themselves “conservatives” and believe that they should be able to spend vast amounts of money to influence electoral and legislative outcomes."

"By having free-speech rights equal with people, Stevens argued, corporations will actually harm the “competition among ideas” that the Framers envisioned when they wrote the First Amendment:


“[A] corporation...should have as its objective the conduct of business activities with a view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain.” In a state election...the interests of nonresident corporations may be fundamentally adverse to the interests of local voters. Consequently, when corporations grab up the prime broadcasting slots on the eve of an election, they can flood the market with advocacy that bears little or no correlation to the ideas of natural persons or to any broader notion of the public good. The opinions of real people may be marginalized."

Read the rest of this '1st in a series' HERE.

(EDIT)
The original version of this post included a banner from wakeupwallmart .com. The links used for that banner now point to a UFCW union webpage where they are promising to make things better. I'm not sure if wakeupwallmart was always a part of this union website, but I do know they have removed all of the pages from the wakeup site. Perhaps under pressure from the giant one? wakeupwalmart com banners ticker ticker150x200 html

Leaked Fox News Memo Reveals Network’s Anti-Science Bias

WASHINGTON (December 15, 2010) – Media Matters today released an email from Fox News Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon in which he urged news staff to highlight criticisms of climate science whenever they mention the fact that the Earth is warming.

The email was not surprising to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which tracks climate misinformation on Fox News and other media outlets, but it is nonetheless revealing. While UCS has had productive interactions with a number of Fox News staff members, the network’s coverage regularly gives unwarranted weight to anti-scientific claims regarding climate change. The Rest of the Story..











Rupert admits to manipulating the news for agenda.

Fox edits McCain's "I really didn't love America"

“Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

"Obama's answer [was] not exactly rooted in Scripture but [was] in the ballpark,"

Fox News' Cameron claimed McCain "undaunted" on immigration issue...

Karl Rove said he would not "add to the public record" on the Valerie Plame leak case...

There are too many of these links... do a search if you still need convincing.

Government Health Care - Too Expensive - Too Controlling - Too Important

The US Government in the Health Insurance business? The arguments, when you can get down to those that are A) Real and B) Relevant, are varied. I've had a bit of difficulty drilling down to this list but think I've come to the gist of it.

It will be too expensive. Not only will it cost more for taxpayers and employers, but private insurance holders will see premium increases!

I didn't find much data to back up any part of this statement. I expected to find short term, up front increases with long term and periphery cost decreases. What I in fact found was both short and long term savings, and with periphery costs (lower overall costs to treat due to better health resulting from access to health care, less costs due to decreasing stress levels) included the savings would be enough to make an oil company drool with envy.

Survey Shows Private Health Insurance Premiums Rose 11.2% in 2004
Premiums Increased at Five Times The Rate of Growth in Workers’ Earnings and Inflation. About Five Million Fewer Workers Covered By Their Own Employer’s Health Insurance Since 2001. Kaiser Family Foundation

The average health insurance premium costs 84% of average unemployment benefits.

In the U.S., job insecurity equals health insecurity. Without significant subsidies to buy into COBRA, most unemployed workers will also quickly morph into uninsured workers. Healthpopuli .com

Health Insurance Premiums Continue to Soar.

For the seventh straight year, premiums for employer-based health insurance rose more than twice as fast as overall inflation and wages, an annual survey of employers shows. (2006) McClatchy Newspapers

Premiums for job-offered health insurance up 5% this year.

Workers face more cost-sharing in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays. (2008) American Medical News

And then there are the peripherals....

Health Care Scandal has Real Victims. The U.S. health care system is an open scandal. We devote far more of our national income to health care than any other industrial nation. Yet we get worse results -- higher child mortality, higher deaths from breast cancer, less prevention and more expense. If you have wealth, the best medicine in the world is available to you. If you are poor, or increasingly a middle- or low-income family, too often you will lack insurance or be vastly under insured. You will forgo costly tests and let illnesses fester until they become debilitating. Chicago Sun Times

Hidden Costs of Health Care Report. Rising deductibles, Higher Co-payments and Escalating out of pocket costs. Healthreform .gov

The cost of job stress to American industry is estimated at $150 billion per year thru absenteeism, lower productivity, health insurance and medical expenses. Examinetics

And it turns out that a large portion of the profits you provide these companies is being spent to ensure they can continue squeezing the turnip that is apparently you.

Pharmaceutical Companies


Insurance Companies

That's it for part one, "It's too expensive!" Stay tuned for "It's too Controlling!"

Nuclear Power’s Image Makeover - The Market Speaks

By Tom Zeller Jr.



As part of James Kanter’s post last week on the efforts of one nuclear power company to solicit proposals from architectural firms on ways to improve the visual impact of nuclear power plants, we asked readers for their ideas.



Needless to say, there were lots of opinions — many of them taking issue with the very premise of the exercise. We also received a number of drawings, photographs and other artistic efforts reflecting a variety of viewpoints. Herewith, we offer a selection of those.

(Note: We’ll continue to feature your artwork and thoughts on the idea of a nuclear power renaissance as we receive them — though we reserve the right to excerpt and edit for clarity and brevity. Keep your thoughts short and your artwork of manageable size, folks. Send them here: greeninc nytimes com.)

Dylan Wolfe, an assistant professor of visual communication at Clemson University, offered the following entry — and a bit of social engineering — toward a safer nuclear energy program:



1. Construct power plants in the richest neighborhoods in the country.

2. Keep nuclear waste inside the homes of those same neighborhoods.
Bill Gates, for example, would have the influence and capacity to assure that the plants were safe and well-maintained. Keeping the waste local solves the transport and disposal problem — plus, Mr. Gates will certainly monitor his share of the waste diligently. The only additional measure required would be to create mandatory residence restrictions, so that the residents don’t try to move out.


But hey, those neighborhoods already have conveniently located gates



Click Here to see the other submissions.

• http://www.oakridger.com/news/x220426321/-Major-waterline-break-at-Y-12-plant-confirmed
• http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html
• http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/mccain-campaign.html
• http://www.newstin.co.uk/go-to-link/70168150/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7522712.stm
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202838.html
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2DE1730F933A25752C0A9629C8B63
• http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2008/00000073/00000003/art00002
• http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/main.htm
• http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-radioactive12-2008nov12,0,2329473.story
• http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/confirmed-air-f.html
• http://www.reformer.com/ci_10961916

Ralph Nader Takes on Gallup Poll's Black Box

October 5th, 2008
Posted by Toby Heaps at Nader 2008 blog

We do fairly poorly on the Gallup poll, generally registering less than 1 percent (or about 5 times less than the recent WSJ poll). This is probably because they don’t mention Ralph Nader’s name in the question–just Obama and McCain.

So I phoned up Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief (609-924-9600), and asked him if they had any kind of objective threshold which we could strive toward so that Ralph Nader’s name could be included as part of the primary question.

His answer: “No. We use our internal judgment to decide. We do some open-ended questions and variety of other criteria, and then our editorial team makes a decision.” I asked if there were any ballpark levels of support in the open-ended question they looked to as a threshold, and he repeated his mantra, that it was subject to “internal judgment criteria,” and then jumped off to take another call.

He was kind enough to leave me with his e-mail to follow up. Anyone who wants to let Newport know what you think of his internal judegment, please call him or e-mail him at frank_newport@gallup.com."

Thanks to Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report for bringing this entry to my attention.


Here are a few other articles of interest:

Why does the latest poll by the Pew Research Center report that drilling for domestic oil has jumped to the top of Americans' energy priorities? Maybe because Pew didn’t ask respondents if they want the nation to invest in clean energy and efficient cars, instead. So suggests this poll (pdf) by Belden Russonello & Stewart, released last week.
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS-Omnibus-Poll_07-22-08.pdf

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

Polling itself is unpredictable. Polling affects elections. It's sort of like this thing "you can't drop a stone in the same river once [sic]"—as soon as you poll it, you've changed it. What should we really make of polling in this election? http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2111

Polling is a business; the interest of pollsters is not to educate the public.

Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine

While the collapse of this country’s financial system continues to send shock waves around the world, we speak to the bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein says the public should be wary of the Bush administration trying to use the crisis to push through more of the radical pro-corporate policies that helped cause it in the first place." Naomi Klein with Amy Goodman - Democracy Now!

NAOMI KLEIN: "Well, the thesis of my book, what I mean by the “shock doctrine,” is that it is in times of crisis, it is in times when people are panicked, when we've seen again and again the right push through radical pro-corporate policies, what they call “free market reforms,” precisely because it is in a crisis where the space for debate rapidly closes, and you can invoke this state of emergency to say we have no choice.
And I think we’re seeing a very dramatic example of this tactic right now with this really extortionist kind of tactics playing out in Washington. You know, “Sign this blank check, or we’re all going down, or Main Street is going down, or taxpayers—you know, the sky will fall in on them.”
I’m also arguing that this is only stage one of the shock doctrine. They’re getting this—they’re lobbying for this huge bailout, obviously, but this bailout is a kind of a time bomb, because it’s all these bad debts, and they are going to explode on the next administration. I mean, we know that the Bush administration has already left the next administration with huge debt and deficit problems. They’vejust exploded those, expanded them. And what that means is that whoever the next president is is going to be inheriting this economic crisis that is being exacerbated by this bailout. "

"Yeah. I mean, there is pressure being put on Congress from Democrats who—you know, we’ve heard the proposals to cap executive pay and to have a moratorium on foreclosures. It’s coming not from all Democrats, but from some. But there’s something going on on the Republican side, where you have people like Newt Gingrich, and you also have the Republican Study Committee, which is a group of very influential Republican lawmakers who are saying that they’re opposed to the bailout, and they also have their wish list. And I think it is that it’s not that they’re going to oppose a bailout completely; it’s that they want economic changes, right-wing, pro-corporate economic changes, attached to a bailout. So, Newt Gingrich has his list. He’s got eighteen demands. But I think even more important than that is the Republican Study Committee, and I raise this because they’ve just issued their ransom list. It starts with suspending the capital gains tax, privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suspending mark-to-market accounting, which is the rule that requires companies to assess their assets at current market values."

"So, what’s so stunning about this, Amy, is that here you have a crisis that everyone seems to agree is borne of deregulation, and they’re actually calling for more deregulation. We have a situation where the debt is exploding on American taxpayers, and they want to suspend corporate profits—sorry, corporate taxes, which is actually what might defray some of those costs from regular taxpayers. So it’s an incredible display of opportunism. And this is what I mean by stage two of the shock doctrine. The first stage is just the bailout, but the second stage are all of these radical reforms that are going to be invoked in the name of the crisis that the bailout is creating, whether it’s pushed through right now or whether it’s pushed through later. "

AMY GOODMAN: "You see this happen right after 9/11 with the USA PATRIOT Act being pushed through. You saw it with the vote in October of 2002 for the invasion of Iraq. It’s speed and the idea of an imminent threat."

Please click through and read the entire common sense filled article, or listen to the interview.


I'm of the opinion that this is actually stage 2, with stage one having supposed to have been war with Iran. In the face of that failure to launch thanks to cooler heads, stage 1b was the Georgia- Russia debacle. It seems even that non-starter has been doused by more reasonable minds. Perhaps the planmakers underestimated the damage a 7 year war based on lies, thrown at the American people like propaganda against an enemy, would do to the credibility of the people needed to push through the remaining stages of the plan.

"Well, uh.. crap....uh... plan A didn't work. Er uh.. and plan 2 didn't work either... but those money people.. uh.. they're expecting.. I mean, we promised to bail them out at the end.. uh.. what should.. move ahead with stage 2.. well.. what's... OH! yeah.. hehe.. stage 1, stage 1b, yeah. Stage 2, move ahead!"

Impeach the President?

I've thought about it a lot. It sure does seem to me there are far more and better reasons to consider it than were put forward to actually complete the deed with Clinton. Nancy Pelosi insists we need to put forward proof of a crime. Since I'm not an attorney, and in the past things I've felt sure were crimes turned out not to be (wow, is that frustrating), I began looking for other more qualified information.

As I'm sure you can imagine, everyone has an opinion on the matter. Some seemingly qualified sources, some... not so much, but compelling none the less. I've read or listened to or watched opinions ranging from dark cultish ritual based conspiracies to ... well, only slightly less dark conspiracies. I click, read, listen, watch and repeat. Possibly, in the back of my TVgen mind, I think some 'Chuck' like answer will come over me and everything will become clear.
Below is a playlist, a collection of some of the video I've viewed and considered relevant to my search somehow. A few of them may seem off key, but in some strange way it relates to my thoughts and feelings about impeaching the president.

Also, click below to review some of the articles I've reviewed. There are quite a few listed here, so don't hurt yourself. The top listings under 'impeach' are the goal, but feel free to browse the full list.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

ExxonMobil Report
Full Report (PDF)
Appendix C (hi-resolution PDFs)
Part 1 (hi-resolution PDF)
Part 2 (hi-resolution PDF)
Part 3 (hi-resolution PDF)

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has :

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

Click here to continue reading original article

Conservative Ralph Nader by the Southern Avenger

It appears to me that Mr. Nader is really concerned with fixing the system, removing the corporate buyout and setting things back in order. I'm sure he has personal opinions, but it doesn't seem like he would push those over having the system, unhindered by bias and politics, do it's job. It seems as though he is working, not for the left, or the right but for the Americans. I'm quite certain he would be dismayed to see a majority of his fellow Americans choose not to accept single payor government health care, but I'm sure he'd be the happiest man on earth if that decision was made democratically by the American people without fraud or manipulation.

The explosive video above is produced by a conservative blogger, with whom I have little in common. Faith and hope in the American way and the ability to see the difference between politicians and patriots appear to be two things we do see eye to eye on.

U.S., Israel and Iran: A Clear View

A fellow blogger Payvand has published a very direct and to the point article, re-stating what many lesser media friendly faces have been telling us for a while.

Please check out the article

• Iran is effectively surrounded by American troops which are based in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and Persian Gulf.
• Iran is being threatened almost daily by American and Israeli officials. Even nuclear attacks on Iran have been contemplated and discussed.
• U.S. and Israel have nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't.
• U.S. and Israel have invaded other countries in the region. Iran hasn't.
• Israel recently conducted a massive exercise over the Mediterranean consisting of around 100 planes. This was supposed to be a dry run in preparation of a possible attack on Iran.
• A just published expose piece by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed that the Bush Administration has stepped up its secret moves against Iran by budgeting $400M to create chaos in Iran and to destabilize the regime.
• U.S. Congressional Resolution H.CON.RES 362 ( calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran." Experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
• U.S. has held many intimidating war games in Persian Gulf and just finished another one!

The fact is it is the U.S. troops that have barged in Iran's backyard and threaten to enter the house. Now why is it so upsetting if Iran fires a few missiles to say we are ready? Should we instead expect them to kneel down and submit, because that fits our interests? Iran has repeatedly stated that they will attack back if they are attacked. However, this defensive posturing is conveniently interpreted as provocation by both U.S. and Israel while ignoring their own offensive posturing!

There is no way out of this stalemate except for dialogue and diplomacy. Iran has repeatedly signaled readiness to engage in negotiations without any preconditions. U.S. has however repeatedly shunned Iran's offers and continues to insist on "verifiable uranium enrichment freeze by Iran" as a precondition to negotiations. Many analysts and experts are pressing the Bush Administration to drop the precondition and engage in dialogue. It's time to heed the advice of these experts.

War will not benefit Americans, Israelis or Iranians. In fact many experts have sounded the alarms that an attack by U.S. or Israel on Iran will engulf the whole region in fire and have global repercussions. This warning shouldn't be taken lightly. It is time to focus the world's energies on addressing important issues such as global warming, food shortages, poverty and diseases. No more killing and destroying please!

About the author: Ali Moayedian is a concerned Iranian-American. He lives in San Francisco Bay Area.
... Payvand News - 07/10/08 ...

Presidential Election Process Flaw Illustrated

Here live and in color, (when I watched Newshour this evening) we find beautifully performed and clearly illustrated, the problem with the current presidential election process in America. There are only 2 parties acknowledged, and they make up their own rules about who gets the nomination and how, not the American people. Corporations and special interest groups are free to contribute and bring power to bear on decisions that are made for the country. As indicated below, the Democratic Party rules say that the delegates make the decision, and some 'Super' delegates even get more than the average leverage with their vote. Most Americans, if you ask them, confuse their rights to vote and peoples rights to run for president with democratic or republican party rules. These two parties can make up any rules they want regarding their candidates and their procedures and they do. These rules, as indicated below, do not ensure the ingrained American 'One person One vote', or 'Every Vote Counts'. It does ensure that numbers are crunched and manipulated until the favored candidate comes out on top no matter the actual number of American votes obtained. Does that sound right to you?

If you are a member of one of the parties, write, call or email to let them know you want actual member votes counted. Take the time to listen to some of the third party and independent candidates and their issues, if they are your issues give them some support! Most of all learn your rights. Learn that the D and R parties are not the only game in town, their candidates don't have to be your candidates, at the very least take the time to make the changes within your party to ensure your vote and every single vote is actually counted, and every single candidate has a chance to be seen, heard and on the ballot.

"REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, the race isn't remotely over. And with all due respect to Governor Romer, the key indicator that is the clear indication of Senator Clinton being the best candidate for the general election is that she is now, as of last night, ahead in the popular vote, when you count Florida and Michigan, which we absolutely need to make sure that we do, because the Democratic nominee should be selected by voters in all 50 states.
And at the end of the day, when we look through the Electoral College map, the way we add up to the 270 Electoral College votes that we need is by winning the states that are swing states and by getting ahead in the popular vote. And that's how we get electoral votes.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. More people have gone to the polls in America -- more Democrats have gone to the polls in America to cast votes for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Obama. And that is the measure that we should be using to decide who is our best foot forward in November.

GWEN IFILL: Governor Romer smiled when you said that.

ROY ROMER: It isn't the measure that we've all agreed on in the Democratic Party. The measure we've agreed on is, who has the most delegates?
And we ought not mislead the country. This is a contest that has rules, and the rules are, who has the most delegates? And those delegates have spoken." PBS

Rep. Leonard Boswell Forced to State the Obvious

Today Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa was forced to state the obvious in response to a statement from Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who complains that proposed changes to the small business innovative research (SBIR) and the small business technology transfer (SBTT) programs will make meaningful research into drilling for oil on American soil tougher for the multi billion dollar oil companies. Mr. Young goes on to say that not enough power is produced by alternative energies to handle demand, and that if they'd had the backing they needed they would have the systems in place so that OPEC couldn't raise the rates as they are doing now. He admits that people want wind and solar power, and agrees he wants them too, but immediately moves back to our dependence on fossil fuels (oil) and says small business can only go forth by abandoning 'pie in the sky' ideas (alternative energy, presumably) because 'the oil is there'. According to him, the power to run small business will not be available because 'we have not kept up the power in other areas'. He blames this on our not developing nuclear, which he advocates. We haven't developed hydro (which he also advocates). He also mentions in a small voice 'a little wind and a little solar' but says we have to address reasonable price power and calls on representatives from both sides of the isle (oil) wherever there are fossil fuels to end the restrictions and begin processing cheap energy.
Rep Nydia Velazquez returns for a moment to comment on Mr. Young's statements, taking the time to remind him that when he had the opportunity to vote against price gouging he voted no, and when he had a chance to vote about long term alternative energy and conservation he also voted no. After refocusing our attention on the matter, HR5819, and thanking the members who contributed to it's efforts Rep. Velazquez yields back her remaining time on the floor.
Rep. Boswell rises to address issues related to his proposed amendment with Rep. Sutton of Ohio. This amendment will steer monies from the SBIR and SBBT programs to areas that have (or will) lose jobs from closing factories and manufacturing plants. "These programs will help small business in these areas create new, high quality jobs in areas hard hit by pressures of globalization and current trade policies." He cites Maytag as an example, while the Newton economy has not yet recovered from this blow, part of the former Maytag building is in the process of being occupied by a new company that makes components for wind turbines, he says.

"This is a step toward more energy, in response to the gentleman from Alaska. This amendment will help revitalize economies of communities like Newton and thousands of others across the United States."

The point I think, and it may be too 'un-political' to state it quite so obviously, Is that A) The oil and other major fossil fuel companies have known of our predicament for quite some time, have known the direction the country and in fact the world has been taking over the past 2 decades with regards to oil and fossil fuel and alternative energies and have chosen to not move themselves in our direction. B) The time to defend the subsidies, special tax designations and research & development grants is long over. The public funding opportunities to these giant corporations, NOW to try and fund oil friendly technology, is very definitely over.
If a free market is what you want, then you have your answer. We want wind, solar, bio-diesel from non-food crops and anything else you can think of besides oil. We were willing to fund your research for new, clean technologies to locate, pump, refine and deliver oil. In 20 years and countless millions (billions?) of public dollars there is still not a clean ,safe enough plan to convince us that destroying a unique and priceless wilderness is worth it. We are no longer willing to hear your pleas in this area, there are companies waiting in line to take our money for a product we approve of. They will provide new jobs for our workers, new power for our cities and a new pride for our country.

I'd like to provide another example to the Representative from Alaska:
Wind Power Produces 123% of Residential Energy Demand in Rock Port, Missouri

Yes, that means the town produces ALL of it's required power AND sells 23% of it back at a profit.

I agree with a Republican today

I don't say this often, but I'm in agreement with a republican today. Senator Judd Gregg spoke today on the Mortgage Crisis package. He is against helping out the lenders who targeted consumers for adjustable rate loans, who looked the other way when appraisers fudged the value of the homes they backed. He is against helping builders and investors who speculated on the bubble and lost. The homes are still there, they will be purchased and loans will be issued. Business will go on, take your losses. The party that cannot help themselves in this situation, the foundation of the economy, (I hate saying this) is the consumer. You know, the people. His concern with who will be buying the debt (you know, our new creditors) is my concern as well.

Conclusion on Searching for Oil, Corporations and Subsidies

I think it is a conclusion that we are not ever going to find enough oil outside of the middle east to avoid buying from the region. It is also a conclusion that Americans, even the world, are ready for and demanding alternative energy. It makes sense to me in light of these conclusions that all monies currently being spent on locating and retrieving new sources of oil by companies with - A) shareholders {in that shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders} B) Special US tax status OR receives US subsidies - should immediately be shifted away from these endeavors and either moved to alternative energy systems and production or to other non-oil related endeavors. In the case of subsidies, special tax status' and such these will be reworded to exclude oil, and cease to be assigned or assessed to any company continuing work in new oil fields location or recovery methods on any level.

As we get closer to filling our oil needs outside the middle east, the higher oil prices from these countries become as they will try to get in their perceived 'final profits'. As Venezuela is teaching us, no other country is going to allow us to plunder and pillage their lands and resources without a price, and there is no reason to believe they would settle for any less a price than their competitors are charging. I liken the strategy of the US oil companies to that of the electronic gadget market. They hold many new technologies back, releasing small improvements in 'versions' once or twice a year to maximize the sales on any given new item.

I will be very happy for the day (soon to come) when ALL subsidies to the big oil companies are dismissed. I pray for the day major corporations such as these with huge effects on our economy as a whole are by law restructured and regulated to operate in the public good. Further I believe that if utilities, energy suppliers and producers are allowed to become publicly traded they need special rules, instructions and designations to operate under the presumption that these are not 'profit' driven corporations, they are public driven and since shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders. Utility share investments should be considered stable ones moving up and down with the US economy, not one to be speculated on or manipulated.

Here is a fine example of the craziness of which I speak

" The companies aim to spend $600 million to hold an open season, or solicitation for customers to make long-term commitments to use the pipeline, before the end of 2010. After that, the companies would seek certification from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Canada's National Energy Board and then begin construction on the project, estimated to cost $20 billion to $40 billion."

Yes, you read that right. They are planning on spending $600 million dollars BEFORE even seeking certification from the Regulatory Commission or the National Energy Board. This is exactly the sort of clumsy speculation that must be addressed.

Mccain Closer to Bush than Democrats

"On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: 'He wants to see the use of nukes.'"