| |
| http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/10/nevada-court-ponders-who-can-sign-a-recall-petition/ http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=7175 A state court in Carson City, Nevada, will soon decide whether all registered voters are permitted to sign a recall petition, or whether only voters who voted at the last election may sign. The case arose in 2008 when some residents of Boulder City tried to recall two members of the City Council.
Three weeks after the petition drive had been launched, Secretary of State Ross Miller ruled that only voters who had voted in the previous city council election could sign. He based his ruling on the Nevada Constitution, Article 2, section 9, which authorizes recall. The Constitution says, “For this purpose (recall), not less than 25% of the number who actually voted in the state or in the county, district, or municipality which he represents, at the election in which he was elected, shall file their petition, in the manner herein provided, demanding his recall by the people.”
Most people, on reading this section, probably interpret it to mean that the “actually voted” language modifies “25%”. In other words, the “actually voted” is in the Constitution to help elections officials calculate the number of signatures. The percentage would be based on the number of votes cast for that particular office, not the number of voters who put a ballot into the voting box.
But because the Secretary of State interpreted that sentence to mean that only voters who actually voted in the last city council election may sign the petition, the recall failed. Approximately 30% of the signatures, which would otherwise have been valid, were not counted because those signers hadn’t voted in the last city council election.
Although the 2009 session of the legislature passed SB 156, interpreting the Constitution to say that any registered voter may sign, the bill does not take effect until this year, so it doesn’t help the Boulder City recall proponents. The case is Waymire v Miller, 08-oc-00244-1B. A decision is expected soon. | |
|
| http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/10/why-is-carolyn-maloney-wasting-our-time/ http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/10/why-is-carolyn-maloney-wasting-our-time/ 
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
When I went on MSNBC yesterday, the thing I was intending to talk about (before getting interrupted by a pile of insurance industry BS) was the fact that members of Congress like Carolyn Maloney are wasting our time. When she announced that she would challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for the Senate, the Huffington Post reported:
The nine-term congresswoman believes New Yorkers need a "strong, experienced and independent leader," according to a statement Wednesday by Paul Blank, director of Trippi & Associates, hired by Maloney to serve as a chief strategist.
Independent? How about non-committal, indecisive and inconsistent?
People have been calling her office for over two weeks as part of the citizen whip count effort. Here are a few samples of what they have been told:
| Michael L. |
no position |
Staffer unsure. Took my info (though didn't seem confident I'd get a response) and transferred me to voicemail for Orly (possible sic) Isaacson. |
| Bryce S. |
no position |
I passed on to the aid the items I'd like Rep. Maloney to commit to (i.e. your three items), and he said he would pass it on to her. |
| Michael L. |
no position |
I spoke with Carolyn Maloney's legislative assistant, Orly Isaacson. She tried the "we can't comment on a hypothetical but she supports a public option" line. When I said that it is important to draw a line in the sand, she agreed and said that she did not know what the Congresswoman's vote would be on a bill that does not include a public option.
She said she would get back to me with an answer, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
| Chris B. |
no position |
An aide. She was very polite but as per her role, noncommittal and I explained the whip idea to her and the goal. She did mention that others had called to ask for the pledge. |
NYCEve started calling her office, too, and got the staff blow-off that we've been facing since we started this. They don't know, they'll get back to us. Maloney is a member of the Progressive Caucus, who as a group said they would not vote for any bill that does not have a public plan. But when people call, she won't confirm. Which means one of two things. Either she was full of shit when she signed on to this on June 24. . .
Leaders of four Democratic caucuses representing more than 120 members of Congress said Wednesday that they would vote against any health overhaul legislation that excludes a “robust” government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
The leaders of the black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific American and Progressive caucuses said at a news conference that they would consider a government-run plan to be robust if it resembles Medicare, the health entitlement for the elderly. The plan would have to be available to everyone in the country and could not be subject to a “trigger,” or some other mechanism that might delay its implementation, the lawmakers said.
. . . or she thinks the press, and not her constituents, deserve to know what she's thinking.
Maloney seems to have a consistent problem sticking to her word. She signed a letter in 2007 saying she would vote for no war funding that did not contain troop withdrawal provisions, but she didn't take that commitment too seriously when she voted for the supplemental without them.
When Maloney anouned a fundraiser with Bill Clinton on July 2, we said we'd be watching really closely to see who came out stronger on health care, Maloney or Gillibrand. Looks like Gillibrand doesn't have much to compete with.
As people call the offices of these Congressional representatives, they are being told that we should be calling the Blue Dogs. Really? What are we going to tell the Blue Dogs if progressive members of Congress won't even hold the line? These members of Congress are offended that people are calling them. And they are wasting our time, waffling, refusing to commit to uphold the principles they espouse. If they'd simply say what they intend to do, we could move on.
Democrats seem to think that we should just trust them, even after what happened with the disastrous climate change bill -- where every Democrat not named Stark, DeFazio, or Kucinich took a bad vote or a worse vote. Well, we don't. So, stop jacking people around, blathering about the fact that you want to see a bill before you commit. Boy, the Blue Dogs sure don't need to see a bill before they draw a line in the sand, or those who want to gut reproductive rights funding, or Joe Lieberman.
No, the only people who won't commit are those that have 76% of the country supporting them. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but maybe Carolyn Maloney knows.
Call her office and find out: 202.225.7944 DC, 212-860-0606 Manhattan, 718-932-1804 Queens.
| |
|
| http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/oneutah/Gkug/~3/S0GM6SWb7ms/ http://oneutah.org/?p=12257 In the last two months, I’ve traveled as much as I did all of last year. That has meant hours waiting in security lines at US airports. If I thought, for even a second, that our current procedures were actually making us safer, I would not complain. But the entire process - unpack your carry-on, take off your belt and watch and shoes, don’t take more than 3 ounces of any liquid - strikes me as entirely absurd. We have closed the barn door but the horse is long gone.
If you step back and look at the procedures you can see each specific procedure was developed as a response to a specific incident - the shoe thing in response to the insanely improbable “shoe bomber” nonsense and the 3 ounce rule in response to the unworkable (and thwarted) plan to build a chemical bomb in a bathroom on a trans-Atlantic flight. The no fingernail clippers or knitting needles rule of course in response to hijackers using box cutters to take over.
What we have created is a Rube Golberg contraption - cobbled together and utterly inefficient at getting to the endpoint. It creates so much visual action is looks like something is being accomplished. Because the individual steps address specific incidents in the past, they are ill-prepared to deal with incidents in the future.
My take on the airport security and screening procedures is simply this: we’ve created a massive, inefficient system designed to create the appearance of security without actually, you know, making us more secure.
I once heard our current procedures in airports described as “security theater” - giving the show of doing something without actually engaging the real world challenges. Airport security in the US - far more efficient than even two or three years ago - nevertheless engages vast, ultimately unproductive resources.
It’s long past time to get serious about airport security and actually figure out something that is not our current system. Frankly, I miss the days when you could walk through the metal detector, go to the gate and greet your loved ones. | |
|
| http://peaceblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/senate-challenges-re-nuke-arms-reductions/ http://peaceblog.wordpress.com/?p=1037 This article from Congressional Quarterly accurately depicts the challenges the Administration will have getting a new arms reduction treaty with Russia, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or other treaties ratified by the Senate. Treaties require 2/3 of the Senate, or 67 votes, for ratification. If all 60 Democrats/Independents vote in favor, seven Republican votes are needed. As Sen. Kerry notes, the Administration can act on their own, and we are obliged by international law and precedent to abide by treaties we have signed, even without ratification. The other noteworthy issue here is Star Wars “missile defense”, which continues to cause political problems even though it doesn’t work.
–Kevin Martin, Executive Director
CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – FOREIGN POLICY
July 9, 2009 – 9:06 p.m.
Despite GOP Resistance, Democrats Pursue Arms Reduction Ratification
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Despite progress by U.S. and Russian leaders this week toward a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, it appears less and less likely that the Senate will ratify any agreement signed by the two governments before the end of the year.
In the face of GOP Senate calls for other issues to be addressed along with any agreement that would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires Dec. 5, Democratic leaders acknowledge that Senate approval might not be possible this year — and also might not be necessary.
“It doesn’t have to be ratified by December for the president to say that we’re going to live by the law,” said John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The United States adheres informally to several treaties the Senate has never ratified, including the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Kerry noted, adding, “It’s better to ratify it, and we will try to do what we can.”
If the Senate cannot ratify the START follow-on treaty, the Obama administration might have to implement new nuclear arms reductions without congressional consent and without the force of law.
But the lack of ratification poses problems for the drive to establish a new arms regime both at home and abroad.
Foreign Relations ranking Republican Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., said it might be possible to extend the current START agreement if both the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma can’t ratify a new treaty by the December deadline.
“It’s possible, but not necessarily acceptable” to implement arms reductions without Senate ratification, said Lugar, who supports having a full debate over the issue in Congress.
Experts say that if Congress doesn’t endorse the new treaty, nationalist interests in Russia will gain leverage in their drive to kill that country’s own ratification effort.
“If the treaty is not ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Russian Duma will certainly use that as an excuse to block it,” said Alexandros Petersen, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank that focuses on trans-Atlantic relations.
Republican Resistance
Republican Senate resistance to a new treaty is centered on two issues: A plan for modernization of the nuclear stockpile and a renewed commitment to build missile defense sites in eastern Europe, many GOP senators believe, must accompany any reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The Obama administration’s position is that those two issues are now being studied — the modernization plan as part of the Nuclear Posture Review and the missile defense sites in the Quadrennial Defense Review — but will be considered in some fashion as part of the START negotiations.
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to further reductions in nuclear arsenals during their July 6 summit meeting but did not come to any conclusions about missile defense, agreeing only to discuss it further.
“I think the administration will make a mistake if they don’t recognize the missile defense component of this debate has to be addressed,” said Armed Services member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., arguing that Obama must commit to going forward with planned sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to get widespread GOP support for a new START treaty.
Russia believes the European missile defense sites are linked to the nuclear arms negotiations, but in a way opposite from the Republican senators’. Several Russian officials have said the administration must agree to scuttle the sites if it wants a new nuclear treaty. The administration maintains the sites are directed at defending against a potential nuclear attack from Iran, not Russia.
Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., expressed the Senate Democrats’ position: The two issues should be dealt with separately.
“I don’t think they ought to be linked at all,” Levin said. “I hope the Russians don’t link them, and I hope we don’t link them. They are very different issues.”
A group of GOP senators told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a May meeting that if there is any linkage between the agreement and shuttering the European sites, the senators would work against ratification, Senate aides said.
Nuclear Modernization
A plan for nuclear stockpile modernization, which could include the George W. Bush administration’s Reliable Replacement Warhead program, is another precondition Senate Republicans want before agreeing to support a new START treaty.
“I think a central first step to even consider it . . . is getting on a path, which we’re clearly not on, for a robust nuclear modernization program,” said David Vitter of Louisiana, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works subcommittee that oversees nuclear safety.
Many Senate Republicans expressed concern that the United States was giving up too much in initial stages of the talks, because the Russians had internal reasons to concede on some reductions anyway.
“Much of what Russia is acting like they’re going to give away, they’re going to give away anyway, for budget reasons and for other strategic reasons,” said Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said the administration was rushing to complete an agreement quickly and neglecting issues of substance.
“It seems to be driven by public perception rather than strategic need,” he said.
Adam Graham-Silverman contributed to this story.
Source: CQ Today Print Edition
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2009 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
      | |
|
| http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/10/was-porter-goss-briefed-on-things-pelosi-and-harman-werent/ http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/10/was-porter-goss-briefed-on-things-pelosi-and-harman-werent/  I decided recently that it was time to re-read George Tenet's book.
And given all the recent discussion about CIA briefings, I was a little surprised to see this paragraph pertaining to early discussions with the UK on the Iraq war.
In May of 2002, my counterpart in Great Britain, the head of MI-6, Sir Richard Dearlove, traveled to Washington along with Prime Minister Blair's then national security advisor, David Manning, to take Washington's temperature on Iraq. Sir Richard met with Rice, Hadley, Scooter Libby, and Congressman Porter Goss, who was then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. (309) [my emphasis]
The paragraph almost appears to be a non-sequitur. The previous paragraphs discuss the series of meetings in 2002 that discussed the challenges of war in Iraq, without first addressing the question of "whether" war in Iraq was a good idea. Then the two paragraphs directly preceding this one pose the question, "When did you know for sure that we were going to war in Iraq"--but they focus on July 2002, not May. And the paragraphs following this one discuss the July 2002 Downing Street Memos and Dearlove's explanation to Tenet that he had concluded at the July 2002 meeting that war was "inevitable." (They also describe Dearlove disputing Libby's allegations of a tie between al Qaeda and Iraq.)
So, ostensibly, at least, this paragraph about May 2002 might be there for contrast--the previous meetings with which Dearlove was comparing the July 2002 meetings, after which he concluded there had been a "perceptible shift" and the war was definitely going to happen. Except that Tenet offers no details about what was said at that May 2002 meeting (note, Tenet did not apparently attend).
And regardless of the content of the meeting, what was Porter Goss doing at a meeting with the National Security Advisor, the Deputy National Security Advisor, Cheney's henchman, and the UK's chief spook? Was he representing "the temperature" of those in Congress on a potential Iraq war? Or was he participating in the Administration's early planning for that war?
I raise that question because of all the recent discussions about CIA briefings of Congress. This meeting occurred, of course, just as the Administration was implementing its torture program for Abu Zubaydah. CIA originally claimed that Bob Graham had been briefed on torture, twice, the previous month (April 2002). I have long suspected that Goss--the guy who would later have at least a tangential role in the destruction of the torture tapes that portrayed CIA torturing Abu Zubaydah before the Administration got formal approval from OLC--was "briefed" on torture in the April time frame, and that that was part of the Administration's CYA for torturing without Congressional approval.
And then there's the ongoing spat on the program that--Crazy Pete Hoekstra says--was "on-again, off-again" and as far as he knows never happened but which Congress was not informed of.
“If they’d done this thing and hadn’t told us about it, I’d be screaming from the tallest building in Washington,” Mr. Hoekstra said. “But it was on-again, off-again and never happened.”
Yet it was Goss, not Hoekstra, who would have been the one informed in 2001 when the program "on-again, off-again" started. And Goss, of course, is a candidate to be among the "certain officers" who "have not adhered to the high standards held, as a rule, by the CIA with respect to truthfulness in reporting."
Mind you, Tenet doesn't appear to be describing a briefing here. But the description of Goss' attendance at this meeting suggests it may not have been a matter of briefing with him so much as participation in the early planning.
For the Iraq War. And perhaps for other things.
| |
|
| http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/oreilly-vehemently-insists-god-and-c
On The O'Reilly Factor last night, the Falafel Master devoted his Talking Points Memo segment to the notion that President Obama is "a secular guy" -- and as proof held up the recent foofara over the Air Force's decision to deny a military-plane flyover at a "God and Country" festival in Idaho.
O'Reilly: But to diminish spirituality by denying the good folks in Idaho a flyover is simply stupid. There is no specific religion in play at that festival. This is another example of secularists being disrespectful to people of faith.
Later, in a discussion of the case with Warren Ballentine -- who laughs at O'Reilly for even making this argument -- O'Reilly repeats the claim:
Ballentine: What I'm saying is this: This president has purposely taken the position that he is not going to be connected to any religion, because he doesn't --
O'Reilly: What religion is in Idaho at the festival, Warren? What religion is there? Tell me what religion is there.
Well, Bill, according to the festival's organizers, the Christian religion is there:
Organizers don't deny the explicitly Christian nature of the annual patriotic rally.
"Yes, it's about as Christian as you can get — we believe in promoting Christianity," Syme said. "And we have no plans to change that."
It's not open to Jews, nor to Muslims. Not even Mormons were welcome at this festival.
Of course, this has all been reported previously, so these facts were available to O'Reilly and his producers. But they had a narrative to sell, so why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Another fact that goes unmentioned (but which we already explored in depth): The Obama administration is in fact simply enforcing longstanding U.S. military policy that has gone ignored for the past 50 years and more. And it is only doing so because it faces likely lawsuits from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for failing to uphold those policies.
In other words, the administration isn't pushing secularism here. It's just doing the right thing, and making its military adhere to its own policies.
But don't tell Bill O'Reilly because he isn't interested. And he'll just yell at you if you do.
| |
|
| http://www.earthportal.org/?p=1481  [ Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] 0;">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] <p class="ljsyndicationlink"><a href="http://www.earthportal.org/?p=1481">http://www.earthportal.org/?p=1481</a></p><div><img style="_margin-left:3px;_padding:0;" src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/h_eif.gif' alt='Earth in Focus' /></div>
<div><!-- dual col start --></p>
<div id="eif_float" style="float:right;width:210px;padding:0 0 0 5px;"> <!-- col 2 float start --></p>
<div>
<a href='http://www.eoearth.org/contributor/Alan.robock' title=bio week 115><img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/eif_wk115_robock.jpg' alt='Wk 115 bio' /></a>
</div>
<p style="color:#81838B;font-size:10px;margin-top:-6px;">Dr. Alan Robock is a professor of climatology in the <a href="http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/" class="external text" title="http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/">Department of Environmental Sciences</a> at <a href="http://www.rutgers.edu/" class="external text" title="http://www.rutgers.edu/">Rutgers University</a> and the associate director of its <a href="http://www.cep.rutgers.edu/" class="external text" title="http://www.cep.rutgers.edu/">Center for Environmental Prediction</a>.</p>
<div style="margin:5px 0 0 5px;"><span style="font-size:10px;font-family:arial;"><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/contributor/alan.robock"><img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/readmore.gif' alt='Read More'/></a>
</div>
<div style="margin:10px 0;"><img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/eif_left_col_line.gif' alt='Eif sectional line' />
</div>
<div><img style="margin-left: 5px;" src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/h_eif_supplement.gif' alt='EIFsupplemental reading header' />
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Szilard%2C_Leo">Leo Szilard</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kurchatov%2C_Igor">Igor Kurchato</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_safeguards_(non-proliferation)">Nuclear safeguards (non-proliferation)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/http://www.eoearth.org/article/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency_(IAEA)">International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Uranium">Uranium</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Plutonium">Plutonium</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Thorium">Thorium</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_Proliferation_Prevention_Act_of_1994,_United_States">Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, United States</a></li>
</ul></div>
<div style="margin:10px 0;"><img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/eif_left_col_line.gif' alt='Eif sectional line' />
</div>
<div><img style="margin-left: 5px;" src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/h_eif_related.gif' alt='EIF Related News' />
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2541">Obama, Russian leader announce deal on stockpiles</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2542">Security Council condemns latest missile tests by DPR Korea</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2543">IAEA’s ElBaradei Urges NATO To End Dependence On Nuclear Arms</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-general-robert-g-gard-jr-/decrease-stockpiles-incre_b_226134.html">Decreased Stockpiles, Increased Security</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/obama-medvedev-meet-in-ru_n_226024.html">Obama, Medved Meet in Russia</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106324558>Promising U.S.-Russia Effort on Nuclear Arms Limits</a></li>
</ul></div>
<div style="margin:10px 0;">
<img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/eif_left_col_line.gif' alt='Eif sectional line' />
</div>
<div>
<img style="margin-left: 5px;" src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/h_eif_links.gif' alt='Other Links' />
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/">Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf">Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War</a></li>
<li><a href="http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/">Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie6.shtml">Nuclear Winter Animation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.iaea.org/">International Atomic Energy Agency</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ippnw.org/">International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/">Nuclear Weapons and Global Security</a></li>
</ul></div>
<div style="margin:10px 0;">
<img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/eif_left_col_line.gif' alt='Eif sectional line' />
</div>
</p></div>
<p><!-- col 2 float end --></p>
<div style="margin:-10px 0 0 0;"><!-- col big start --><br />
<img src='http://www.earthportal.org/wp-content/uploads/eif_wk115_leadpic.jpg' alt='eif week 115'/><br />
Nuclear winter is a term that describes the climatic effects of nuclear war. In the 1980’s, work conducted jointly by Western and Soviet scientists showed that for a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union the climatic consequences, and indirect effects of the collapse of society, would be so severe that the ensuing nuclear winter would produce famine for billions of people far from the target zones.</p>
<p>There are several wrong impressions that people have about nuclear winter. One is that there was a flaw in the theory and that the large climatic effects were disproven. Another is that the problem, even if it existed, has been solved by the end of the nuclear arms race. But these are both wrong. Furthermore, new nuclear states threaten global climate change even with arsenals that are much less than 1% of the current global arsenal.<br />
What’s New</p>
<p>Based on new work published in 2007 and 2008 by some of the pioneers of nuclear winter research who worked on the original studies, we now can say several things about this topic.</p>
<p>New Science:</p>
<p> * A minor nuclear war (such as between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East), with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is only 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.<br />
* This same scenario would produce global ozone depletion, because the heating of the stratosphere would enhance the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.<br />
* A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet.<br />
* The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than we previously thought. New climate model simulations, that have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.</p>
<p>New Policy Implications:</p>
<p> * The only way to eliminate the possibility of this climatic catastrophe is to eliminate the nuclear weapons. If they exist, they can be used.<br />
* The spread of nuclear weapons to new emerging states threatens not only the people of those countries, but the entire planet.<br />
* Rapid reduction of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals will set an example for the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used and are not needed.</p>
<p>How Does Nuclear Winter Work?</p>
<p>A nuclear explosion is like bringing a piece of the Sun to the Earth’s surface for a fraction of a second. Like a giant match, it causes cities and industrial areas to burn. Megacities have developed in India and Pakistan and other developing countries, providing tremendous amounts of fuel for potential fires. The direct effects of the nuclear weapons, blast, radioactivity, fires, and extensive pollution, would kill millions of people, but only those near the targets. However, the fires would have another effect. The massive amounts of dark smoke from the fires would be lofted into the upper troposphere, 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) above the Earth’s surface, and then absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting it into the stratosphere, a layer where the smoke would persist for years, with no rain to wash it out.</p>
<p>The climatic effects of smoke from fires started by nuclear war depend on the amount of smoke. Our new calculations show that for 50 nuclear weapons dropped on two countries, on the targets that would produce the maximum amount of smoke, about 5 megatons (Tg) of black smoke would be produced, accounting for the amount emitted from the fires and the amount immediately washed out in rain. As the smoke is lofted into the stratosphere, it would be transported around the world by the prevailing winds. We also did calculations for two scenarios of war between the two superpowers who still maintain large nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia. In one scenario, 50 Tg of black smoke would be produced and in another, 150 Tg of black smoke would be produced. How many nuclear weapons would be required to produce this much smoke? It depends on the targets, but there are enough weapons in the current arsenals to produce either amount. In fact, there are only so many targets. Once they are all hit by weapons, additional weapons would not produce much more smoke at all. Even after the current nuclear weapons reduction treaty between these superpowers is played out in 2012, with each having about 2,000 weapons, 150 Tg of smoke could still be produced. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter">Please go here to read the full article</a></p>
</div>
<p><!-- col big end --></p>
</div>
<p><!-- end dual col --></p>
<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://www.earthportal.org/?p=1481&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_1481" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a>
</p> | |
|
| http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/6222 http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/10/senate-finance-dawdles-while-thousands-die-waiting-without-health-care/  The Senate Finance Committee has been meeting secretly for months -- months -- reportedly creating a plan to pay for getting Americans something still well short of the full health care coverage enjoyed by every other industrialized country on the planet.
But despite repeated assurances from Chairman Baucus that wonderful bipartisan progress was coming, all these people have been able to come up with so far is a list of options.
It's not that different from lists reputable analysts had already compiled and published. But the Committee apparently hasn't been able to agree on anything, because, as Olympia Snowe so thoughtfully explains, deciding how to raise taxes to keep 20,000 people from dying every year is hard work.
According to various reports -- Ezra Klein, Jonathon Cohn, NYT -- the list includes about 20 options, including the following possible new taxes/savings (estimates are over 10 years): (big thanks to Ezra Klein for the summaries)
1. A tax surcharge on those making $250,000 and above. The surcharge might be 2 percent for the amounts above $250,000, more for amounts above $500,000 and 4 percent for amounts above $1,000,000. The House is seriously considering a surcharge. Estimated revenues = $350 to $500 billion.
2. A tax on health benefits above a very high level. If, for example, the upper-end cost of insuring members of Congress were $17,000/year (Via Kaiser study of employer-provided plans, in 2008, the national average insurance for a family of four cost about $12,800), then a tax would kick in when the benefit exceeds that amount by, say 50 percent. Baucus and economists like the concept, but Obama, labor, and many Dems don't. Estimated revenues = $90 to $234 billion.
3. Limit the tax deductions for itemized deductions for those with very high incomes. If their marginal tax rate moves from 35 to 39 percent (when Bush tax cuts expire) then limit the deduction to 28 or 35 percent. This Obama proposal is disliked by Sen. Baucus but is still on the table. Estimated revenues = $90 to $267 billion.
4. Raise the current payroll tax on employees/employers by, e.g., 0.3 percent. Estimated revenues = $275 billion.
5. Consumption or value/added taxes. E.g., tax sugary tax drinks, beer, etc. These are not progressive measures, and their effect on reducing consumption is unclear. Estimate revenues = $30 to $100 billion.
6. Tax insurance companies for each person they insure. Estimated revnues = $75 to $100 billion.
7. And there are various proposals to cut federal payments to Medicare, which WH Budget Director Orszag is pushing on the grounds, e.g., that once more people are insured, current payments to providers for caring for uninsured people will decrease. Estimated savings = several hundred billions.
Under the current less than full coverage proposals, all they need to do is come up with about $1.2 trillion in taxes or cost savings over ten years, in a system that is costing us $2.2 trillion every year and escalating at 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation.
If the nation were in wars that would likely cost $3 trillion, and thousands of our troops were endangered because the Senate Finance Committee couldn't agree on a revenue plan to pay for their safety, the American people would wonder why these scoundrels weren't run out of town with pitchforks. Of course, Senate Finance, and Congress generally, still haven't come up with a plan to pay that $3 trillion.
So when nearly 20,000 people die every year because they can't afford health insurance and a million people a year face bankruptcy driven in large part because they were uninsured or fraudulent insured by an industry whose persistence depends on denying coverage, we probably shouldn't be surprised by all the Senate dawdling, but the same accountability principle should apply.
We need less stalling from the Finance Committee, less whining from its members and more results. There are people dying while these Senators dawdle.
| |
|
| http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/10/working-families-party-chooses-new-york-city-mayoral-nominee/ http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=7168 On the evening of July 9, the New York city Executive Committee of the Working Families Party nominated William C. Thompson for Mayor. Thompson is expected to be the Democratic Party’s nominee as well. See this story. Thompson needed two-thirds of the vote, and received that, with two votes to spare.
By contrast, in the 2005 Mayoral election, the Working Families Party had no nominee for Mayor, because neither the Democratic nominee, Fernando Ferrer, nor the Republican/Independence nominee, Mayor Bloomberg, were able to win two-thirds of the vote of the WFP’s executive committee. | |
|
| http://ibbyskibby.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/matching-game/ http://ibbyskibby.wordpress.com/?p=951 
I read too many blogs by talented stay-at-home-moms and homeschoolers. Too many great, colorful photos of kids painting, coloring, using glitter and glue, and learning and exploring in new and interesting ways. It gets me down. I never seem to have enough time or energy at the end of my work day to think up new things, or collect “ingredients”, or frankly, deal with paint all over the furniture or sidewalk.
Instead, we fall back on familiar bike rides to the park to throw rocks in the river, read books in bed, cook together, and do all kinds of fun, wonderful things that I hope will instill happy memories for my boy, and not just me as his mommy.
If I ignore blogs altogether, I think of myself as a good mother who adores her little boy, talks to him nonstop, works with him on sign language, and helps him explore all kinds of new foods (hence a toddler who loves potato masala, spicy pickled carrots at the taco stand, all the raw veggies at the salad bar, crushed coriander seeds, and sesame-crusted salmon).
But I’ll admit that it’s hard for me to think of age-appropriate learning activities. Even when I find ideas that use “items you have around the house”, I don’t usually have those things (I’d have to specially purchase milk in a carton, or cereal in a box, or glue sticks).
So when I hit upon this idea last week, it was perfect for us. I’m sure it was inspired by the blogs I read, but I don’t remember seeing it exactly. Zach and I went around the house finding small items that would fit into a muffin tin. Two of each thing. We put one into the tin and one into a small bowl. Then we asked the Boogedy to put the mates together. It was a hit for three games, then I moved everything to a new spot in the tin. He had such a hard time finding each thing after it was in a new location. He LOVED naming each item as we went: Bah-bee pin! Yeyow Dog! Guitah pick! Yittle spoon!!
I just ordered a book called “The Toddler Busy Book.” I checked it out once from the library and found it to be full of good info. Here’s hoping I’m inspired rather than overwhelmed.
Do you have this kind of mom-guilt, like you’re not doing enough? What do you do about it?
      | |
|
| http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2009/07/wellington-commons-tenants-speak-out.html For Immediate Release Media Advisory Event: Tenants' Press Conference at Wellington Commons Location: 59 Seward, Near Woodward, 11:00am Contact: Moratorium NOW! Coalition Phone: 313.778.4393 or 313.671.3715 E-mail: ac6123@wayne.edu URL: http://www.peoplessummit.org Stop the Illegal Eviction of Tenants at the Wellington Commons; Demand an Investigation of the Slumlords Who Own the Apartment Building Residents of the Wellington Commons apartments located at 59 Seward near Woodward avenue near the New Center area, were today illegally ordered out of their apartments within twenty-four hours by the owners. A note delivered to the tenants said that the 59 Seward LLC was going out of business and that the electric and gas services provided by DTE Energy would be shut-off the following day, July 10. This comes as a shock to the residents of the ten story apartment building. Some residents have lived there for as long as forty-six years. No writ of eviction was served by 36th District Court and the tenants had no idea that such action would be taken. The ordering of these tenants out of their apartments is taking place in light of the deplorable conditions prevailing at Wellington Commons. Nyree Peters, who spoke for the tenants, said that she had no place to go within the next day. The owners have neglected the maintenance of the building for years. Residents complained of broken elevators, inadequate ventilation, black mole, mice, bedbugs, roaches, broken windows and plumbing. A representative of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures and Evictions was taken on a tour of several apartments in the building. Keith Major, who said that he had lived in the building for six months, occupied a one bedroom apartment where the faucets did not work, the kitchen sink was backed-up and the floors were covered with ants and roaches. Angela Chadwick, who lives on the fourth floor, said that her two children were placed in protective services after a social worker paid a visit to the apartment. "I was told that this place was not fit for a cat, let alone children," Chadwick said. Residents reported that the elevator had been out for months and that people were forced to climb the stairs. An elderly man died recently after becoming overwhelmed by the walking up the flights of stairs. On Friday morning, July 10 at 11:00 a.m., tenants at the Wellington Commons will hold a press conference to demand justice. They want the illegal evictions stopped, repairs done on the apartment building or assistance in re-locating to a decent housing complex. The note delivered to the residents from the owners said that they could move to an apartment building on Chalmers Street located on the far east side of the city. When residents called the number to inquire about availability at the Chalmers apartment, they were told that a deposit between $300-700 was required to move in. Tenants said they had just paid rent on the first of the month. With the deepening economic crisis more residents in Detroit and the region are facing foreclosure and eviction. This is why there needs to be an economic state of emergency declared in Michigan by Gov. Granholm. Such a declaration of a state of economic emergency would create the conditions for a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, utility shut-off and job losses. | |
|
| http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/10/27_arrested_for_erecting_anti_logging  The blockade in the Elliott State Forest began on Monday and continued until yesterday when the last of the protesters were arrested. The activists were blocking access to a timber sale on 79 acres of forest land. They say logging practices in the Elliot are damaging old-growth forests and endangering spotted owls. | |
|
| http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/10/greenpeace_activists_hang_banner_on_mt  Activists with the environmental group Greenpeace scaled the Mount Rushmore National Monument Wednesday and hung a banner urging President Obama to take action on global warming. The banner was hung next to the carved mountain face of Abraham Lincoln. It read: “America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming.” The group of eleven Greenpeace activists were arrested and charged with trespassing. They each face up to six months in prison.[includes rush transcript] | |
|
| http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/10/costa_rica_hosts_talk_over_honduras  Talks between the ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the leaders of last week’s military coup began on Thursday in Costa Rica. Zelaya and the military-backed Roberto Micheletti met separately with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias but there were no face-to-face meetings between the two sides. | |
|
| http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/10/president_obama_heads_to_ghana_on  President Obama arrives in Ghana today on his first official trip to sub-Saharan Africa since becoming President. He is expected to meet Ghana"s President John Atta-Mill today and speak to the country"s parliament on Saturday in what is expected to be a major policy address outlining US policy on Africa. Why Ghana? Some say it has to do the recent discovery of oil in Ghana. A quarter of US oil imports are expected to come from West Africa by 2015, according to estimates by National Intelligence Council. | |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
deesings's Friends Page
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small}
