tired of burning your feet on the sand at the beach? dubai has the solution for you

Developers in Dubai continue to try and one-up each other to create the most outrageous building and/or built environment. The latest and greatest is a 9,000 square foot refrigerated swimming pool and an artificially cooled beach, complete with giant wind machines to create a gentle breeze. I expect the next monstrosity built in Dubai to be along the lines of a small village enclosed in a giant glass bubble, climate controlled and equipped with snow machines to recreate the charm of the Swiss Alps in winter.
 

Chilling developments in Dubai
A refrigerated swimming pool and an artificially cooled beach – Dubai’s latest excesses are enough to make conservationists weep.
Leo Hickman, The Guardian
Thursday 18 December 2008

 

There will surely come a day when Dubai runs the world’s reserves of hyperbole dry. But in the meantime, we continue to draw a sharp intake of breath each time a new construction project is announced. We have had ski domes built in the desert, seen vast artificial islands rise from the sea and watched several structures vying for the title of world’s tallest building. Dubai represents the will, vision and ambition of our species. Yet many believe it shines an unflattering light on our tendency for folly and hubris, too.

This week, it was reported that the Palazzo Versace hotel – the Emirate’s latest offering for those still in the market for exorbitant luxury – will boast, when completed in 2010, a refrigerated 820sq metre swimming pool and a beach with artificially cooled sand to protect its guests from the excesses of a climate that can see summer temperatures exceeding 50C. Wind machines will even be on hand to provide a gentle breeze.

“We will suck the heat out of the sand to keep it cool enough to lie on,” said Soheil Abedian, founder and president of Palazzo Versace, a hotel group with plans for a further 15 luxury hotels around the world to add to the one that already exists on Australia’s Gold Coast. (I’m a Celebrity junkies will know this as the hotel where the celebrities are sent once voted out of the “jungle”.) “This is the kind of luxury that top people want,” he added.

The energy required to run this project can only be guessed at (when questioned, Hyder Consulting, the British company hired by the hotel to build these facilities, said it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Palazzo Versace and therefore couldn’t comment), but it is likely to leave the world’s environmentalists with their heads in their hands. First there is the energy required to power giant wind machines all day long, not to mention the electricity needed to pump coolant around tubes laid under the sand. However, the most energy-intensive element of this plan is likely to be the power needed to refrigerate a whole swimming pool under Dubai’s baking sun.

Of course, in a place like Dubai, this kind of audacious project goes relatively unnoticed, among the many others currently underway. To pick just one other example, 30,000 mature trees are scheduled to be shipped to Dubai to help landscape a new Tiger Woods-designed golf course that will be bordered by “22 palaces and 75 mansions”. Even without the twin threats of climate change and a global economic recession, Dubai’s grandiose plans might seem short-sighted to some. Is it really wise to be building at all, let alone on this scale, in a place that the United Nations describes as one of the most “water-imperilled” environments on the planet, but where per capita water use is three times the global average?

“It’s grotesque that while the world’s poorest people face the loss of their homes and livelihoods, as well as disease and starvation, because of climate change, the world’s richest people think it’s acceptable to waste precious energy so pointlessly on things such as artificially cooled beaches,” says Robin Oakley, head of climate and energy at Greenpeace UK. “While Abu Dhabi, like Barack Obama, is betting on green technology as the engine for growth this century and even building a zero-emissions city, Dubai is apparently still stuck in the 1980s.”

Dubai’s ruling elite insists it now places “sustainability” at the heart of its plans for existing and future projects. Last year, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, spelled out the “Dubai Strategic Plan 2015″ in a speech. He explained that oil now contributes only 3% to Dubai’s GDP and that his plan is to “sustain Dubai’s environment, ensuring that it is safe and clean”. Each new construction project now boasts a paragraph in its brochure about how it will “follow environmental best practice”, but even if these new measures do materialise, Dubai is a place built on the ideology and convenience of cheap, free-flowing oil. Its business model, particularly its ever-expanding tourist sector, is based on the premise that people will always be willing and able to fly long distances to get there. (Some airlines now euphemistically describe Dubai as both a “long short-haul” destination and a “long-haul weekend break destination”.) A new six-runway mega airport is being built to serve a predicted capacity of 120 million passengers a year.

These latest plans for an artificially cooled beach may be causing ripples around the world, but why isn’t there more vocal opposition by environmentalists within Dubai? The simple answer is there are no environmentalists in Dubai; not in the sense of a campaigning, placard-bearing activist that you might find elsewhere. NGOs are barely tolerated within the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part. When I visited Dubai two years ago to investigate the environmental and social impacts of its tourism industry for a book I was writing, no one was willing to talk to me on the record, such was their fear of speaking out against the ruling class. The few environmental groups that do exist in Dubai rarely stray from a brief that seems largely limited to educating school-children about the importance of recycling.

The one place where dissent does seem to be allowed – or is harder to police – is the internet, where people can hide behind their anonymity. Discussion forums are a popular way to vent criticism about the direction Dubai is taking, as are blogs such as Secret Dubai Diary. One recent controversy is that over Sammy the Shark, a young whale shark that was caught in the Arabian Gulf and then transferred to the aquarium at the Atlantis Hotel, which opened last month with a £20m party and firework display. More than 16,000 people joined a Facebook group calling for its release, and one local newspaper started a campaign urging that the shark be returned to the sea. A local radio DJ has even been playing a “Free Sammy” interpretation of Michael Jackson’s Heal the World.

But while Dubai’s citizens fight for Sammy to be freed, its leaders refuse to be diverted from realising their vision. At the United Nations climate talks, held in Poland earlier this month, Dr Rashid Ahmad Bin Fahad, the UAE’s minister of environment and water, gave a speech in which he spoke of the need for his country to consider using nuclear power to desalinate its fresh water. Well, how else are they going to keep those swimming pools filled and chilled?

Link.

is the yellowstone supervolcano waking up?

Batten down the hatches, the Yellowstone Caldera might bring in the new year with its own fireworks display. “Scientists are monitoring a cluster of earthquakes that have rattled Yellowstone National Park over the past few days amid concerns that a larger earthquake could be brewing.”
 
 
Yellowstone Park shaken by hundreds of earthquakes
Last Updated: 1:52PM GMT 31 Dec 2008
 
More than 250 tremors have been recorded since Friday including nine greater than magnitude 3.0 on the Richter scale, according to the University of Utah. The largest, a magnitude 3.9, struck on Saturday and the area was shaken by a 3.3 tremor just after midday on Monday.

While earthquakes are common in the giant park, which covers parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana and experiences about 1,000 to 2,000 tremors a year, the intense burst of seismic activity lasting several days has been described as unusual.

“They’re certainly not normal,” said Robert Smith, a professor of geophysics at the University of Utah. “We haven’t had earthquakes of this energy or extent in many years.”

Mr Smith, director of the Yellowstone Seismic Network, which operates seismic stations around the park, said the earthquakes have ranged in strength from barely detectable to Saturday’s 3.9. A magnitude 4 earthquake is capable of producing moderate damage.

“This is an active volcanic and tectonic area, and these are the kinds of things we have to pay attention to,” he said. “We might be seeing something precursory.

“Could it develop into a bigger fault or something related to hydrothermal activity? We don’t know. That’s what we’re there to do, to monitor it for public safety.”

So far, all the quakes have been centred beneath the northwest end of Yellowstone Lake. No damage has been reported and a park spokeswoman said there did not appear to be cause for alarm.

Yellowstone is situated on a giant, geologically active feature known as a supervolcano and boasts some 75 per cent of the world’s geysers. Much of the park sits in a caldera, or crater, which was formed when the massive volcano erupted 70,000 years ago.

Last year a report in the journal Science found the park’s central region was rising up at a rate of up to 7cm a year due to the movement of a pool of magma several miles below the surface.

Mr Smith said it was difficult to say what might be causing the current tremors. He added that the park’s famous geysers and hot springs were a reminder of the magma underground.

“That’s just the surface manifestation of the enormous amount of heat that’s being released through the system,” he said.

In 1959, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake near Hebgen Lake just west of Yellowstone National Park triggered a landslide that killed 28 people.
Link.

attack on unions and blue collar workers

Conservatives and the “liberal” media continue to spread lies about the wages of Union Auto Workers, claiming they make $70/hour. Are you serious? If that was the case, why would anyone go to university? (I’m not saying working in an auto plant is easy, but it’s highly unlikely I would ever see such a wage even with a bachelor’s and master’s degree.) The reason is because UNION AUTO WORKERS DO NOT MAKE $70/HOUR! That figure is the result of the fuzziest of fuzzy math. They summed all of the money paid out for wages and benefits to all of the workers, retired and current employees, and then divided only by the number of current employees. See the problem? Simple math people. I would like to believe that Americans aren’t gullible enough to fall for these bald faced lies but the rumor will not die. And now, Republicans blocked the auto bailout because of this dubious math. Where were the Republicans when the Wall Street bailout went through? Didn’t hear a squeak about the 6 figure wages for middle management and the golden parachutes for the insurance and banking industries. Why do they hate the lower and middle classes?
 
The media myth: Detroit’s $70-an-hour autoworker
by Eric Boehlert

It’s been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, “the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.”

The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy.

Sorkin’s point was that labor costs were out of control — workers enjoyed “gold-plated benefits” — and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages.

As I mentioned, it’s been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there’s been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself.

And he isn’t alone. Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the “hourly wage” of Detroit’s union autoworkers had been driven up “towards $80 an hour.”

Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America’s automotive industry.

Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

For the record, I’m not from Michigan, and I don’t have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I’m genuinely torn on the issue. But what’s obvious to me is that it’s harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting — reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to “make their case, to the Congress and the American people,” for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, “[M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully” [emphasis added].

But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts.

Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I’ve had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media’s misinformation on the topic; i.e., “These autoworkers get paid that?!”

Answer: No, they don’t, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?)

And it’s funny, because I don’t remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers’ six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven’t seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug.

As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, “There is apparently a cultural condition that’s more ready to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry, and that has to be confronted.”

That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today’s white-collar press corps.

Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It’s also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers.

* “Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker.” [New York Post]

* “The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them.” [National Review]

* “[T]here’s no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation.” [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC]

* “Given that we’re in tough economic times, it’s hard for the average American to muster a lot of sympathy for workers at the Big 3 automakers when all of the companies pay out over $70 per hour in wages, pension and health care benefits.” [Right Wing News]

* “The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it’s not the auto industry. A Big Three worker in Detroit makes $73 an hour if you include all the benefits.” [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington]

* “Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits — compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota’s U.S. plants — are not going to be saved by a $25 billion government check.” [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online]

* “Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation.” [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com]

* “When you’re paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you’re going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately.” [Conservative radio host Lars Larson]

* “The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year.” [On-screen Fox News graphic]

Let’s note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)

What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.

Do you see that there’s a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don’t get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)

Simply put, GM’s labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they’re not.

Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:

The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM’s total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]

Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM’s $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees’ pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that’s money that’s not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That’s money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.

So, no, UAW workers don’t make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago.

Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. That’s what Sorkin did in his Times column: “The average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.”

Not only is that inaccurate, but there’s also a problem in terms of perception. It’s true that autoworkers don’t earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That’s not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception.

For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: “Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits.” Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: “GM’s average worker makes $78.21 an hour in wages and benefits.”

Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make?

I have a hunch it’s because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words.

I’m sure everybody understood the $70-an-hour implication in Sorkin’s column, especially since he also lamented the “gold-plated benefits” UAW workers enjoyed. (They were “off the charts,” he stressed.) And since it’s harder to back up a claim of gold-plated benefits by citing the actual hourly wage of UAW workers ($28), Sorkin went with the $70 figure, along with completely nebulous language about “health care and pension costs.”

The takeaway from Sorkin’s column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid.

By the way, here’s the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three “need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45.” Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don’t. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it’s so misleading.)

How much money GM’s workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes.

That’s misleading and dishonest.

And that’s why it’s still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record.

—E.B.

Link.

males soon to be on the endangered list?

Doctors and scientist fear common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world are causing a drop off in the production of males. But good luck finding much more on this story because, as this article points out, it is not well publicized. Even the documentary has been pulled from CBC’s website.
 
The disappearing male: Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men

Sonja Puzic, Windsor Star
Thursday, November 06, 2008

Are males becoming an endangered species?

That’s the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.

More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette’s syndrome, among other disorders.

Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man’s sperm is declining, according to some studies.

But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.

What many scientists are calling the most important — and least publicized — issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon.

Titled The Disappearing Male and premiering tonight at 9 on CBC-TV, the documentary includes interviews with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith, adjunct sociology professors at the University of Windsor.

They have been studying the decline in the birth of male children in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community located next to the infamous Chemical Valley, Canada’s largest concentration of petrochemical plants, near Sarnia.

A paper co-authored by Keith and published three years ago in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that exposure to various chemicals produced by industrial plants surrounding the Aamjiwnaang reserve land may be skewing the community’s sex ratio.

The researchers looked at the community’s birth records since 1984 and saw “a dramatic drop in the number of boys being born in the last 10 years, particularly in the five-year period between 1998 and 2003,” Brophy said.

Of 132 Aamjiwnaang babies born between 1999 and 2003, only 46 were boys. Typically, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in Canada.

High miscarriage rates and a unusually high number of children suffering from asthma were also noted by researchers.

Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.

Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a “whole host” of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.

Brophy said soil and water contamination in and around the Aamjiwnaang reserve had been documented before, including in a University of Windsor study that found high levels of PCBs, lead, mercury and various chemicals in the area in the late 1990s. Accidental chemical spills in the area have not been uncommon.

GLOBAL AWARENESS

But it wasn’t until the Aamjiwnaang birth ratio study was published that the global science community really took notice.

“It triggered … calls from scientists and researchers from around the world who had been looking at this issue in Europe and the United States,” Brophy said. “Aamjiwnaang became almost the poster child.”

While Brophy has not seen The Disappearing Male documentary yet, he believes the story of the Aamjiwnaang community will be “the focal point.”

He said the documentary also includes interviews with “some of the foremost experts in the world” on environmental effects on reproductive health.

Brophy and Keith have also studied other occupational and environmental exposures to pollutants, including the link between breast cancer and certain types of jobs in the Windsor-Essex region.

© The Windsor Star 2008

Link.

open letter to dubya from cindy sheehan

November 11, 2008

George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC

Dear George,

I am writing this to you on the fifth Veteran’s Day I have mourned the death of my son, Casey Sheehan. Casey was a soldier in the Army. You killed my oldest son with your lies and greed for Empire. Casey never became a Veteran because he came home in one of those pesky flag draped coffins that your mother doesn’t want to bother her “pretty mind” with.

During that other illegal and immoral war that you and your VP, Dick, had the good sense to dodge, your mother never had to go through one second of worry for your safety, did she? You were too busy doing your drugs and going AWOL to bother her “pretty mind” about that. What galls me the most when I think about my brave and honorable son’s needless and untimely death, is that you were so cowardly and worthless when you were his age and you had the nerve to condemn thousands of our children to death or disability with your lies.

George, I have written you letters before. I have demanded your resignation and also promised you that I would work for your impeachment. If you remember, I even started a peace camp of thousands of protesters outside your Crawford ranch and I even tried to get into Congress so I could impeach your criminal hide. You never answer my letters and you have never had the integrity to tell me what “Noble Cause” killed my son. This is the last letter you will receive from me while you are infecting our Oval Office, but it won’t be the last time you hear from me.

George, I guess I could “rest on my laurels” and allow you to slink off into the quiet desperation of leaving the White House as the most detested President in American history, but that is not enough for me: Millions are dead, wounded, displaced and suffering life-long pain because of your actions. You are the number one terrorist in the world today and this country catches, tortures and prosecutes “terrorists” doesn’t it? Haven’t you said so yourself? You have turned the USA into a nation of imperial mobsters and we have the ignominy of being torturers and you do not deserve to retire with any kind of peace or honor.

George, if Nancy Pelosi and the other complicit Congressional leaders won’t hold you accountable, I will. This nation has a very short memory and we have been assaulted on a daily basis by your arrogance and stupidity and most of America is buying the hype of pre-packaged and aggressively marketed, Hope, but I don’t have the option of burying your deadly legacy like it never happened and moving on. The hole in my heart that used to contain the living and breathing presence of my son will never heal and you are the one who put it there. If you think you are going to live a comfortable life in Dallas, or Paraguay, or wherever, a la Johnson, Nixon, McNamara or Kissinger, you are wrong.

George, this country too hastily moved on from the abomination of Vietnam and we never healed from that horror because we never did the hard work of holding American leaders accountable for crimes against humanity. If history repeats itself, as it tends to do, you won’t be held accountable for your crimes, but I won’t let you forget the faces of my son, Casey and his comrades or the legion of faces of the Afghan and Iraqi dead. Are your dreams haunted by the souls of the people massacred by your hubris?

If I have to buy or erect a billboard near your home and plaster it with the faces of the people you murdered, I will. I will also work with my contacts in the international community to have you indicted for crimes against humanity. I will do whatever it takes to be the thorn in your side as you have been my sorrow. There are many people around the world who thirst for justice and healing who will join me in this noble cause.

This Nation forgot the faces of the 58,000 plus Americans and millions of Vietnamese who were slaughtered for imperial greed, but they won’t forget the faces of the ones you have sacrificed on your altar of deception or the ones who will be sacrificed for the President Elect’s continued War OF Terror. If Obama does not declare a speedy and complete end to the USA’s war of terror on the world, someone should set up camp at his vacation home (which I bet will be nicer than Crawford, TX in August).

On this Veterans Day, I make this pledge to you. Unless we stop the bloody tide of war for profit and US hegemony by seeking justice for your war crimes and crimes against our Constitution, more Casey’s will die and more countries that unfortunately lie in the path of imperial conquest will be decimated.

On this Veteran’s Day, I also send my love and support to the Vets from all wars who live on our streets and are substance abusers because they can’t get help from this hypocritical government. My heart goes out to all Gold Star Mothers who have nothing but a box of medals, a triangular folded flag and memories of a dead child and regrets for a life not lived with him/her. The war machine in collaboration with our government chews people up and rolls on oiled with pain.

George you broke your oath to “faithfully” execute your office and you betrayed the troops that you command due to nothing but election fraud, but I will not break my promise to you.

Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Casey Austin Sheehan
KIA in Sadr City, Baghdad
April 04, 2004

alaska elected a convicted felon?

What the hell is going on in Alaska? They re-elected Ted Stevens, a convicted felon, to the U.S. Senate?! First Sarah Palin, now this. They’re just asking to be kicked off the island. However, it appears there’s some shadiness going on with the elections in Alaska. In a presidential election that not only would be groundbreaking regardless of who won but also included Alaska’s golden governor, approximately 40,000 fewer Alaskans decided to vote this year than in 2004. Seems a bit odd. One would think the turnout would have been greater considering how controversial and monumental the election was. Has anyone seen Katherine Harris lately?
 
Stolen Election from Alaska?
Shannyn Moore
Posted November 6, 2008
 
Something stinks. Not just an ordinary low tide smell. Not like something you’d blame on the dog. It smells like an infection. For me to plug my nose, I’d have to overlook some curious facts.

In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory. Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008. In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren’t inspired to vote for Barack Obama. I would have to glance past the 1,700% increase in the Democratic caucus in February, the 20,991 newly registered voters, and the three largest political rallies in Alaska’s history. I would also have to forget the people I stood in a long line with to early vote. It would be helpful not to know every other presidential election since Alaska began keeping records has had a larger turn out than the one we just had with our own Governor on the ticket. Try not to remember 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination. Don’t think about the Lower 49’s record voter turn out this year either. Try to delete the memory file, though difficult, that 80% of us approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.

Something stinks. You don’t care? Obama won. Yes. He. Did! Free at Last! Wait. Democracy demands all of the votes be counted…if you can find them.

In the balance hangs the fate of Alaska’s Senate and House seats. We still don’t know if we have elected the now convicted felon Ted Stevens, or Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. We still don’t know if Don Young and his million dollar legal problems will defeat former State Representative Ethan Berkowitz and his dreams of Washington DC. Alaska hasn’t had Democrat representation in Congress since Mike Gravel lost his senate seat in 1980.

Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election-a 66% turnout. Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%. That’s a decrease of more than 11% in voter turnout even though passions ran high for and against Barack Obama, as well as for and against Sarah Palin! This year, early voters set a new record. As of last Thursday, with 4 days left to vote early, 15,000 Alaskans showed up-shattering the old record set in 2004 by 28%! Consider the most popular governor in history-and now the most polarizing-was on the Republican ticket. Consider the historic nature of this race; the first African American presidential candidate EVER! The second woman to ever make a presidential ticket; and she’s one of our own. Despite that, we’re supposed to believe that overall participation DECREASED by 11%. Not only that, but this historic election both nationally and for Alaska HAD THE LOWEST ALASKA TURNOUT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RACE EVER!!! That makes sense. REALLY??? Something stinks.

But wait, there’s more…

Pre election polls had both Mark Begich-D and Ethan Berkowitz-D solidly beating incumbents Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young by at least 6-10 points. Stevens is currently ahead by 3,353 votes with 49,000 ballots left to count. Berkowitz, however, is behind by 16,887 votes; a 51-43 margin.

Are we to believe Don Young came from an 8 point average polling deficit to win by 8 points-a whopping 16 point turnaround??? Remember how historic the pundits thought Hillary Clinton’s come from behind New Hampshire Primary victory was? She trailed Barack Obama by 9% in the pre primary polls and ended up winning by 2 points. It was called the most “stunning comeback in political history.” On Election Night, Don Young topped Hillary Clinton’s startling and unprecedented comeback.

Furthermore, there were nearly three thousand Alaskans, (2,783) that voted yet left the hotly contested congressional race blank. In the highly publicized senate race, complete with a nationally covered trial that ended with seven felony convictions for the incumbent, 1,392 Alaskans submitted a ballot and failed to register a vote in the senate race. I’m not sure statistically what that means, but it strikes me as odd that well over a thousand Alaskans would wait in long lines and not cast a vote in either the senate race or the congressional race-especially since there was only one ballot measure. In addition, this particular election had an extra high degree of local interest with Governor Palin on the national stage.

McCain-Palin was ahead in Alaska pre election polling by as much as 55-40. The Haysresearch Poll that came out Sunday indicated that gap had closed to 2.7 points! That poll was certainly consistent with Palin’s reverse meteoric fall in popularity within the state of Alaska. In that same Haysresearch Poll released on November 2, Question 2 addressed Governor Palin’s positive-negative rating. 11% of Alaskans surveyed said their opinion of Palin had become more positive while 37% indicated they were more negative towards Palin. Yesterday’s vote contradicts those polls. McCain-Palin won Alaska 61-36! A 25 POINT SPREAD!!! An identical point spread as the 2004 Election.

Alaska has certainly had our share of election hanky panky. Check out this link to our 2004 election results. There are 40 districts in Alaska. The Anchorage area districts run from District 17-District 32. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and pick any district from 17-32. Pay particular attention to the 3rd column labeled % turnout. Hit the back arrow and select another district. There are more precincts with voter turnout over 100% than under 100%. In other words, many more people voted in Anchorage area precincts than there were registered voters. Clearly, this is not possible.

In 2006, the Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections to release public records needed to verify the 2004 election results. The Democrats also sought to have the Alaska Division of Elections release the raw data for the 2006 election. The State requested several deadline extensions and eventually refused to release the “central tabulator data file” taken from the Diebold-supplied computer used to run the “GEMS” (Global Election Management Software) application. A lawsuit was filed in Superior Court seeking release of the records. The Court eventually forced the State to release the 2004 database. The software was found to contain hundreds of edits after the 2004 election, including as late as July of 2006, prior to the release of the data.

With all that history, and the bizarre anomalies in polling and voting and reports from the field of ballots not being scanned on-site due to broken machines, could this election have been stolen?

The world is watching Alaska’s US Senate race. When President-Elect Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20, he will be greeted by a Senate with at least 57 Democrats-three shy of a filibuster-proof majority. And, there are still three hotly contested US Senate races that are too close to call; Georgia, Minnesota and Alaska. Just when we thought we were out of the national spotlight…

I’ve always said if Democracy was a religion, voting would be the sacrament. I’m wondering if someone stole the body and blood of this election. I’m wondering if the wine isn’t poisoned. Take a few whiffs. Breathe deeply. See if you don’t come to the same conclusion. Where are the votes? Something stinks at the Alaska Division of Elections.

Link.

does the vice president really need to know geography?

Not according to the Republican Party. Apparently, Sarah Palin lacked even the most basic knowledge of world geography. How basic, you ask? Well, she though Africa was a country, not a continent. But far worse, at least for an American, she couldn’t name all of the countries of North America. That’s right. She couldn’t name the three countries of North America, one of which she lived in. I’m assuming she got that one at least but you never know.
I know. I know. I shouldn’t beat a dead pit bull, I mean horse. But come on. What the hell were they thinking? What if McCain and Palin were elected? Isn’t nominating a person with the intelligence of a third grader to be next in line for one of, if not the most, powerful position in the world gross negligence on the part of the Republican Party? How can she discuss foreign policy issues if she doesn’t know where countries are or if they are in fact countries? As if Americans don’t already look like rubes to the rest of the world with eight years of Dubya at the helm. How would we look with the brainchild Palin in office?

Be sure to check out the video.
 
Palin Didn’t Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter
Nicholas Graham
November 5, 2008

Now that the 2008 election is over, reporters are spilling all the juicest, and previously off the record, gossip from the campaign trail. Much of it is about the infighting between Palin and McCain’s staff, as Newsweek’s treasure trove of post-election gossip reveals. However, perhaps one of the most astounding and previously unknown tidbits about Sarah Palin has to do with her already dubious grasp of geography. According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,” in part because she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, and she “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”

***UPDATE*** Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron appeared on The O’Reilly Factor tonight and described in much fuller detail the truly astonishing behavior, and lack of knowledge, of Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, as well as the nasty infighting that resulted from, some would say, Palin’s “diva” behavior. (Earlier today, Palin said reports of her “diva” behavior and any tension within the campaign were “absolutely false.”)

Cameron relates how McCain aides were terrified of Palin’s lack of knowledge of international and national issues, and even basic civics. Cameron reports that Palin was unfamiliar with the concept of “American exceptionalism,” and that not only did she not understand that Africa was a continent rather than a single country but also that during debate prep Palin was unable to name all the nations in North America.

Palin was apparently a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was rightly panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw “tantrums” over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.

Link.

obama tax calculator

Find out how much you will save under Obama’s tax policies.
 

division of the gop?

It looks like the McCain-Palin campaign is on the verge of not only losing the presidential election but of also dividing the Republican Party. Rumors abound of infighting created by the selection of Palin as McCain’s running mate and the disgraceful campaign they have run. It’s not completely clear how it breaks down, but it appears to be the neoconservatives and the Religious Right on one side supporting the McCain-Palin train wreck and moderate Republicans (which I didn’t know still existed) on the other, shaking their head in disgust as much as the rest of us. Thank goodness. Let’s hope the few remaining moderates in the Republican Party wake up and kick the neocons and Religious Right to the door and return the party to the days of Eisenhower. Let the neocons and Religious Right run on a 3rd party ticket with a platform that truly represents their goals of unfettered free market capitalism, war at all costs, the creation of a two-class system, destruction of the environment, and removal of civil liberties and see how far it gets them.
 
A notable item from the article: Jim Nuzzo, a White House aid to George H.W. Bush, said Palin is the new Ronald Reagan. I was a baby when Reagan was elected to his first term, so I can’t speak from first-hand knowledge, but that sounds like an insult to Reagan. Was he as dimwitted as Palin? Perhaps Mr. Nuzzo was only referring to the similarities in their policy positions – laissez-faire economics; cutting taxes for the rich; slashing government programs, except for the military of course; removing regulations on everything including the environment, labor, financial markets, corporations, and industry; taking away women’s rights; and promoting religion in schools.
 
Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party
Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.
By Tim Shipman in Durango, Colorado
Last Updated: 12:37AM BST 26 Oct 2008
 
Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party’s future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama’s popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough – at least 60 seats to 40 – the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster – talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on “the need for balanced government”.

“It’s hard to see a turnaround in the White House race,” he said. “This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we’re not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

“With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That’s very dangerous.”

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a “blank cheque” if her rival Kay Hagen wins. “These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis,” the narrator says. “All branches of Government. No checks and balances.”

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan’s second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: “This is going to turn into a landslide.”

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: “McCain hasn’t won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It’s the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress.”

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an “every man for himself” culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a “circular firing squad” as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: “I don’t know that there’s a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

“Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process.”

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush’s chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush’s former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain’s running mate as a “symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics.” Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party”.

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned “the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama”, while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama’s arrival they should be fighting “in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country”.

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama’s “latte liberals” and Hillary Clinton’s heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin’s critics as “cocktail party conservatives” who “give aid and comfort to the enemy”.

He told The Sunday Telegraph: “There’s going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?”

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin’s brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: “She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency.”

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: “Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan.” On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

Link.

friday funny: palin interview interrupted

Watch this clip all the way through. Not only does it have the ridiculous non-answer from Palin about what newspapers and magazines she reads, but there’s also a little surprise at the end. Thanks Jen.