Monday, July 9, 2012
Sabotaging Montana’s Campaign Finance Legacy and Soveriegnty
Published: Monday 9 July 2012
Those corporate powers were exploiting Montana’s workforce, extracting its public resources, and routinely extending bribes to control its government.
As a Montana newspaper editorial succinctly put it: "The greatest living issue confronting us today is whether the corporations shall control the people or the people shall control the corporations."
That might sound like it was written in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. But it was actually in 1906, back when Montanans were rising up against out-of-state mining corporations known as the "copper kings." Those corporate powers were exploiting Montana's workforce, extracting its public resources, and routinely extending bribes to control its government.
In 1912, however, the people passed the Corrupt Practices Act, a citizens' initiative that outlawed direct corporate expenditures in elections for state office.
And now, the five corporate hacks controlling the Supreme Court have ratified the front group's ridiculous argument, imperiously shoving Montana's law into the ditch and re-imposing the rule of special interest money over the people's will.
To stop this court's coup against our democracy, we the People must pass a constitutional amendment overturning these decisions. To help, go to: www.United4ThePeople.org.
Destabilization In Paraguay
Agribusiness, Landowners, Media Elite and US Military Lead to Destabilization In Paraguay
Sunday, 08 July 2012 12:19 By Francesca Fiorentini, War Times | News Analysis
Fernando Lugo, recently ousted President of Paraguay, from an appearance on El Ciudadano TV, April 19, 2011. (Photo: Presidencia de la República del Ecuador)I have always been skeptical of claims by Hugo Chavez or even anti-militarist voices here in the region that believe that the U.S. has not let go of its plans for the region in its fulfillment of "Full Spectrum Dominance"—controlling natural resources indirectly through elite puppet governments and directly through the threat of military force. Between the U.S' refocus on the Middle East and the rise of left-leaning governments in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, and Uruguay, the idea of the region falling victim to the kinds of imperial/neoliberal bullying of the 70s, 80s, and 90s seemed both politically overblown and strategically unfeasible.
I am no longer so sure.
Because when looking at the powers at play in Paraguay it becomes clear that the past is not so far behind. They are the powers behind this unbelievably sordid coup, an event that appears to have been merely a step toward fulfilling longstanding agreements made between the Paraguayan oligarchy, multinational agribusiness interests, and the United States. By no means was Lugo an obstacle, but he wasn't serving their interests quickly enough. Moreover, his willingness toward regional cooperation in bodies such as UNASUR and Mercosur — from which Paraguay has now been expelled— was also endangering the security of these moneyed and military interests.
Why Paraguay?
One of the poorest countries in South America, land-locked Paraguay is often overlooked. This is a big reason why a parliamentary coup was possible here and not somewhere with greater global and regional influence like Brazil. Paraguay is not however overlooked by the biggest multinationals in agriculture nor the U.S. military. In many ways the country is a metaphorical petri dish for the region: the political, economic, and ethnic issues can be seen in the extreme. Sixty percent of the 6.5 million Paraguayans live in poverty. Much of the poverty has to do with the fact that while the economy is entirely based on agriculture Paraguay has some of the hugest concentrations of land in the region: 85% of the land is in the hands of 2% of the population. It is in essence a deeply feudal country. Small campesino famers and indigenous Paraguayans who are subsistence farmers have been systematically and forcibly removed from their land to make way for large scale soy and cotton plantations. Violent repression of campesino movements—like the events in Curuguaty that became Parliament's excuse for removing Lugo –have been occurring in Paraguay for over a decade now as the land conflicts have grown more acute with the expansion of agribusiness.
Politically, rule over Paraguay had been in the hands of the Colorado Party for 61 years until the 2008 election of former Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo, a supporter of indigenous rights, land reform, and social welfare programs. But though his party, The Alianza Patriotico para el Cambio (Patriotic Alliance for Change) initially had the support of a grassroots popular front, it never had support of a majority of seats in Congress. And vice president Fernando Franco of the Liberal Party never hid his dissent with Lugo nor his ambitions for the presidency.
Contrary to his pre-presidential track record, Lugo as president did very little to further campesino cause and actually push through land reform. Violent evictions and the criminalization of protest continued and ultimately Lugo both demobilized and alienated the movements that had initially supported him. Without a broad base of support neither inside nor outside Congress, his removal was an easy maneuver led by the two major parties, Colorado and Liberal.
The curious and critical fact in all of this is that the land in Curuguaty from which the group of campesinos was brutally evicted by more than 300 police on June 19 belongs to a former and long-time Colorado Party senator, Blas Riquleme. It's therefore not hard to believe what many have called the impetus for Lugo's impeachment: a trap. But the underhandedness goes on.
Foreign interests, local friends
Beyond simply the old ruling parties wanting to keep their grasp over the country, there are deeper interests at work in the coup against Lugo.
First and foremost is agribusiness. None other than the infamous Monsanto is a major player in Paraguay. The company collects royalties on the transgenic soy and cotton seeds planted throughout Paraguay, and in 2011 it collected $30 billion tax-free. And 40% of the production and refining of Paraguayan soy is owned by private U.S.-based giant Cargill ($100 billion annual profits a year). Again, agribusiness giants in Paraguay enjoy broad protections from Congress and pay no taxes.
These agro-giants among others have denied involvement in any violent evictions in Paraguay. And of course they aren't involved. It's the thugs hired by landowners who are looking to expand and turn a higher profit on their Monsanto seeds that do the dirty work. More on those landowners later.
To protect themselves, these companies have their national alliances. One is to the major agricultural producers unions in Paraguay and the other is to the media. Cargill, Syngenta, and Agrosan are all apart of the business group, Grupo Zuciollio (Zuciollio Group), which gets its name from Aldo Zuciollio, the owner of one of the major Paraguayan newspapers ABC Color.
According to Paraguayan investigative journalist Idilio Mendez Grimaldi, one of the reasons behind Lugo's removal was his cabinet's unfavorable stance toward the release of Monsanto's transgenic cotton seed into the country. After the head of the National Service for the Quality of Seeds, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Environment did not green light the seed's release into the market, ABC Color led a smear campaign against accusing them of corruption.
Washington's Role: Southern Command & USAID
Though countries like Ecuador have put stops on U.S. military personnel by refusing to send Ecuadorian troops to the School of the Americas and not renewing their contract for a U.S. military base, U.S. military presence in the region is unfazed. When one base shuts down another opens, usually in Colombia (11 sites with U.S. access), Peru (8 sites with U.S. access), or Paraguay.
Paraguay is home to two U.S. bases: the Mariscal Estigarribia that is located merely 155 miles from Bolivia and boasts a 10,000 foot-long airstrip built for large aircraft, and the DEA base Pedro Juan Caballero on the border with Brazil at which U.S. Southern Command runs regular military exercises. Though in 2009 Lugo stated his rejected the expansion of U.S. Southern Command operations in the country, it has had broader access to Paraguay since 2005, when former president Nicanor Duarte Frutos granted an 18-month stay and immunity to the over 400 U.S. soldiers that entered the country. As far as anyone knows, those Southern Command forces are still active and may have expanded.
Much of the U.S. military influence in the country stems from the signing of the Northern Zone Initiative (IZN) that many refer to as Paraguay's equivalent of Plan Colombia in its allowance of "humanitarian assistance". It was signed with the U.S in 1961, during the military dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessener. Since the "fall" of the dictatorship in 1989 (in quotes because it was an agreed upon transition to democracy without removing military generals from power) the IZN agreement has never been debated in the Paraguayan Congress.
Another important piece of the mystery behind the massacre at Curuguaty is that the special Paraguayan operation forces (Grupo Especial de Operaciones, GEO) that led the raid on the campesinos were trained by U.S. Southern Command in Colombia as apart of the Plan Colombia framework. Six police officers including the head of the GEO also died in the incident, which the campesino group Coordinadora por la Recuperación de Tierras Malhabidas (Coordinator for the Recuperation of Ilegal Land) says was escalated by the presence of armed infiltrators. More than a trap, perhaps Curuguaty was a set up.
A key piece to U.S. involvement in Paraguay is USAID, which works closely with the Paraguayan Supreme Court, the Hacienda Ministry, and security organisms. USAID's role in the region has been well documented as a force of destabilization hiding behind humanitarian aid. As investigators Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger revealed in 2009 after obtaining declassified documents, USAID has poured over a billion dollars into "decentralization" efforts in Bolivia and $60 million in Venezuela. By setting up various Offices for Transition Initiatives (OTIs) and funding anti-government non-profits, USAID has promoted separatist and opposition movements in both countries to further a pro-Washington agenda.
In December of last year, the Colorado Party signed an agreement with the Resource Information Center (CIRD), the local arm of USAID, which proposed greater inter-party "dialogue." The head of the CIRD is Alavaro Carrizosa, relative of former presidential candidate and senator Manuel Carrizosa of the party Patria Querida that joined with the Colorado and Liberal parties in voting to oust Lugo.
If this weren't enough, the current U.S. ambassador to the country is Liliana Ayala, none other than the former director of USAID in Bolivia. Her predecessor was James Cason, who before being ambassador directed the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, essentially the anti-Castro propaganda/Cuba destabilization wing of the State Department. In 2010, Deputy Secretary of Defense for the Western Hemispheric Affairs and author of Paraguay and the United States: Distant Allies, Frank Mora, was received by then vice president Fernando Franco. In their meeting, Mora spoke of continued and greater U.S. military cooperation in the country and interest in furthering the IZN.
Fragility and importance of regional solidarity
Following last Friday's coup, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the economic body Mercosur expelled Paraguay as a member. But in many ways, this is perhaps what the Paraguayan political oligarchy and the U.S. wanted. UNASUR and Mercosur represent regional agree
ments of cooperation, democracy, national sovereignty, border security, biosecurity, militarycoordination and defense, and the limiting of U.S. intervention—commitments that essentially limit the power of multinationals and Washington.
Paraguay was the last country to join UNASUR, and when Lugo signed the Mercosur's democracy clause that outlawed national destabilization, newspaper ABC Color accused the former president of handing over national sovereignty. The paper also reported on how the border security agreements would negatively affect the soy plantations on the border of Brazil. Ninety percent of Paraguayan soy is produced by landowners commonly referred to as 'Brasiguayos' along the lush and lawless no mans' land that is the Brazil-Paraguay border. Much of the violence against campesinos and indigenous discussed above has been perpetrated by these Brasiguayos.
Immediately after the coup, a Paraguayan delegation/lobby flew to Brazil to try and meet with president Dilma Rouseff. Though she declined, the lobby did meet with the Agricultural Parliamentary Front that represents 230 Brazilian legislators. At the meeting, Homerio Periera, president of the front and congressman of the Matto Grosso –the Brazilian province that has come to be a global emblem of deforestation in the name of soy profits –expressed his support for the new government.
The Paraguayan Congress had also been the sole body preventing Venezuela's entrance into Mercosur. Now that the country is banned from the body until the country's next eletions, Mercosur will welcome Venezuela into its midst as of July 31st.
What it all means
This coup is a test of whether or not Mercosur and UNASUR have any bite to their bark, or if their agreements for regional independence live only on paper. Though too early to be sure, it seems that both will allow Paraguay's re-entrance after the country's elections in April 2013. It is a decision that should no be taken lightly, as the powers behind the Paraguayan coup reveal that national economic growth—in a large part from the sale of natural resources –comes tied to the political obligation to protect multinational, landowning, and U.S. interests. Despite their talk against neoliberalism, center-left governments such as Brazil and Argentina thrive off of and cater to the same sectors that both temper their politics and could potentially threaten their country's stability. In countries like Bolivia and Venezuela that have more openly defied their national elite by taking bolder steps toward things like land reform and nationalization, the response has been coup attempts and as described above and overall destabilization. But unlike in Paraguay, these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.
Interestingly, Grimaldi believes that it was precisely Lugo's belief that he could "govern with imperialism, with the feudal oligarchy and with the right-wing parties" that led to his defeat. It is a danger that Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron refers to as a "timidly progressive" government that is unable to convoke a broad social movement support and left parties to its side.
Without concrete regional efforts to reign in the power of the U.S. military, USAID, multinationals, and local political oligarchies, what happened in Paraguay becomes a loud and clear warning to the region that the phantoms of Latin America's past are haunting once again.
Small-Government Extremism Reaps the Whirlwind in Colorado
The Fire This Time: Small-Government Extremism Reaps the Whirlwind in Colorado
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
A 2011 poll conducted after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service, found that 6 in 10 evangelicals, and 38 percent of Americans believe that God uses natural disasters to send messages. When natural disasters strike, whether they are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados or forest fires not caused by human intervention, Christian fundamentalist disaster interpreters come out of the woodwork. They trumpet the news that God is sending a warning to humankind. While the devastating forest fires in Colorado may not have been directly caused by human intervention, an unholy alliance of Christian dominionists and libertarians may have exacerbated the damage.
The disaster interpreters
Joel Rosenberg, the author of several New York Times best-selling novels and three non-fiction books, including his latest titled Implosion: Can America Recover from Its Economic and Spiritual Challenges in Time?, posted a June 27 story on his blog headlined, "EPIC FIRES IN COLORADO: Is God using natural disasters to get our attention?"
Rosenberg cited a section from Implosion, in which he wrote: "Natural disasters continue unfolding one after another here at home and around the world as they always have. But have you stopped to notice that so many recently are described as ‘historic' and ‘unprecedented?' Eight of the ten most expensive hurricanes in American history have happened since 9/11. The worst was Hurricane Katrina, which nearly wiped out an American city and ended up costing more than $100 billion. Hurricane Irene made 2011 the worst year in American history for natural disasters, with ten separate catastrophes costing $1 billion or more. In 2011, America experienced the worst outbreak of tornadoes in nearly half a century. In 2011, Texas suffered the worst fires in the history of the state, amid the worst drought in Texas history. In 2011, Virginia-and much of the East Coast-experienced its biggest earthquake since 1875.
"The fact is that throughout the Bible and throughout history God has used natural disasters to shake families, cities, regions and entire nations. Why? To get the people's attention. To warn people to stop drifting and/or rebelling from God and repent. To urge people to let go of anything or anyone else they are holding onto for peace and security and hope in this world and instead turn their hearts wholly and completely to faith in Jesus Christ."
While Rosenberg counseled prayers for the victims, he urged "all Americans to realize how desperately we need to turn our hearts to Christ, how desperately we need a massive, game-changing, transformative spiritual revival, a Third Great Awakening."
In a post dated June 30, and headlined "VIOLENT LAND HURRICANE HITS EAST COAST: ‘Catastrophic' power loss for 3 million+ may not be restored for days," Rosenberg revisited the God/disasters theme. While he claims to believe that the hurricane is not "judgment from God," he states that "God is using natural disasters, financial troubles, and other means to shake us. He is trying to get our attention, to cause us to turn our eyes to Him as the source of all of our power, hope and security."
Over the years, Pat Robertson, characterized last year by The Washington Post's Elizabeth Tenety as a "natural disaster interpreter extraordinaire," has consistently exploited disasters to put the fear of God into the faithful.
Last August, Robertson told his viewers that the earthquake that struck the Washington D.C. region "means that we're closer to the coming of the Lord." On a subsequent broadcast, Robertson suggested that the damage to the Washington Monument was possibly a "sign" from God: "It seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America's power. It has been the symbol of our great nation. We look at the symbol and we say ‘this is one nation under God.' Now there's a crack in it... Is that sign from the Lord? ... You judge. It seems to me symbolic."
As Tenety reported, "After the 2010 Haiti earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people," Robertson said that, ‘Haitians had made a ‘pact to the devil' and were being ‘cursed' through the earthquake. He suggested that Hurricane Katrina was the result of legal abortion, according to Time Magazine. ... Robertson's religious worldview sees God as a being that can withdraw his protection from the United States based on the country's morality."
While R. Loren Sandford, the founder and senior pastor of the Denver-based New Song Church and Ministries, is "painfully familiar with our transgressions both as a city and as the church in this city," he doesn't "believe these fires result from the collective sins of Colorado, our lack of unity, our 8 percent church attendance ... or any other genuine cause of the Lord's displeasure": "??I think rather that it is part of something I (and others) have long prophesied for the earth ... that we would see an increase in natural disasters around the world because the earth can no longer bear up under the accumulated sin of mankind and is finally reacting."
Political dimension of Colorado's forest fires
Paul Harvey, who runs the blog Religion in American History and teaches history at the University of Colorado, recently pointed out at Religion Dispatches that "The fire struck especially hard in the geographic quadrant of the city that hosts many of the best-known religious activist organizations, and has attracted a large population of religious conservatives who see in Colorado Springs a center for the religious and political values they seek to espouse. Seven of the homes lost belonged to those who worked for one of the oldest of these organizations, The Navigators-including the current director of the organization."
Perhaps, Harvey wrote in a story titled "Unnatural Disaster: When Conservative Theology & The Free Market Meet Wildfires," the Colorado forest fires are not a warning sign from God but rather the culmination of conservative fundamentalist Christians believing they have dominion over the earth, and libertarians who oppose any government regulation and feel they can build anywhere at anytime.
Harvey pointed out that while the Colorado Springs fire is "certainly [a] natural disaster to a degree, [it is] also [a] man-made disaster, like the destruction leveled in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's just that our religious platitudes of God's wrath, and God's reassurance, make it difficult to understand the indispensable human contribution to these catastrophes."
One of the major problems according to Harvey, is that "fire mitigation and maintenance, and reasonable regulation of development in natural fire zones ... meets resistance from a religious ethic of dominion over the earth that colludes with the libertarian free market enthusiasms of developers who skillfully sell to buyers seeking escape from the Gomorrah of urban America."
According to Harvey, "Nowhere is that more true than in Colorado Springs, which marries an activist grassroots religious conservatism, faith in (and reliance on) the military-industrial complex, and a historic western libertarian hatred of ‘big government' - combined with an economic reliance on big government.
"In a city sometimes referred to as the ‘Protestant Vatican for its profusion of religiously conservative activist groups, unregulated housing developments into Wildland-Urban Interface zones have proliferated over the last generation, such that foothills and obvious fire zones boast some of the region's most geographically attractive housing."
Harvey pointed out that "Regulations on developers have historically been light, and homeowners' associations ... have not always gotten on board with the very preventative mitigation measures which are essential to saving houses." In addition, "there has been no regional or systemic state authority to assess risks in particular areas, meaning that housing expansion in fire zones, both locally and throughout the West, have garnered a disproportionate share of private and governmentally subsidized resources over (at least) the last two generations."
While Harvey acknowledged "the personal tragedies of those who have lost homes and businesses" and the "natural factors involved," he maintained that "a combination of western libertarianism, historically weak governmental structures, and religiously-based desire to possess even the earth that is bound to burn (and to dispute the reality of global warming's contribution to making fire zones much larger and more volatile than previously) set the stage for the disaster we have just experienced."
A 2011 poll conducted after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service, found that 6 in 10 evangelicals, and 38 percent of Americans believe that God uses natural disasters to send messages. When natural disasters strike, whether they are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados or forest fires not caused by human intervention, Christian fundamentalist disaster interpreters come out of the woodwork. They trumpet the news that God is sending a warning to humankind. While the devastating forest fires in Colorado may not have been directly caused by human intervention, an unholy alliance of Christian dominionists and libertarians may have exacerbated the damage.
The disaster interpreters
Joel Rosenberg, the author of several New York Times best-selling novels and three non-fiction books, including his latest titled Implosion: Can America Recover from Its Economic and Spiritual Challenges in Time?, posted a June 27 story on his blog headlined, "EPIC FIRES IN COLORADO: Is God using natural disasters to get our attention?"
Rosenberg cited a section from Implosion, in which he wrote: "Natural disasters continue unfolding one after another here at home and around the world as they always have. But have you stopped to notice that so many recently are described as ‘historic' and ‘unprecedented?' Eight of the ten most expensive hurricanes in American history have happened since 9/11. The worst was Hurricane Katrina, which nearly wiped out an American city and ended up costing more than $100 billion. Hurricane Irene made 2011 the worst year in American history for natural disasters, with ten separate catastrophes costing $1 billion or more. In 2011, America experienced the worst outbreak of tornadoes in nearly half a century. In 2011, Texas suffered the worst fires in the history of the state, amid the worst drought in Texas history. In 2011, Virginia-and much of the East Coast-experienced its biggest earthquake since 1875.
"The fact is that throughout the Bible and throughout history God has used natural disasters to shake families, cities, regions and entire nations. Why? To get the people's attention. To warn people to stop drifting and/or rebelling from God and repent. To urge people to let go of anything or anyone else they are holding onto for peace and security and hope in this world and instead turn their hearts wholly and completely to faith in Jesus Christ."
While Rosenberg counseled prayers for the victims, he urged "all Americans to realize how desperately we need to turn our hearts to Christ, how desperately we need a massive, game-changing, transformative spiritual revival, a Third Great Awakening."
In a post dated June 30, and headlined "VIOLENT LAND HURRICANE HITS EAST COAST: ‘Catastrophic' power loss for 3 million+ may not be restored for days," Rosenberg revisited the God/disasters theme. While he claims to believe that the hurricane is not "judgment from God," he states that "God is using natural disasters, financial troubles, and other means to shake us. He is trying to get our attention, to cause us to turn our eyes to Him as the source of all of our power, hope and security."
Over the years, Pat Robertson, characterized last year by The Washington Post's Elizabeth Tenety as a "natural disaster interpreter extraordinaire," has consistently exploited disasters to put the fear of God into the faithful.
Last August, Robertson told his viewers that the earthquake that struck the Washington D.C. region "means that we're closer to the coming of the Lord." On a subsequent broadcast, Robertson suggested that the damage to the Washington Monument was possibly a "sign" from God: "It seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America's power. It has been the symbol of our great nation. We look at the symbol and we say ‘this is one nation under God.' Now there's a crack in it... Is that sign from the Lord? ... You judge. It seems to me symbolic."
As Tenety reported, "After the 2010 Haiti earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people," Robertson said that, ‘Haitians had made a ‘pact to the devil' and were being ‘cursed' through the earthquake. He suggested that Hurricane Katrina was the result of legal abortion, according to Time Magazine. ... Robertson's religious worldview sees God as a being that can withdraw his protection from the United States based on the country's morality."
While R. Loren Sandford, the founder and senior pastor of the Denver-based New Song Church and Ministries, is "painfully familiar with our transgressions both as a city and as the church in this city," he doesn't "believe these fires result from the collective sins of Colorado, our lack of unity, our 8 percent church attendance ... or any other genuine cause of the Lord's displeasure": "??I think rather that it is part of something I (and others) have long prophesied for the earth ... that we would see an increase in natural disasters around the world because the earth can no longer bear up under the accumulated sin of mankind and is finally reacting."
Political dimension of Colorado's forest fires
Paul Harvey, who runs the blog Religion in American History and teaches history at the University of Colorado, recently pointed out at Religion Dispatches that "The fire struck especially hard in the geographic quadrant of the city that hosts many of the best-known religious activist organizations, and has attracted a large population of religious conservatives who see in Colorado Springs a center for the religious and political values they seek to espouse. Seven of the homes lost belonged to those who worked for one of the oldest of these organizations, The Navigators-including the current director of the organization."
Perhaps, Harvey wrote in a story titled "Unnatural Disaster: When Conservative Theology & The Free Market Meet Wildfires," the Colorado forest fires are not a warning sign from God but rather the culmination of conservative fundamentalist Christians believing they have dominion over the earth, and libertarians who oppose any government regulation and feel they can build anywhere at anytime.
Harvey pointed out that while the Colorado Springs fire is "certainly [a] natural disaster to a degree, [it is] also [a] man-made disaster, like the destruction leveled in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's just that our religious platitudes of God's wrath, and God's reassurance, make it difficult to understand the indispensable human contribution to these catastrophes."
One of the major problems according to Harvey, is that "fire mitigation and maintenance, and reasonable regulation of development in natural fire zones ... meets resistance from a religious ethic of dominion over the earth that colludes with the libertarian free market enthusiasms of developers who skillfully sell to buyers seeking escape from the Gomorrah of urban America."
According to Harvey, "Nowhere is that more true than in Colorado Springs, which marries an activist grassroots religious conservatism, faith in (and reliance on) the military-industrial complex, and a historic western libertarian hatred of ‘big government' - combined with an economic reliance on big government.
"In a city sometimes referred to as the ‘Protestant Vatican for its profusion of religiously conservative activist groups, unregulated housing developments into Wildland-Urban Interface zones have proliferated over the last generation, such that foothills and obvious fire zones boast some of the region's most geographically attractive housing."
Harvey pointed out that "Regulations on developers have historically been light, and homeowners' associations ... have not always gotten on board with the very preventative mitigation measures which are essential to saving houses." In addition, "there has been no regional or systemic state authority to assess risks in particular areas, meaning that housing expansion in fire zones, both locally and throughout the West, have garnered a disproportionate share of private and governmentally subsidized resources over (at least) the last two generations."
While Harvey acknowledged "the personal tragedies of those who have lost homes and businesses" and the "natural factors involved," he maintained that "a combination of western libertarianism, historically weak governmental structures, and religiously-based desire to possess even the earth that is bound to burn (and to dispute the reality of global warming's contribution to making fire zones much larger and more volatile than previously) set the stage for the disaster we have just experienced."
Monday, July 2, 2012
Conservatives Demand Surrender To China
Conservatives Demand Surrender To China
By Dave Johnson
July 2, 2012 - 1:38pm ET
 | |
Popular This Week
Here Is Why Our Elites Are Not Fixing The Economy
June 27, 2012
7 Ways Obama Lied About Your Health Coverage
July 01, 2012
Also Worth Reading
The worldwide battle to get away from the coal and oil industries has been underway for some time. Countries are fighting to gain a share of the new green manufacturing industries with millions of jobs and trillions of dollars on the line. Country after country is executing plans to grab a share of this new industry. But not us. Oil-funded conservatives are trying to keep us from even fighting in that war.
Oil And Coal Are The Problem
Look around you, the climate is changing, the seas are rising, terrible storms are hitting, huge fires are burning, terrible droughts are causing crop failure, and plants, animals and insects are migrating to new areas. (In DC right now you might not be able to turn on a light because of that huge, freak storm you just had, so maybe wait and look around you after the sun comes up.) We have to stop burning oil and coal, and find a way to get that carbon back out of the air.Aside from the terrible effects of climate change, our country has a trade deficit that is partly about buying oil, and those purchases send money to places that use that money against our country's interests.
Other countries get all of this. But our country is in the grip of an oil-and-coal-funded propaganda machine that tries to keep us from getting it.
Green Job Opportunities
We are in a worldwide economic competition to build the post-oil economy. This is a competition for millions of jobs and trillions of dollars. Every country wants a share of the design and manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal systems, biofuels, electric cars, high-speed rail, urban and suburban light rail, advanced batteries, smart-grid power transmission systems, and all of the rest. And there is also the fight for the construction, installation and maintenance contracts for all of these systems.Many countries are fully engaged, and have national plans to capture a share of this new industry. They compete with us as countries, and see us as a country to compete with even if we do not. Because we refuse to act as a country, we send our companies out to compete with countries, and as big as our companies are they cannot compete with the resources of engaged countries.
Conservatives Demand Surrender
Our top competitor is China. Shots have been fired; China is helping their companies compete, and this has cut solar prices. So a few American companies are going under. In response, America's oil-backed conservatives are demanding immediate surrender. In fact, they don't just demand surrender, they are giving aid and comfort, even actively helping the other side, running down America's efforts to fight for a share of the new green economy.This huge effort by conservatives to keep our country out of the world competition for a share of the new green economy kind of makes you wonder about the secrecy surrounding all of the money that funds the conservative movement, its think tanks, media outlets, and now even funds political campaigns. We don't even know where the hundreds of millions funding these horrible, negative ads comes from! Does any of it come from our economic competitors? Shouldn't we at least be able to find out who (or where) is funding the conservative propaganda and political machine that is running down our own government and demanding we surrender the new green economy to China?
Solyndra And Chevy Volt
Conservatives celebrated the fall of Solyndra, declaring that its demise meant that green energy in general is a "bad bet," or losing technology. They also have been trying to convince people not to purchase hybrids and new technologies like the Chevy Volt. The next time you hear someone of FOX running down our country's green energy efforts, knocking the Chevy Volt or denying climate change, think abougt this: Fox's second-largest shareholder is a billionaire Saudi oil prince. Fox might just have an agenda beyond backing conservatives here. Speaking of conservatives, though, keep in mind that the Koch brothers == oil.Abound Solar Goes Under
Last week solar panel manufacturer Abound Solar filed for bankruptcy. NY Times reports in "A 2nd U.S.-Supported Maker of Solar Panels Will Close,"Republicans, including Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seized on Solyndra’s failure as evidence that the Obama administration was wasting taxpayer money by supporting clean energy companies.Abound Solar was unable to compete with low solar prices resulting from Chinese subsidies for their own solar manufacturers. (Add to that, China's currency manipulation which keeps the prices of everything made there up to 30% lower, even bore their subsidies, trade barriers, etc.) Federal officials froze their credit line last year, after the Solyndra failure, so Abound was unable to draw on credit to scale its manufacturing to a level that could compete with subsidized Chinese imports.
... The company said it could have been profitable if it had had large-scale manufacturing under way, but “aggressive pricing actions from Chinese solar panel companies have made it very difficult for an early stage start-up company like Abound to scale in current market conditions.”
Conservatives immediately stepped up their drumbeat of demands that we surrender to China. Here are a few examples of conservatives blaming America first, calling America's efforts a failure, or generally running down efforts to fight for a share of the new green economy:
Hot Air: Yet another DOE-backed solar panel company bites the dust
Good grief. I feel like these ailing Department of Energy-backed loan guarantees are so laughably many that they’re barely even worth noting anymore, but you’re darn tootin’ I’ll continue to do so as long as President Obama keeps acting like it’s the federal government’s divine right to pick and choose winners in the energy market on the taxpayers’ dime.Weekly Standard: Video: Obama Touted $400 Million Loan to Another Solar Company Now Declaring Bankruptcy
... This article tries to spin the situation to suggest that the company’s failure is the result of too much unfair competition and global oversupply, and we should therefore direct our ire at China. No — just no. This is the fault of the Obama administration. Maybe if we had just left the decision to develop solar (or not!) up to the private sector, we would’ve quickly figured out that investing in solar energy was a bad idea.
Washington Moon Times: Yet another government-backed solar company turns out the lights
News of the company’s demise prompted early criticism from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee on regulatory affairs, stimulus oversight and government spending.National Legal and Policy Center: Yet Another DOE Green Failure as Abound Solar Goes Bankrupt
In a statement, Mr. Jordan, among other Republicans, said Abound’s collapse shows that “our government is not good at picking winners and losers in the marketplace but has certainly proved it is good at wasting taxpayer dollars.”
And now with failures like Solyndra and Abound Solar, in addition to several others, these crony redistributors leave the political fallout to others and just move on to their next “green” scheme. Unfortunately we won’t find out if the ultimate political price is paid until November, but in the meantime DOE continues with its renewable energy “investments,” which will undoubtedly lead to more pain for taxpayers.Human Events: Your Obama “green energy” bankruptcy of the day: Abound Solar,
Abound had borrowed about $70 million against these loan guarantees. That would have bought a lot of health care for poor people, but the Obama Administration blew it on solar panel junk instead.Heritage Foundation: Another Stimulus Backed 'Green Energy' Company Goes Bankrupt
Another stimulus-backed green energy company has filed for bankruptcy, further fueling criticism of Energy Department programs that backed highly-risky investments on the taxpayer dime.So ... should we respond as a country to this economic attack on us by other countries who see us as a country and compete with us as a country? Or should we surrender the new green economy to others?
Like Solyndra and a number of other green energy investments made under this administration, Abound Solar had a very poor credit rating, but enjoyed a wealth of political connections.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What Was Justice Roberts Real Concerns In His Vote
Has Justice Really Had a Change of Heart?
News pundits keep speculating about Chief justice Roberts defection from the rest of the conservatives vote on the affordable Care Act, but they keep leaving out part of the argument. They say that this is because he is concerned about the reputation for partisanship and integrity of the court. Up to a point I agree, but as of yet I haven't heard anyone mention anything about the corporate aspect of the law, that is the possible giveaway to the insurance corporations.
Another reason for the split is to try and ease a guilty conscience. Also I think that the ACA is only a diversion to take our minds off the fact that only a few weeks before, he voted with the conservatives to continue to allow unlimited corporate money into the political landscape of this country when there is overwhelming evidence of the damage it is doing to the country. This is the second chance the court had to vote on this issue to get it right. Yet, he still sided with the conservatives. If he was really concerned with the integrity of the court, he would have voted to let democracy work the way it should without the corrupting influence of corporate cash. In my humble opinion he was just trying to cover his behind because he absolutely knew the vote he cast on the side of corporations was wrong. He can run from a guilty conscience but he can't hide from it. The last reason for his vote is because, and I have said it time and time again, the court was installed by conservatives to be not a corporate court, rather than a conservative court. So in the case of health care, justice Roberts had good cover with all of the good things contained in the law. They outweighed the damage of the individual mandate and add to the fact that this vote would take some of the heat off for the vote cast in the Montana ruling. The court keeps saying that it is for states rights, as in the Arizona immigration ruling, but conservative majority has voted to take away states rights in the Montana and the 2000 Bush vs Gore rulings. The court has no set standards except for all the conservatives, which includes the supposed swing vote of justice Breyer, vote the same way. My guess would be that Mr. Roberts voted for the whole law so that he could give the insurance corporations what they want without too much outcry from the public.
No I don't think that justice Roberts' motives are as pure as some seem to think, but time will tell. I'll be convinced when the Citizens United decision is overturned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)