Saturday, February 16, 2013
Will Good Science and Good Sense Come Together When It Comes to the Shoreline?
Soon after Sandy struck, an OpEd piece titled “We Need to Retreat from the Beach” by Dr. Orrin Pilkey, a pioneer in what’s now become the science of shoreline dynamics, appeared in the New York Times.
Dr. Pilkey wrote, “As ocean waters warm, the Northeast is likely to face more Sandy-like storms” with “surges…higher and ever more deadly….Yet there is already a push to rebuild homes close to the beach and bring back shorelines to where they were.” This “is the wrong approach to the increasing hazard of living close to the rising sea.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/opinion/a-beachfront-retreat.html
“We should not simply replace all lost property and infrastructure. Instead, we need to take account of rising sea levels, intensifying storms and continuing shoreline erosion,” he said.
Dr. Pilkey, co-author of the landmark work The Beaches Are Moving, wrote that “we should strongly discourage the reconstruction of destroyed or badly damaged beachfront homes…This is tough medicine, to be sure, and taxpayers may be forced to compensate homeowners. But it should save taxpayers money in the long run by ending this cyclc of repairing or rebuilding properties in the path of future storms.”
Now, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, in an extraordinary move for a politician considering the intense lobbying through the years by beachfront homeowners, is proposing to purchase structures wrecked by Sandy—at their pre-Sandy value—have them demolished and then preserve the flood-prone land permanently, as undeveloped coastline.
“The land would never be built on again. Some properties could be turned into dunes, wetlands or other natural buffers that would help protect coastal communities from ferocious storms; other parcels could be combined and turned into public parkland,” reported the Times in breaking the story as a Page One lead article. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/nyregion/cuomo-seeking-home-buyouts-in-flood-zones.html?pagewanted=all
In a follow-up editorial, the Times called the Cuomo concept “splendid” and stated that “buying damaged properties and returning them to their natural state, as Mr. Cuomo proposes, is one of the best ideas to come along.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/gov-andrew-cuomos-sandy-plan.html
But will good science and good sense come together when it comes to the shoreline?
It will be mighty difficult—but it very much needs to happen.
The problem: vested interest. Many if not most of the folks who own beach houses—even ones left in shambles by Sandy and in highly vulnerable locations—don’t want to give them up. I appreciate this. Visiting an old friend with a beach house a while back, gazing out a window and seeing the majestic Atlantic Ocean outside, I thought of the thrill of having a house on the sea. Sitting on his deck, the waves breaking below, was exciting.
Dr. Pilkey realizes this. “I understand the temptation to rebuild,” he wrote in his OpEd. “My parents’ retirement home, built at 13 feet above sea level, five blocks from the shoreline in Waveland, Miss., was flooded to the ceiling during Hurricane Camille in 1969. They rebuilt it, but the house was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”
An inquiry by the Long Island newspaper Newsday to gauge sentiment towards the Cuomo plan, found the “overwhelming number of Island residents would rather rebuild than relocate.” http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/real-estate/pols-few-on-li-want-to-move-under-cuomo-buyout-plan-1.4562781
The Army Corps of Engineers is another factor in what’s been a constant—after a big storm the dumping of sand (given the appealing term “beach nourishment”) on the coast, sand often washed away in the next big storm, and otherwise taking on Mother Nature. The Corps is run by a combination of military officers and engineers who believe they can win any war including against nature. Also, coastal work keeps the Corps’ budget hefty.
Then there’s the National Flood Insurance Program. After seeing a TV commercial promoting it recently, I requested a brochure. The government pamphlet began: “Since flooding typically isn’t covered under your homeowners insurance policy, the best way to protect your home is through the National Flood Insurance Program.” The reluctance of private insurance companies to cover homes built in the teeth of the ocean says a lot. The lobbying of beachfront homeowners was instrumental in getting Congress to provide this taxpayer-supported program.
Key to the situation is Dr. Pilkey’s observation way back: The Beaches Are Moving. They are in flux and need to be flexible to protect the mainland. Add to this today’s rising sea levels and extreme weather caused by climate change.
Retreat might not be a good word to use for what needs to be done. It infers losing. Adjustment is a better word. We must adjust to the reality of our shifting shores.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Steven Chu, Nuclear Power Advocate, Resigns as U.S. Energy Secretary
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced his resignation last week after four years of pushing nuclear power, although he promoted energy efficiency and safe, renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, too.
But nuclear power remained a major focus of Dr. Chu, a physicist out of the U.S. national nuclear laboratory system. In his letter to Department of Energy employees announcing his departure, Chu listed as among “tangible signs of success” during his tenure the go-ahead for the building of “the first nuclear power plants in the last three decades” in the U.S.
His position on energy as energy secretary was similar to the stand he took in his previous role as director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. There he also promoted energy efficiency and renewables, but nuclear power was a main thrust of his energy stance.
“Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio,” declared Chu, as laboratory director, at an “economic summit” in California in 2008 sponsored by Stanford University. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9888608-60.html He said in his speech: “The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad.”
As energy secretary, speaking at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia last year, where two of the new plants he cited in his letter are supposed to be built, he said: “The resurgence of America’s nuclear industry starts here in Georgia, where you just got approval for the first time in three decades to build new reactors. The Obama administration is committed to doing our part to help jumpstart America’s nuclear industry. The Energy Department is supporting this project with more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees. And we have partnered with industry to support the certification and licensing of the new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design.” http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chus-remarks-vogtle-nuclear-power-plant-prepared-delivery
Describing nuclear power as a “clean” energy technology, Chu said, “What you are doing here at Vogtle will help us compete in the global clean energy race and provide domestic, clean power to U.S. homes.”
And, the year before, in a presentation before the International Atomic Energy Agency, Chu asserted: “Nuclear power will continue to be an important part of our energy mix, both in the United States and around the world.” The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster had occurred just six months before, and he also said: “The tragic events at Fukushima make clear that nuclear energy…also brings significant challenges to our collective safety and security.” http://energy.gov/downloads/secretary-steven-chu-remarks-prepared-delivery-2011-iaea-general-conference
Some news pieces in recent days about Chu’s resignation have mentioned the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and how—as the Las Vegas Review Journal accurately put it—Chu “carried out the Obama administration’s plan to shut down” the project. http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-secretary-chu-resigns-battled-yucca-project-189463781.html
For Chu as a nuclear laboratory director was a supporter of the plan to deposit massive amounts of nuclear waste at the site, as noted by CNN in a 2011 piece. http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/06/news/economy/nuclear_waste/index.htm As energy secretary, Chu switched to the stance of President Obama (and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada). The mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas is riddled with earthquake faults.
In his letter to DOE employees, Chu challenged—as he pointed out Obama did in his recent inaugural address—those who deny climate change. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science…The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity has had a significant and likely dominant role in climate change,” Chu wrote.
He went on to promote “clean” energy as an antidote.
The key problem here, however, is that by including nuclear power in the “clean” energy category, Chu refuses to accept that the nuclear “fuel cycle” involved in nuclear power—mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment and so on—is a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses and climate change.
And he refuses to accept that true “clean” energy—safe renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind—can provide all the energy we need and not contribute to climate change at all. “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables” was a 2009 cover story in Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030, about one major study done in recent years coming to the same conclusion.
But Chu titled his 2010 essay, on his personal Facebook page—“Why We Need More Nuclear Power.” He insisted that “we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution.” He asked for comments. https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-chu/why-we-need-more-nuclear-power/336162546856 One reader, Matthew Cloner, commented, on March 12, 2011: “I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you in your position, Dr. Chu. As the recent disaster in Japan unfolds before our eyes, it is very obvious that nuclear power is both extremely dangerous and environmentally unsound as an energy source.”
But it’s hard for Chu and many other scientists out of the national nuclear laboratory system to acknowledge the deadliness of the technology which is the basis for most of their work.
These laboratories connect with the early laboratories set up during the World War II Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bombs. Chu’s former laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, was then called the Radiation Laboratory. It describes itself as the “oldest” of the national laboratories. http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/75th/ It and the other national nuclear laboratories were long run by the Atomic Energy Commission, which the Manhattan Project was turned into after the war. Then, because the AEC was such a zealous advocate of nuclear power, while supposedly a regulator of the technology, the AEC was eliminated by Congress in 1974 and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then a Department of Energy were created.
The DOE was given the mission of promoting nuclear power—a mission that Chu pursued as energy secretary. It also replaced the AEC in running the national nuclear laboratories.
Chu’s position—“The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad”—doesn’t acknowledge how radiation-causing nuclear technology as well as coal are both unnecessary, that “100 Percent of the Planet” can he powered by safe, really clean, renewable energy sources.
Who will replace Chu when he leaves the DOE helm at month’s end? Obama’s appointee could be more of the same.
Among the names seen as a possibility is that of Carol Browner. Working out of the White House, she was Obama’s energy “czar” between 2009 and 2011, and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She is a nuclear power booster. Browner stressed at a New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit in Washington in 2010 that the U.S. was “once at the forefront” of the nuclear industry. “We need to recapture that dominant position, and there’s every reason to think we can,” she declared. https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_566093
By selecting Browner or another nuclear proponent, Obama would be sending the U.S. in the wrong energy direction—a direction not good for public health nor safely powering society and not good, either, to deal with climate change.
-
But nuclear power remained a major focus of Dr. Chu, a physicist out of the U.S. national nuclear laboratory system. In his letter to Department of Energy employees announcing his departure, Chu listed as among “tangible signs of success” during his tenure the go-ahead for the building of “the first nuclear power plants in the last three decades” in the U.S.
His position on energy as energy secretary was similar to the stand he took in his previous role as director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. There he also promoted energy efficiency and renewables, but nuclear power was a main thrust of his energy stance.
“Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio,” declared Chu, as laboratory director, at an “economic summit” in California in 2008 sponsored by Stanford University. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9888608-60.html He said in his speech: “The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad.”
As energy secretary, speaking at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia last year, where two of the new plants he cited in his letter are supposed to be built, he said: “The resurgence of America’s nuclear industry starts here in Georgia, where you just got approval for the first time in three decades to build new reactors. The Obama administration is committed to doing our part to help jumpstart America’s nuclear industry. The Energy Department is supporting this project with more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees. And we have partnered with industry to support the certification and licensing of the new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design.” http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chus-remarks-vogtle-nuclear-power-plant-prepared-delivery
Describing nuclear power as a “clean” energy technology, Chu said, “What you are doing here at Vogtle will help us compete in the global clean energy race and provide domestic, clean power to U.S. homes.”
And, the year before, in a presentation before the International Atomic Energy Agency, Chu asserted: “Nuclear power will continue to be an important part of our energy mix, both in the United States and around the world.” The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster had occurred just six months before, and he also said: “The tragic events at Fukushima make clear that nuclear energy…also brings significant challenges to our collective safety and security.” http://energy.gov/downloads/secretary-steven-chu-remarks-prepared-delivery-2011-iaea-general-conference
Some news pieces in recent days about Chu’s resignation have mentioned the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and how—as the Las Vegas Review Journal accurately put it—Chu “carried out the Obama administration’s plan to shut down” the project. http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-secretary-chu-resigns-battled-yucca-project-189463781.html
For Chu as a nuclear laboratory director was a supporter of the plan to deposit massive amounts of nuclear waste at the site, as noted by CNN in a 2011 piece. http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/06/news/economy/nuclear_waste/index.htm As energy secretary, Chu switched to the stance of President Obama (and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada). The mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas is riddled with earthquake faults.
In his letter to DOE employees, Chu challenged—as he pointed out Obama did in his recent inaugural address—those who deny climate change. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science…The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity has had a significant and likely dominant role in climate change,” Chu wrote.
He went on to promote “clean” energy as an antidote.
The key problem here, however, is that by including nuclear power in the “clean” energy category, Chu refuses to accept that the nuclear “fuel cycle” involved in nuclear power—mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment and so on—is a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses and climate change.
And he refuses to accept that true “clean” energy—safe renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind—can provide all the energy we need and not contribute to climate change at all. “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables” was a 2009 cover story in Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030, about one major study done in recent years coming to the same conclusion.
But Chu titled his 2010 essay, on his personal Facebook page—“Why We Need More Nuclear Power.” He insisted that “we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution.” He asked for comments. https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-chu/why-we-need-more-nuclear-power/336162546856 One reader, Matthew Cloner, commented, on March 12, 2011: “I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you in your position, Dr. Chu. As the recent disaster in Japan unfolds before our eyes, it is very obvious that nuclear power is both extremely dangerous and environmentally unsound as an energy source.”
But it’s hard for Chu and many other scientists out of the national nuclear laboratory system to acknowledge the deadliness of the technology which is the basis for most of their work.
These laboratories connect with the early laboratories set up during the World War II Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bombs. Chu’s former laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, was then called the Radiation Laboratory. It describes itself as the “oldest” of the national laboratories. http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/75th/ It and the other national nuclear laboratories were long run by the Atomic Energy Commission, which the Manhattan Project was turned into after the war. Then, because the AEC was such a zealous advocate of nuclear power, while supposedly a regulator of the technology, the AEC was eliminated by Congress in 1974 and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then a Department of Energy were created.
The DOE was given the mission of promoting nuclear power—a mission that Chu pursued as energy secretary. It also replaced the AEC in running the national nuclear laboratories.
Chu’s position—“The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad”—doesn’t acknowledge how radiation-causing nuclear technology as well as coal are both unnecessary, that “100 Percent of the Planet” can he powered by safe, really clean, renewable energy sources.
Who will replace Chu when he leaves the DOE helm at month’s end? Obama’s appointee could be more of the same.
Among the names seen as a possibility is that of Carol Browner. Working out of the White House, she was Obama’s energy “czar” between 2009 and 2011, and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She is a nuclear power booster. Browner stressed at a New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit in Washington in 2010 that the U.S. was “once at the forefront” of the nuclear industry. “We need to recapture that dominant position, and there’s every reason to think we can,” she declared. https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_566093
By selecting Browner or another nuclear proponent, Obama would be sending the U.S. in the wrong energy direction—a direction not good for public health nor safely powering society and not good, either, to deal with climate change.
-
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Will the Internet Remain Free?
From seemingly out of nowhere, the Internet has become the greatest global platform for free expression the world has ever seen.
But will this last?
Last month, an international conference was held that pitted nations seeking greater governmental control over the Internet -- led by Russia and China -- against countries advocating a hands-off approach. These included the United States, Canada, Israel, and nations of Western Europe including Great Britain.
The U.S. ambassador to World Conference on International Telecommunications, Terry Kramer, declared: "The Internet has thrived because it has been left in an open environment, and all the commercial opportunities that accrued, and the rights to free speech and democracy, are because it's been left alone."
Kramer, in the telecommunications field for 25 years, was appointed by President Barack Obama to head the U.S. delegation to the 12-day conference held in Dubai. Some 2,000 people from 193 nations participated.
"An attempt to establish global oversight of the Internet has collapsed after many Western countries said a compromise plan gave too much power to United Nations and other officials," reported RTE News, a website out of Ireland, about the conference. It added: "While other countries will sign the treaty, the absence of so many of the largest economies means that the document, already watered down to suit much of the West, will have little practical force."
But the struggle is far from over.
The resolution agreed upon -- although not by the nations opposed -- resolved that the UN secretary-general "continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet."
ITU is the acronym for the International Telecommunications Union which hosted the conference. Although now an agency of the UN, it predates the world body by more than 75 years having been founded in 1865 to help coordinate international standards for telegraph signals. After the Titanic sank in 1912 -- a disaster compounded by problems involving reception of signals from the ill-fated ship, ITU's role greatly increased.
Comparing this "landmark" Titanic-based event with what has been happening with the ITU and the Internet, Professor Patrick S. Ryan wrote an article in the Stanford Technology Law Review last year entitled, "The ITU and the Internet's Titanic Moment."
Ryan, a professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program as well as a "policy counsel" for Open Internet at Google, Inc.,wrote: "While the ITU isn't exactly a household name, it nonetheless may end up making critical--and potentially harmful--decisions that have a profound effect on Internet users around the globe." He said the December ITU conference "together with policy consultations in 2013...may significantly change how the Internet is governed."
Ryan is highly critical of the ITU. "Perhaps the greatest problem with the ITU," he states, "is its lack of transparency. Most democratic governments and processes have some fundamental right to public information and to the system for creating it. Yet the ITU is closed, opaque, and obfuscated in terms of its legislative treaty-making processes and in its standard-setting processes." It is a "large, closed, bureaucratic organization that uses scare tactics in an attempt to reinforce the need for its regulatory involvement."'
But the situation involves far more than the ITU.
At its center is the clash between people expressing themselves freely and those in power threatened by this -- a conflict as old as the printing press.
Indeed, every semester in my classes in Investigative Reporting at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, I give a lecture on this conflict between free expression and power -- a battle that's been never-ending.
In the Internet collision now, the ITU would be a tool used by those in power frightened by the Internet -- and because it's a global medium, their need for an international lid put on this pot of free expression.
Russia's scheme at the conference, according to the Associated Press, was to get a resolution passed with language requiring "member states to ensure the public has unrestricted access and use of international telecommunication services 'except in cases where international communications services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.'... The wording of this provision could allow a country to repress political opposition while citing a UN treaty as the basis for doing so."
In my lecture, I go back to the oldest of "old" mass media -- the newspaper -- and its slow growth after Johann Gutenberg invented his printing press around 1440. It took more than a century for newspapers to then come about, and I cite the literature that explains how this first occurred in places with weak or tolerant governance. I quote Edwin Emery from his book The Press and America: An Interpretative History of the Mass Media that: "It is significant that the newspaper first flourished in areas where authority was weak, as in Germany, at that time divided into a patchwork of small principalities, or where rulers were most tolerant as in the low countries."
I discuss the tyrannical control of the press by monarch after monarch in America's mother country, England, and how they kept a tight lid on the press by requiring licensing, and punishing those expressing the slightest dissent.
I quote from that great plea for a free press in England, by poet John Milton, in his Aeropagitica in 1844, in which he said "we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting." There need be free expression, said Milton, and with it would come truth and falsehood, too, but "in a free and open encounter" truth would triumph."
It was under the powerful monarchs of England that a press system began termed "authoritarian" by three communications professors in their 1956 book Four Theories of the Press, a seminal media analysis.
Under the authoritarian press system, they write, the "chief purpose" of the press is "to support and advance the policies of the government in power; and to service the state." Forbidden is "criticism of political machinery and officials in power."
This, unfortunately, is still the media system in many nations of the world today.
Arriving subsequently was what they term the "libertarian" press system. Under it, the function of the press, they relate, is "to inform, entertain, sell -- but chiefly to help discover truth, and to check on government."
The conflict when it comes to the Internet has been going on for some time. "Worldwide Battle for Control of the Internet" was the headline in 2009 of an article in the British magazine, New Scientist.
"When thousands of protesters took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed," the article started. "A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organize protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the Internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate."
It went on to outline the "Internet clampdown" by "governments across the globe." It cited the work of organizations that have sprung up to keep the Internet free, including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, a representative of which was quoted in the piece as saying, "Political filtering is the common denominator."
Other organizations include, notably, OpenNet Initative (in which the Berkman Center is one of three participant institutions). The website of OpenNet Initiative chronicles situation after situation of nations censoring the Internet.
China has developed a comprehensive program of rigid Internet censorship
As the New York Times reported in an article in December: "Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Palun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other Internet sites. As revolts began to ricochet through the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, and homegrown efforts to organize protests began to circulate on the Internet, the Chinese government tightened its grip on electronic communications, and appeared to be more determined than ever to police cellphone calls, electronic messages, e-mail and access to the Internet in order to smother any hint of antigovernment sentiment."
"The government's computers intercept incoming data and compare it against an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites," the Times article continued, "screening out even more information. The motive is often obvious: Since late 2010, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word 'freedom.'"
Russia's rulers, too, regard the Internet as threatening. In November, a law was passed in Russia "blacklisting websites that the government determines have illegal content," Forbes reported. This article quoted a statement about the situation in Russia from Reporters Without Borders: "The Russian state is characterized by a lack of political pluralism and widespread corruption... The Internet, a space where independent voices still find expression, is now being targeted by the authorities, who are trying to develop online filtering and surveillance. Bloggers are the victims of lawsuits and prosecutions."
The pattern of Internet suppression seen in China and Russia is also being pursued by many other nations -- as is presented clearly by the OpenNet Initiative's website and Wikipedia's website "Internet censorship by country."
A key problem involving the "libertarian" press system over the years has been: who can afford to own a press? Yes, the press is ostensibly free, but there's been the question: who has the money to own a newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station or publish books? As the American press critic A.J. Liebling wrote in The New Yorker magazine in 1960: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
But now, with a computer and an Internet connection, anybody can "own a press" and be an active participant in media. That is very scary to the rulers of Russia and China and the other nations that stood with them at the ITU conference which included Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates.
They didn't get what they wanted. But this was just one attempt in what will be an ongoing effort to undermine the Internet globally.
(This article was published today on The Huffington Post.)
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Our Deeply Dysfunctional Congress
As the new year began, the newspaper Newsday ran an editorial headed “Congress Made This Mess” with a subhead declaring that the “fiscal cliff” is a “metaphor for failure.” It was accompanied by a cartoon depicting the dropping of a ball—labeled “dysfunction"—alongside the Capitol Dome.
“So the new year may start off much like the old ended, with an epic failure to govern,” opined Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-congress-made-this-fiscal-mess-1.4393033
No matter what may happen about the “fiscal cliff,” the U.S. Congress is now widely seen as deeply dysfunctional.
This past summer, Gallup reported that its polling showed only one-in-10 Americans “approve the job Congress is doing.” This tied, it noted, with the “all-time low” of 10 percent approval in a Gallup poll the year before “as the lowest in Gallup’s 38 year history of this measure. Eight-three percent disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/congress-approval-ties-time-low.aspx
Much of this has to do with the public perception—an accurate one—that most members of Congress are bought and paid for notably via campaign contributions by special interests.
Indeed, making the rounds of the Internet in recent years has been the posting: “Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their sponsors.” http://bighealthreport.com/606/members-of-congress-should-wear-uniforms-life-nascar-drivers/
And then there’s this repeated posting: “Now I understand! The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for various groups of animals. We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish and a Gaggle of geese. However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows…an Exaltation of doves and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls. Now consider a group of baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates. And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons? Believe it or not….a Congress!. I guess that pretty much explains the things that come out of Washington! Look it up. A group of baboons is a Congress.” http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Today-in-Sports-Plus---Cherington-swings-for-the-fences.html?soid=1105067466523&aid=bbV8wuh14zY
A very low opinion of the U.S. Congress is not new in America.
Over a century ago, Mark Twain wrote: “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Twain also said that “there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.”
Decades later, Will Rogers said: “The country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” Milton Berle, yet later, said: “You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.”
But now confidence in and respect for Congress has reached a nadir.
And the perception matches reality. For example, the 112th Congress, which ended this week, “is set to go down in American history as the most unproductive session since the 1940s,” wrote Amanda Terkel last week on The Huffington Post. It passed slightly more than 200 bills that became law. This is “far less than the 80th Congress (1947-1948) which President Harry Truman infamously dubbed the “Do-Nothing Congress” which passed 900 bills that became law.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html
Part of the problem is what has been termed “congressional stagnation”—a theory holding that the U.S. Congress has become stagnant as a result of the continuous re-election of nearly all of its incumbents.
Indeed, notes the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington: “Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats.” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
Also, making members of Congress ever more the instruments of special interests with money is the ever-skyrocketing cost of campaigns—mainly for political TV commercials.
The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the 2012 election campaign was the “most expensive election in U.S. history”—costing $6 billion. Much of that, more than $2 billion, involved the presidential race. “House and Senate candidates combined will spend about $1.82 billion.” And “congressional races are being affected by the huge increase in outside spending.”
“In the new campaign finance landscape post-Citizens United, we’re seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
As Alex Gibney, maker of the documentary “Casino Jack and the United States of Money,” has said, we have “a system of legalized bribery in Washington.” http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/movies-and-tv/201004/oscar-winning-filmmaker-alex-gibney
This reflects directly on the low, low level of Congress doing anything—and, when it does, mainly serving special interests.
Change—major change—is desperately needed!
“So the new year may start off much like the old ended, with an epic failure to govern,” opined Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-congress-made-this-fiscal-mess-1.4393033
No matter what may happen about the “fiscal cliff,” the U.S. Congress is now widely seen as deeply dysfunctional.
This past summer, Gallup reported that its polling showed only one-in-10 Americans “approve the job Congress is doing.” This tied, it noted, with the “all-time low” of 10 percent approval in a Gallup poll the year before “as the lowest in Gallup’s 38 year history of this measure. Eight-three percent disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/congress-approval-ties-time-low.aspx
Much of this has to do with the public perception—an accurate one—that most members of Congress are bought and paid for notably via campaign contributions by special interests.
Indeed, making the rounds of the Internet in recent years has been the posting: “Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their sponsors.” http://bighealthreport.com/606/members-of-congress-should-wear-uniforms-life-nascar-drivers/
And then there’s this repeated posting: “Now I understand! The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for various groups of animals. We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish and a Gaggle of geese. However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows…an Exaltation of doves and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls. Now consider a group of baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates. And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons? Believe it or not….a Congress!. I guess that pretty much explains the things that come out of Washington! Look it up. A group of baboons is a Congress.” http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Today-in-Sports-Plus---Cherington-swings-for-the-fences.html?soid=1105067466523&aid=bbV8wuh14zY
A very low opinion of the U.S. Congress is not new in America.
Over a century ago, Mark Twain wrote: “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Twain also said that “there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.”
Decades later, Will Rogers said: “The country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” Milton Berle, yet later, said: “You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.”
But now confidence in and respect for Congress has reached a nadir.
And the perception matches reality. For example, the 112th Congress, which ended this week, “is set to go down in American history as the most unproductive session since the 1940s,” wrote Amanda Terkel last week on The Huffington Post. It passed slightly more than 200 bills that became law. This is “far less than the 80th Congress (1947-1948) which President Harry Truman infamously dubbed the “Do-Nothing Congress” which passed 900 bills that became law.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html
Part of the problem is what has been termed “congressional stagnation”—a theory holding that the U.S. Congress has become stagnant as a result of the continuous re-election of nearly all of its incumbents.
Indeed, notes the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington: “Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats.” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
Also, making members of Congress ever more the instruments of special interests with money is the ever-skyrocketing cost of campaigns—mainly for political TV commercials.
The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the 2012 election campaign was the “most expensive election in U.S. history”—costing $6 billion. Much of that, more than $2 billion, involved the presidential race. “House and Senate candidates combined will spend about $1.82 billion.” And “congressional races are being affected by the huge increase in outside spending.”
“In the new campaign finance landscape post-Citizens United, we’re seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
As Alex Gibney, maker of the documentary “Casino Jack and the United States of Money,” has said, we have “a system of legalized bribery in Washington.” http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/movies-and-tv/201004/oscar-winning-filmmaker-alex-gibney
This reflects directly on the low, low level of Congress doing anything—and, when it does, mainly serving special interests.
Change—major change—is desperately needed!
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Banning BPA
It’s what the county legislature in Suffolk County, New York is noted for—passing first-in-the-nation laws. It’s done that with laws banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, the sale of drop-side cribs and the supplement ephedra, and many statutes prohibiting smoking in public places. The measures have often been replicated statewide and nationally.
And the panel did it again this month passing a measure that bans receipts coated with the chemical BPA. BPA, the acronym for Bisphenol-A, has been found to be a cause of cancer and other health maladies.
“Once again this institution is going to set the standard for other states to follow,” declared Legislator Steve Stern of Huntington after the passage of his bill December 4. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/suffolk-lawmakers-ban-receipts-with-bpa-1.4291337
The top elected official of Suffolk County, which encompasses eastern Long Island, County Executive Steve Bellone plans to sign the measure into law next week.
BPA has become common. It is used widely to harden plastics and as a coating inside cans of beverages and food. Another use is coating the paper used for receipts enabling it to become “thermal paper” and react to heat to print numbers and words.
In 2009, the Suffolk County Legislature enacted a first-in-the-nation law—also authored by Stern—prohibiting the use of BPA in baby bottles and other beverage containers used by children under three. Stern was made aware of the health dangers of BPA by Karen Joy Miller, founder of Prevention is the Cure, an initiative of the Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition. Prevention is the Cure emphasizes the elimination of the causes of cancer.
Ms. Miller testified at the legislative session at which the measure passed 16-to-1: “We’ve got to end this disease [cancer], and a bad-acting chemical like [BPA] is at the top of the list.” After the vote, she applauded “Legislator Stern and the Suffolk County Legislature for taking this important step to protect public health.”
Stern’s “Safer Sales Slip Act” was also backed by Dr. Philip Landrigan, chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and dean for Global Health with the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. It will protect “the health of the public by reducing exposures to BPA for all Suffolk County families and, most especially, pregnant or nursing women, and women of childbearing age…As leaders in pediatrics and preventive medicine, we strongly support this legislation.”
Meanwhile, claiming at the legislative session that BPA is safe was Stephen Rosario of the American Chemistry Council. Billions of tons of BPA are now manufactured annually and the American Chemistry Council has led in defending the substance.
The Stern bill declares that the Suffolk Legislature “finds and determines that BPA is a synthetic estrogen which disrupts healthy development and can lead to an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity and diabetes.”
It refers to his earlier “Toxin Free Toddlers and Babies Act” and notes that since the passage of “this groundbreaking ban,” a national counterpart of the measure was enacted—“finally, this summer”—by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Of receipts coated with BPA, the BPA on this “thermal paper can transfer onto anything it contacts, including skin” and through the skin “be absorbed…into the body,” says the bill.
This “dermal exposure to BPA poses a risk to public health and particularly to those whose employment requires distribution of such receipts.” Moreover, “the thermal paper containing BPA is also utilized in bank receipts and at Automated Teller Machines and gas pump receipts, creating multiple and ubiquitous points of exposure in daily life.”
Further, research has determined that “workers employed at retail and food service industries, where BPA-containing thermal paper is most commonly used, have an average of 30% more BPA in their bodies than adults employed in other professions.”
And, critically, as the measure notes, “there are several manufacturers that produce thermal paper that does not contain BPA.” That’s the way it is for toxic products and processes: there are safe alternatives for them. There are safe substitutes for virtually every deadly product and process. The problem: the vested interests that continue to push and defend them.
The Stern law carries penalties of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 “for each subsequent violation.”
It hopefully will be replicated far and wide. And, bans on BPA should be extended to the use of all plastics with BPA along with cans of beverages and food that have a coating of this poison inside.
.
And the panel did it again this month passing a measure that bans receipts coated with the chemical BPA. BPA, the acronym for Bisphenol-A, has been found to be a cause of cancer and other health maladies.
“Once again this institution is going to set the standard for other states to follow,” declared Legislator Steve Stern of Huntington after the passage of his bill December 4. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/suffolk-lawmakers-ban-receipts-with-bpa-1.4291337
The top elected official of Suffolk County, which encompasses eastern Long Island, County Executive Steve Bellone plans to sign the measure into law next week.
BPA has become common. It is used widely to harden plastics and as a coating inside cans of beverages and food. Another use is coating the paper used for receipts enabling it to become “thermal paper” and react to heat to print numbers and words.
In 2009, the Suffolk County Legislature enacted a first-in-the-nation law—also authored by Stern—prohibiting the use of BPA in baby bottles and other beverage containers used by children under three. Stern was made aware of the health dangers of BPA by Karen Joy Miller, founder of Prevention is the Cure, an initiative of the Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition. Prevention is the Cure emphasizes the elimination of the causes of cancer.
Ms. Miller testified at the legislative session at which the measure passed 16-to-1: “We’ve got to end this disease [cancer], and a bad-acting chemical like [BPA] is at the top of the list.” After the vote, she applauded “Legislator Stern and the Suffolk County Legislature for taking this important step to protect public health.”
Stern’s “Safer Sales Slip Act” was also backed by Dr. Philip Landrigan, chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and dean for Global Health with the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. It will protect “the health of the public by reducing exposures to BPA for all Suffolk County families and, most especially, pregnant or nursing women, and women of childbearing age…As leaders in pediatrics and preventive medicine, we strongly support this legislation.”
Meanwhile, claiming at the legislative session that BPA is safe was Stephen Rosario of the American Chemistry Council. Billions of tons of BPA are now manufactured annually and the American Chemistry Council has led in defending the substance.
The Stern bill declares that the Suffolk Legislature “finds and determines that BPA is a synthetic estrogen which disrupts healthy development and can lead to an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity and diabetes.”
It refers to his earlier “Toxin Free Toddlers and Babies Act” and notes that since the passage of “this groundbreaking ban,” a national counterpart of the measure was enacted—“finally, this summer”—by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Of receipts coated with BPA, the BPA on this “thermal paper can transfer onto anything it contacts, including skin” and through the skin “be absorbed…into the body,” says the bill.
This “dermal exposure to BPA poses a risk to public health and particularly to those whose employment requires distribution of such receipts.” Moreover, “the thermal paper containing BPA is also utilized in bank receipts and at Automated Teller Machines and gas pump receipts, creating multiple and ubiquitous points of exposure in daily life.”
Further, research has determined that “workers employed at retail and food service industries, where BPA-containing thermal paper is most commonly used, have an average of 30% more BPA in their bodies than adults employed in other professions.”
And, critically, as the measure notes, “there are several manufacturers that produce thermal paper that does not contain BPA.” That’s the way it is for toxic products and processes: there are safe alternatives for them. There are safe substitutes for virtually every deadly product and process. The problem: the vested interests that continue to push and defend them.
The Stern law carries penalties of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 “for each subsequent violation.”
It hopefully will be replicated far and wide. And, bans on BPA should be extended to the use of all plastics with BPA along with cans of beverages and food that have a coating of this poison inside.
.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Challenging the Gun Lobby and Changing the Culture of Violence in the U.S.
We’ll soon see whether the gun lobby can be successfully challenged and the culture of violence that has been growing in the United States changed.
President Barack Obama had it just right yesterday in declaring that the “discussion” that has “remerged” since the killings in Connecticut about “what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every day” has “to continue. But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He was so accurate in stating, “We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.” And important, too: “We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun.”
Five days after the massacre in Newtown, he announced he was forming a panel, led by the vice president, and emphasized that he wants it to “come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than Januaryproposals that I then intend to push without delay.”
The killings have been called the 9/11 of U.S. mass murders and a tipping point -- a horrific event involving weapons about which words of condemnation, and then no action, can no longer suffice.
We’ll see. The National Rifle Association, the spearhead organization of the gun lobby, is enormously powerful and extreme. “It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners and registration of firearms,” notes the Center for Responsive Politics. Based in Washington, this nonpartisan, independent research group tracks how money affects politics and public policy in the U.S. and has long investigated the millions of dollars the NRA pours each year into campaign contributions, lobbying and targeted campaigns for and against candidates. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
Still, as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation: “I think we could be at a tipping point…where we might actually get something done. First, this was not a single incident. It followed a series of others. In the last few months, we've had mass shootings in Oregon, in Wisconsin and Colorado. When the public sees these as isolated incidents, they're less upset than when they occur one after the other. And the public will not accept…as a ‘new normal’ one of these incidents every month, these mass shootings. Second, of course, it involved children. And it's so poignant to see those pictures. …What agony, what horror. So I think we can get something done.”
“One is to ban assault weapons, to try and reinstate the assault weapons ban. The second is to limit the size of clips to maybe no more than 10 bullets per clip. And the third would be to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns,” said Schumer. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57559447/schumer-newtown-could-be-tipping-point-for-gun-control/
The federal government’s ban on the manufacture for civilian use of assault weaponsfirearms specifically designed to kill people, such as the AR-15 (a version of the military’s M-16) used in the Connecticut shootings was scandalously allowed to lapse eight years ago.
“When he was campaigning for office in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to reinstate the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004,” noted the New York Times in an editorial in July, after the killings in Aurora, Colorado. “That would have prohibited the AR-15 rifle used in the Colorado theatre shooting…along with the large 100-round magazine attached to it. But as president, Mr. Obama has made no attempt to do so.” It added, “Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts…but now he opposes all gun control measures.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/6000-bullets-in-colorado.html?_r=0Obama
Another editorial three days later further criticizing both of them was entitled: “Candidates Cower on Gun ControNew York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said to Piers Morgan on CNN after the Aurora massacre: “Someday there will be a shooting which you would think would trigger in the American psyche this ‘I’m not going to take it any more’ attitude. Maybe if… you shot a president? But Ronald Reagan, when he got shot, didn’t trigger it. Maybe if you shot a congresswoman? No. Maybe if you shot a bunch of students on campus? No. Maybe if you shot a bunch of people in a movie theater? I don’t know what it is, we obviously haven’t gotten there yet, but we justthis cannot continue.” http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/07/6273723/bloomberg-tell-piers-morgan-nra-will-lose-eventually
Maybe the killing of 20 first-graders will result in an “I’m not going to take it any more” stance. Hopefully, it willbut it will have come at such a terrible cost.
As to U.S. culture glorifying guns and violence, one only has to sit through the 20 minutes of coming attractions now commonly inflicted upon movie-goers: one ultra-violent film after another. Film violence has increased radically in recent years. Director Peter Bogdanovich commented earlier this year that “violence on the screen has increased tenfold….There’s too much murder and killing….It numbs the audience into thinking it’s not so terrible.” http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-shooting-peter-bogdanovich-353774
In college I wrote a novel reviewed by a professor who advised: “You’ve got to kill some people”to up the “tension.” A cheap trick. Greek dramas and Shakespeare’s plays, yes, include violence, but not the extraneous, ridiculous violence out of Hollywood today to hype “tension.” Cheap tricks and dangerous.
And then there are the violent video games marketed to children.
In the wake of the Connecticut massacre, the Discovery Channel decided not to renew for a third season its TV show “American Guns,” about a family of gun makers. http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/discovery-series-american-guns-cancelled/ The Weinstein Company toned down the Los Angeles premiere of Quentin Tarantino’s ultra-violent “Django Unchained.” A spokesman for the company said: “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the tragedy in Newtown, CT, and in this time of national mourning we have decided to forgo our scheduled event.” http://www.deadline.com/interstitial/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deadline.com%2F2012%2F12%2Fweinstein-co-cancels-tomorrows-django-unchained-premiere-in-l-a%2F
Small adjustments, and how long will they last?
There have been reactions to the link between mental illness and the Connecticut shooter and so many other mass murderers. On Long Island this week, for example, a Nassau County legislator called for a restoration of millions of dollars cut from mental health programs in light of the Connecticut tragedy. “It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish,” said Judy Jacobs. “Obviously, anyone who could do what we saw in [Newtown] has to be mentally ill. But there are signs and there are signals. And it’s not something we should shirk from.” http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/call-to-restore-nassau-mental-health-cuts-1.4348924
Obama on Wednesday said, “The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before gun purchases.”
He stressed, “I’m not going to be able to do it myself. Ultimately, if this effort is to succeed it’s going to require the help of the American peopleit’s going to require all of us. If we’re going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americansmothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionalsand, yes, gun ownersstanding up and saying ‘enough’ on behalf of our kids.”
This will only be good news if, as the Connecticut horror fades from the media cycle, the pressure from public officials and all people continues leading to meaningful results.
President Barack Obama had it just right yesterday in declaring that the “discussion” that has “remerged” since the killings in Connecticut about “what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every day” has “to continue. But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He was so accurate in stating, “We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.” And important, too: “We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun.”
Five days after the massacre in Newtown, he announced he was forming a panel, led by the vice president, and emphasized that he wants it to “come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than Januaryproposals that I then intend to push without delay.”
The killings have been called the 9/11 of U.S. mass murders and a tipping point -- a horrific event involving weapons about which words of condemnation, and then no action, can no longer suffice.
We’ll see. The National Rifle Association, the spearhead organization of the gun lobby, is enormously powerful and extreme. “It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners and registration of firearms,” notes the Center for Responsive Politics. Based in Washington, this nonpartisan, independent research group tracks how money affects politics and public policy in the U.S. and has long investigated the millions of dollars the NRA pours each year into campaign contributions, lobbying and targeted campaigns for and against candidates. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
Still, as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation: “I think we could be at a tipping point…where we might actually get something done. First, this was not a single incident. It followed a series of others. In the last few months, we've had mass shootings in Oregon, in Wisconsin and Colorado. When the public sees these as isolated incidents, they're less upset than when they occur one after the other. And the public will not accept…as a ‘new normal’ one of these incidents every month, these mass shootings. Second, of course, it involved children. And it's so poignant to see those pictures. …What agony, what horror. So I think we can get something done.”
“One is to ban assault weapons, to try and reinstate the assault weapons ban. The second is to limit the size of clips to maybe no more than 10 bullets per clip. And the third would be to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns,” said Schumer. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57559447/schumer-newtown-could-be-tipping-point-for-gun-control/
The federal government’s ban on the manufacture for civilian use of assault weaponsfirearms specifically designed to kill people, such as the AR-15 (a version of the military’s M-16) used in the Connecticut shootings was scandalously allowed to lapse eight years ago.
“When he was campaigning for office in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to reinstate the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004,” noted the New York Times in an editorial in July, after the killings in Aurora, Colorado. “That would have prohibited the AR-15 rifle used in the Colorado theatre shooting…along with the large 100-round magazine attached to it. But as president, Mr. Obama has made no attempt to do so.” It added, “Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts…but now he opposes all gun control measures.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/6000-bullets-in-colorado.html?_r=0Obama
Another editorial three days later further criticizing both of them was entitled: “Candidates Cower on Gun ControNew York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said to Piers Morgan on CNN after the Aurora massacre: “Someday there will be a shooting which you would think would trigger in the American psyche this ‘I’m not going to take it any more’ attitude. Maybe if… you shot a president? But Ronald Reagan, when he got shot, didn’t trigger it. Maybe if you shot a congresswoman? No. Maybe if you shot a bunch of students on campus? No. Maybe if you shot a bunch of people in a movie theater? I don’t know what it is, we obviously haven’t gotten there yet, but we justthis cannot continue.” http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/07/6273723/bloomberg-tell-piers-morgan-nra-will-lose-eventually
Maybe the killing of 20 first-graders will result in an “I’m not going to take it any more” stance. Hopefully, it willbut it will have come at such a terrible cost.
As to U.S. culture glorifying guns and violence, one only has to sit through the 20 minutes of coming attractions now commonly inflicted upon movie-goers: one ultra-violent film after another. Film violence has increased radically in recent years. Director Peter Bogdanovich commented earlier this year that “violence on the screen has increased tenfold….There’s too much murder and killing….It numbs the audience into thinking it’s not so terrible.” http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-shooting-peter-bogdanovich-353774
In college I wrote a novel reviewed by a professor who advised: “You’ve got to kill some people”to up the “tension.” A cheap trick. Greek dramas and Shakespeare’s plays, yes, include violence, but not the extraneous, ridiculous violence out of Hollywood today to hype “tension.” Cheap tricks and dangerous.
And then there are the violent video games marketed to children.
In the wake of the Connecticut massacre, the Discovery Channel decided not to renew for a third season its TV show “American Guns,” about a family of gun makers. http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/discovery-series-american-guns-cancelled/ The Weinstein Company toned down the Los Angeles premiere of Quentin Tarantino’s ultra-violent “Django Unchained.” A spokesman for the company said: “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the tragedy in Newtown, CT, and in this time of national mourning we have decided to forgo our scheduled event.” http://www.deadline.com/interstitial/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deadline.com%2F2012%2F12%2Fweinstein-co-cancels-tomorrows-django-unchained-premiere-in-l-a%2F
Small adjustments, and how long will they last?
There have been reactions to the link between mental illness and the Connecticut shooter and so many other mass murderers. On Long Island this week, for example, a Nassau County legislator called for a restoration of millions of dollars cut from mental health programs in light of the Connecticut tragedy. “It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish,” said Judy Jacobs. “Obviously, anyone who could do what we saw in [Newtown] has to be mentally ill. But there are signs and there are signals. And it’s not something we should shirk from.” http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/call-to-restore-nassau-mental-health-cuts-1.4348924
Obama on Wednesday said, “The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before gun purchases.”
He stressed, “I’m not going to be able to do it myself. Ultimately, if this effort is to succeed it’s going to require the help of the American peopleit’s going to require all of us. If we’re going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americansmothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionalsand, yes, gun ownersstanding up and saying ‘enough’ on behalf of our kids.”
This will only be good news if, as the Connecticut horror fades from the media cycle, the pressure from public officials and all people continues leading to meaningful results.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Republican Fight Against Higher Taxes for the Rich
President Barack Obama’s demand that taxes of the rich be raised has become a key issue in the battle which, if not settled, could send the United States over a “fiscal cliff” at year’s end.
A series of extreme government spending cuts—including in defense and social programs among them Medicare—mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 would then kick in if no compromise is achieved, and, it is widely forecast, send the U.S. into recession.
Democrat Obama is arguing that higher taxes for the wealthy must be part of any package, and Republicans are fighting this.
Important in understanding the issue is how the tax rates for the richest Americans have fallen precipitously over the last several decades.
The “tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s, to the current low rate of 35 percent,” notes Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, currently visiting professor at New School University in New York. http://rdwolff.com/content/truth-about-class-war-america-alternate
The “richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut,” says Dr. Wolff. “Middle- and low-income Americans won no such cuts.”
This has been paralleled by how “big business and conservatives have worked to undo the regulations and taxes imposed on them in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s.”
“Since the end of the Great Depression—and especially since the 1970s—the class warfare waged by business and its allies, most conservatives in both parties, was successful,” he says. He notes how, at the end of World War II, “for every $1 Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. In contrast, today, for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it gets 25 cents in taxes on business. Business and its allies successfully shifted most of its federal tax burden onto individuals.”
“In plain English,” says Dr. Wolff, a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. in economics from Yale, “the last 50 years saw a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else.”
Involved has been “class war policies” in a “war that victimized the vast majority of working Americans.” And “today, business and the rich are waging class war yet again to avoid even a small, modest reverse in the huge tax cuts they won in that war over the last half-century.”
Now, there are some that argue that even with steeply reduced tax rates, the rich pay more in taxes. Robert Frank of CNBC said earlier this year: “Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low, which is true, it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession.” http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611/The_Falling_Fortunes_of_the_One_Percent
He also stressed: “The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income—far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average.”
Then there are those who say the rich are being unjustly attacked. “I believe the president has vilified this so-called 2 percent,” Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, said last week. “Vilifying people and then punitively taxing them is un-American,” he declared.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff_n_2204931.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
The bottom line is that there has been a successful effort in the U.S. to alter the progressive income tax system that is based on individuals who earn more, paying higher taxes. The tax rates for the wealthy have been reduced drastically.
And Obama isn’t seeking a return to a 91 percent rate, or 70 percent or even close. During the campaign, he proposed raising the top rates for high-income people to 36 and 39.6 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html That would be a return to the top tax rates during the Clinton presidency.
Part of the battle between Obama and Congressional Republicans involves who should be considered high-income. The Obama administration has talked about a threshold of $200,000 in annual income for an individual, $250,000 for a family. The GOP complaint is this is too low.
This is a valid area of debate. But to reject a hike in tax rates, period, for the millionaires and billionaires who make up the top economic strata of this nation is not right.
A series of extreme government spending cuts—including in defense and social programs among them Medicare—mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 would then kick in if no compromise is achieved, and, it is widely forecast, send the U.S. into recession.
Democrat Obama is arguing that higher taxes for the wealthy must be part of any package, and Republicans are fighting this.
Important in understanding the issue is how the tax rates for the richest Americans have fallen precipitously over the last several decades.
The “tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s, to the current low rate of 35 percent,” notes Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, currently visiting professor at New School University in New York. http://rdwolff.com/content/truth-about-class-war-america-alternate
The “richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut,” says Dr. Wolff. “Middle- and low-income Americans won no such cuts.”
This has been paralleled by how “big business and conservatives have worked to undo the regulations and taxes imposed on them in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s.”
“Since the end of the Great Depression—and especially since the 1970s—the class warfare waged by business and its allies, most conservatives in both parties, was successful,” he says. He notes how, at the end of World War II, “for every $1 Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. In contrast, today, for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it gets 25 cents in taxes on business. Business and its allies successfully shifted most of its federal tax burden onto individuals.”
“In plain English,” says Dr. Wolff, a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. in economics from Yale, “the last 50 years saw a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else.”
Involved has been “class war policies” in a “war that victimized the vast majority of working Americans.” And “today, business and the rich are waging class war yet again to avoid even a small, modest reverse in the huge tax cuts they won in that war over the last half-century.”
Now, there are some that argue that even with steeply reduced tax rates, the rich pay more in taxes. Robert Frank of CNBC said earlier this year: “Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low, which is true, it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession.” http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611/The_Falling_Fortunes_of_the_One_Percent
He also stressed: “The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income—far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average.”
Then there are those who say the rich are being unjustly attacked. “I believe the president has vilified this so-called 2 percent,” Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, said last week. “Vilifying people and then punitively taxing them is un-American,” he declared.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff_n_2204931.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
The bottom line is that there has been a successful effort in the U.S. to alter the progressive income tax system that is based on individuals who earn more, paying higher taxes. The tax rates for the wealthy have been reduced drastically.
And Obama isn’t seeking a return to a 91 percent rate, or 70 percent or even close. During the campaign, he proposed raising the top rates for high-income people to 36 and 39.6 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html That would be a return to the top tax rates during the Clinton presidency.
Part of the battle between Obama and Congressional Republicans involves who should be considered high-income. The Obama administration has talked about a threshold of $200,000 in annual income for an individual, $250,000 for a family. The GOP complaint is this is too low.
This is a valid area of debate. But to reject a hike in tax rates, period, for the millionaires and billionaires who make up the top economic strata of this nation is not right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
