This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power": Benito Mussolini
Voltaire on Freedom
"...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." Voltaire, François Marie Arouet (1694-1778), Philosophical Dictionary, 1764
Darwin on Effect of Early Brainwashing
"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871
It was impossible to save the Great Republic
"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."
Mark Twain
E.O. Wilson on population growth and sustainability
"The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct." - E.O. Wilson
Jefferson on Corporations
“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
How despicable and ignoble war is
Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! - Albert Einstein
Do not despair due to hostility or exclusion
Do not despair due to hostility or exclusion by popular, small minded, or greedy men and women, simply because they reject or cannot understand your truths. Stand up and declare your reality, in defiance of their ignorance and self-serving falsehoods. -- Chris
Anger Looks to the Good of Justice
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." -- St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Aside from the fact that Thomas thought heretics should be put to death ;-) he really has hit on something here!
"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father - Source: Dogwood Papers
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
The weak do what they must. . .
"The strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must." - Thucydides (c. 460 B.C. - c. 395 B.C.)
Sustainability and Population Growth
"A sincere concern for the future is certainly the factor that motivates many who make frequent use of the word, "sustainable." But there are cases where one suspects that the word is used carelessly, perhaps as though the belief exists that the frequent use of the adjective "sustainable" is all that is needed to create a sustainable society."
"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
The Primary Political Question: "Who benefits? Who pays?"
To cut through the cant of "responsibility," we must ask the double question "Who benefits? Who pays?" This is the first question to ask when a politico-economic system of distribution is proposed. It focuses our attention on operations and their consequences rather than on words. The answer to this double question largely defines the properties of a system. We take it as axiomatic that every social action entails both gain (profit) and cost (loss). We can indicate the way profit and loss are distributed by three alternative verbs: privatize, commonize and socialize. -Garrett Hardin 1985
Thomas Paine on the Defense of Custom
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
From the Introduction to Common Sense, January 10, 1776
Taking A Position Because It Is Right
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Galbraith on Respectability
“Political conservatism benefits from the deep desire of politicians, Democrats in particular, for respectability -their need to show that they are individuals of sound, confidence inspiring judgment. And what is the test of respectability? It is broadly whether speech and action are consistent with the comfort and well-being of the people of property and position. A radical is anyone who causes discomfort or otherwise offends such interests. Thus in our politics, we test even liberals by their conservatism.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
They love the liars and hate the truth, Mencken
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars: the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." - - H. L. Mencken - (1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist
a lie so subtle
"Observance of customs and laws can very easily be a cloak for a lie so subtle that our fellow human beings are unable to detect it. It may help us to escape all criticism, we may even be able to deceive ourselves in the belief of our obvious righteousness. But deep down, below the surface of the average man's conscience, he hears a voice whispering, 'There is something not right,' no matter how much his rightness is supported by public opinion or by the moral code." - Carl Gustav Jung
Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed,
"And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed." -John Steinbeck - Grapes of Wrath
Need to write an Oregon Public Records request?
Click on this link and they will write a request for you:
“Its hard to give, Its hard to get, But everybody needs a little forgiveness.” Patty Griffin - from "Forgiveness"
American “Democracy” and Responsibility
"we also have to be precise about the roadblocks that keep people from acting responsibly: A nominally democratic political system dominated by elites who serve primarily the wealthy in a predatory corporate capitalist system; which utilizes sophisticated propaganda techniques that have been effective in undermining real democracy; aided by mass-media industries dedicated to selling diversions to consumers more than to helping inform citizens in ways that encourage meaningful political action."
- Robert Jensen, Professor of journalism, University of Texas at Austin. From Op-Ed, July 8, 2008
OUR UNDISPUTED OVERLORDS
“Big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are again the undisputed overlords of politics and government. The White House, the Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary, reflect their interests. We appear to have a government run by remote control from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. To hell with everyone else.” - Bill Moyers - PBS Commentator
The Politics of Anti-Semitism
The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, confronts how the slur of "anti-semite" has been used to intimidate critics of Israel's abuse of Palestinians. It includes essays by Uri Avnery, Edward Said, Michael Neumann and Bill and Kathy Christison and more.
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom"
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." -- Somerset Maugham
Human Insensitivity, Arrogance, Ignorance, Greed and Folly
There is perhaps no more certain sign of human insensitivity, arrogance, ignorance, greed and folly than the constant growth and destructive expansion of human populations across the globe—a self-worshiping, voracious cancer that continues to plunder and trash our planet and its creatures while almost imperceptibly picking away at the very support systems of life as we know it. - Me (and many others before)
I am a nature photographer specializing in wildflowers, birds, and other criters.
Some of my wildflower and other photos can be found at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherchristie/sets/
And
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?where-photographer=Christopher+Christie
These photos can be downloaded without charge for personal use and are used for educational purposes in the publications of many organizations, most often for free.
My professional training is in microbiology (BS Microbiology, Honors / Distinction in) and medical technology. I have worked as a microbiologist, medical technologist and Greyhound bus driver. In the late 1980's I grew over 100 native species in a small nursery. Besides identifying, photographing and growing native plants, I enjoy birdwatching, gardening and hiking in the Great Basin and local mountains. In the fall and winter, I used to do raptor counts along the Burnt River in the Hereford area for the East Cascade Bird Conservancy.
“We are swimming with the snakes at the bottom of the well - So silent and peaceful in the darkness where we fell - But we are not snakes and what's more we never will be And if we stay swimming here forever we will never be free” Patty Griffin - from "Forgiveness"
Mysteries
Pictograph From San Rafael Swell, Utah
Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
Bighorns in Anza Borrego State Park, CA, 1998
Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar
Message On Main Street to End the War
Peace On Main Street
Need money For Schools?
Winnie Moves to New Meadows, Idaho
In 1944 Winnie's house at the logging camp was moved on the back of a truck. In those days, logger's homes were often moved from camp to camp on R.R.flatcars or trucks.
Showing posts with label Baker City Herald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baker City Herald. Show all posts
When I was in high school, I noted that the vast majority of my classmates in the social studies class had trouble passing pop quizzes and also the periodic tests that were announced many days in advance. It was clear to me that the primary reason for most of the average or failing scores was that, for whatever reason, they had not paid much attention in class and had not done their homework. In a "democracy," we have to hope that those who offer opinions and go to the voting booth have done theirs. Unfortunately, this is often not the case, as the habits of high school often follow us into adult life, so people continue to issue opinions on subjects they know little about.
I have a degree in microbiology, albeit an old one, so I can't help but comment when such things as Cryptosporidium and water treatment arise.
On August 2, 2013, the Baker City Herald "Editorial Board" issued an editorial opinion, What's next with city's water, that recommended the city choose filtration over UV treatment, stating
"But in the wake of a week in which so many people were
afflicted with stomach cramps, diarrhea and other unpleasant symptoms,
in which restaurants and other businesses suffered during a busy
weekend, we believe that extra cost is worth it."
OK Herald, lets see the cost/benefit analysis. When McDonalds shut down for three days, I was told that Taco Time did a boom business. A neighbor I spoke with came down with Crypto, but he favors UV treatment.
The reasons given for the Herald's opinion were:
But UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in
removing viruses, UV has no effect on chemicals, and a UV system would
not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a
wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed.
They also tell us:
The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a
cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for
a UV system.
There was no other discussion of costs, nor any reference for the source of their figures, or why their objections were relevant.
As I write, the vote stands, after 33 hours, as 59.8% in favor of filtration as the best option and 31.4% in favor of UV treatment. Only 102 people have voted, which I'm sure the Herald would agree, is not a number large enough to represent the 10,000 plus residents of Baker City. Perhaps all they had to go on was the Herald's recommendation. Why do they do these unscientific polls during a period of crisis right after they have issued an uninformative opinion that misleads the public? Kind of like asking Americans what they think of the passing something like the Patriot Act right after 911. These polls are almost completely worthless as gauges of actual, well thought out, public opinion, but I guess it gives people something to do and gives the Herald more web page hits while gathering support for their ill-advised notions.
And how is one to take the question? Does "best" mean the option that will do the job of treating Crypto while being one that we can afford, or does "best" mean the option that will possibly result in purer water than UV will provide (even though we will play hell paying for it)?
That is a problem, especially if the opinion they give to their few thousand readers is in error or incomplete. So let's "unpack" their information and reasons for recommending filtration.
There are three relevant questions:
What do we really need given the current and foreseeable conditions?
What can we afford given the the city's and the city resident's financial situation?
What is politically acceptable given the answers to the first two questions?
Do we want or need a water treatment system that can deal with every conceivable threat to human health, even when they don't currently exist in the watershed, and if we do, can a community struggling to finance other pressing infrastructure needs such as sewage treatment, streets, and aging water and sewer lines afford it? Do we need a Cadillac when a small hybrid car or Geo Metro will provide a solution to our problems? The Herald doesn't really address the question of whether we can afford it.
The Herald tells us that:
"UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in
removing viruses"
OK, so what? The Herald admits the city has a "long history of providing pure water." That water comes from a somewhat protected city watershed where human viruses are not a problem. Our watershed is not a source, such as the Colorado River, that has water passed through many communities and pastures where human viruses might be introduced to become a problem. Current conditions do not indicate that human viruses are, or will be a problem. They do indicate that Cryptosporidium is a problem, so we need a system like UV to treat it.
OK, so what? Our last water quality report (2010-2012), and many before it, provides testing results that show chemicals, including nitrates, nitrites, trihalomethanes and halocacetic acids are far below the acceptable level--barely detectable.
The water quality report also states that:
There were "approximately 29 synthetic organic chemicals tested for and not detected."
There were "approximately 21 volatile organic chemicals tested for and not detected."
"The 2012 hardness value for untreated water was 75 PPM [parts per million = mg/L]" [barely out of the 0 to 60 PPM soft water category] I.E., our water is almost soft, not very mineralized by "calcium and magnesium, and by a variety of other metals." That's a good thing when you use UV treatment.
Levels for iron, manganese and flouride were all well within acceptable levels.
Would levels of chemicals rise in case of a catastrophic fire? Yes, periodically, in which case we could switch to the well water we are using during the Crypto crisis, which would be safer when UV treatment is installed.
They say:
"a UV system would
not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a
wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed."
True, but both sand and ceramic filtration units can be overwhelmed by the same, and a complicated, yet supposedly effective, activated carbon and membrane filtration system could cost anywhere from $18M to $25M or more, 6 to 8+ times as much as a $3M UV system. [Update 8/7/13: (AND) membrane filtration "requires prefiltrations for surface water—may include removal of turbidity, iron, and/or manganese. Hardness and dissolved solids may also affect performance." So membrane filtration prefiltration would also be affected by dirt and ash from a wildfire. ] [Update 8/16/13: the city of Pendleton uses a flocculation tank] According to a 2009 engineering report I posted yesterday (See also Table 2 of the report), membrane filtration would cost something like 25 times as much to maintain as would a UV system! We would also be able to use the paid for well system for catastrophic fire emergencies (as in a drought--thank former Public Works director Fleming I believe), and we are following the recommended guideline for fuels reduction in the watershed which helps to prevent catastrophic fire. Over time, as budget allows, we could also create settling tanks or basins to let any sediments settle out prior to treatment.
The Herald tells us:
"The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a
cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for
a UV system."
The Herald has been very consistent in reporting that a filtration plant will cost us $15 million. I would like to know where that figure comes from. The same 2009 engineering report I postedyesterday put the cost at 17.7 million dollars and that was four years ago. Those kinds of costs tend to go up--like everything else.
Is spending 18 to 25 million dollars for a Cadillac membrane filtration system, instead of a get-the-job-done $2 to 3.1M UV system going to be politically acceptable to the citizens of Baker City? Not if they are allowed to vote on it in an actual election--but now people are in crisis mode and we we'll not likely get a vote.
__
As a quibbling former microbiologist, there is another thing I'd like to mention. The Herald published an article today in which they reported statements from the senior state epidemiologist, Dr. Bill Keene.
The Herald says that Dr. Keene said “I’m pretty sure mountain goats have never been tested (for crypto).”I doubt that he said that, as the most easily found academic report (See Table 2), which I found on Google right after the Crypto outbreak had been reported (and sent to Councilor Coles last night), says that both mountain goats and humans are a minor host for one species of Cryptosporidium, that is, Cryptosporidium muris. Doesn't mean that the state will ultimately find that our furry friends are the "scapegoat" but it does seem to infer that they are a possibility, as I indicated days ago.
Oddly, the Herald chose to quote a passage from the same article that said "According to a 2004 article in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, crypto
species "originating from wildlife... are mostly not human pathogens" instead of pointing out Table 2 which clearly states that both humans and mountain goats are a minor host for Cryptosporidium muris.
Additionally Dr. Keene confirmed my statement in the August 2nd blog that "These anecdotal reports seem to indicate that the number of cases in
Baker City is far higher than the number of reported cases, quite
possibly in the hundreds" when Dr. Keene told the Herald that "the total cases 'could easily be in the hundreds.'”
A comment on the recent Cryptosporidium outbreak in Baker City and a few articles on the importance of Bradley Manning's conviction for "espionage."
[Edited 8/2/13]
__________
Crypto Outbreak in Baker City, Oregon
Yesterday morning around 8:30 AM I received a call from a friend that rumors were flying around where he worked that there was a Cryptosporidium outbreak in Baker City and that people had heard this from reliable sources. I immediately checked the City website and found nothing so I called the City's main telephone number and was told by a woman answering the phone that it was "just a rumor" but that they were checking it out and would have someone call me back when they knew more. Around 9:30-10:00 Am I received a call back from the City telling me that the County Health Department had gotten reports, apparently from doctors, that there were positive cases of disease caused by Cryptosporidium showing up in a few patients. I suggested to her that Oregon Division of Fish and Wildlife introduced Mountain Goats in the vicinity of Goodrich Reservoir in our Baker City watershed might be responsible because I had seen quite a bit of goat scat on a recent hike to Elkhorn Peak just above the reservoir. Given that the goats are known to water at the reservoir it certainly seems possible that their excrement may contain Crypto and that it also may be getting into the reservoir.
Goodrich Reservoir as seen from ridge near Elkhorn Peak
At 11:22 AM yesterday, I called the Baker County Health Department and inquired about the number of cases of cryptosporidiosis that had been reported. I was transferred to the message machine of Alicia Hills who was supposed to answer my questions. The Baker City Herald, whose printing deadline is around 9:30 AM, had an article on their website at 7:38 AM quoting Mike Kee, Baker City City Manager, who confirmed before that time that there was indeed an outbreak and that there were five confirmed cases. The article appeared in their afternoon edition of the newspaper. The information about the five cases would have been reported to the Baker County Health Department by local doctors or the hospital.
While I was in contact with Mike Kee and two other city officials to compliment them on their efforts to contain the outbreak and to suggest they collect goat scat samples at Goodrich, they gave me no information except to say that state epidemiologists would be in town today to get water and goat scat samples from Goodrich reservoir. I asked the City an additional question today, but they have not responded.
Questions:
Why did the City tell a citizen, me, that it was just a rumor when I called around 8:30 AM when the City had already reported to a local commercial paper that there was indeed an outbreak?
Why hasn't Alicia Hills at the County Health Department called me back well over a day later?
Why is the news first reported on a for-profit commercial media website instead of on the City or County website?
Why is information continuing to show up first on a commercial media website instead of on the City website supported by the citizens of Baker City?
There are several potential true answers, but one that is certainly true is that a business, the Baker City Herald, has a special relationship with the City aristocracy, including Baker City officials. The City takes care of the Baker City Herald, and the Herald takes care of them. You come later. That's why Planning Commissioner and ex-City Manager Tim Collins told those assembled at a recent City Planning Commission meeting that he had no sympathy for anyone who didn't read the paper. They are sort of like embedded reporters who can be counted on to not dig too deep for the whole story in return for continued special access--the access they need to produce revenue. Additionally, if the City gives them special information before the City posts it on their website, then the Herald gets an "exclusive" that will attract hits to their website and keep their revenue producing advertisers happy. All in all it's a great arrangement for the Herald and City officials.
To me, it looks like a load of this:
Goat Scat on Elkhorn Crest, 7/23/13
More on the Crypto outbreak later, but for some background, see:
In This Edition: - Review and Summary of Events - Council responses to my question , i.e.: When were you first informed that Crypto was in the water? - Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc.
Rocky Mountain Goat on Elkhorn Crest, 7/23/13
_________
Bradley Manning Conviction
Kevin Zeese of the Bradley Manning Support Network
details the threats to investigative journalism and general resistance
reporting because of the verdict in the Bradley Manning case:
August 01, 2013 "Information
Clearing House -
The verdict in the Bradley Manning
trial has already begun to create reverberations as people start
to understand its impact, beyond the impact on Manning. While
the greatest threat to Manning, Aiding the Enemy, was defeated,
another threat, The Espionage Act, was not. The
crimes Manning was convicted of mean he is risking 136
years in prison. For a whistleblower who exposed war crimes and
unethical behavior in U.S. foreign policy to be facing a lengthy
prison term, while the people exposed by government documents
are not even investigated, shows how confused the United States
has become.
These are some examples
among many, and the documents have
changed the world in many ways , including helping to spur
the Arab Spring, which expanded a global revolt against
neoliberal economic policies.
These examples show that
Bradley Manning was a whistleblower, one of the most important
whistleblowers in history. They also show the importance of
whistleblowers to a free press and informed public. Shouldn't
the American people and the people in countries affected by
U.S. policy know these facts?
Manning's convictions for
espionage are the first time a whistleblower has been convicted
under the Espionage Act. This 1917 law passed during the
propaganda effort to support World War I was designed to
criminalize spying against the United States. For a
whistleblower to be turned into a spy is a great risk to the
First Amendment.
Julian Assange described the verdict as “calling
journalism 'espionage'”
Reporters Without Borders sees the verdict as a threat to
investigative journalists and their sources. The
Center for Constitutional Rights writes in reaction to the
verdict: “What is the future of journalism in this country?
What is the future of the First Amendment?”
This question is even more
frightening when the prosecutor's argument on behalf of the
government is understood. The prosecutor's position was that
merely publishing information that is critical of the United
States would violate the law because it would provide enemies of
the United States with a tool to build their movement. If that
position is ever accepted by the courts, there will be no First
Amendment remaining.
And, during the trial the
treatment of the media by the military showed their utter
disregard for press freedom. In many respects it seemed to be
journalism itself that was facing court martial . Routine
coverage was severely restricted by limiting access to court
documents and records, frequent lack of any internet connection,
and inadequate physical accommodation for reporters. During the
closing argument we saw
outright intimidation with intense security , including
armed camouflaged troops walking up and down the aisle
peering over journalists' shoulders. Reportedly this security
was
ordered by Judge Denise Lind .
It's a sad irony that the
significance of this trial for the future of press freedom has
largely been lost on the mainstream press, who've been missing
in action in this trial - as in many other historic developments
over the past decade and more.
The key legal basis for
turning whistleblowers that expose crime, fraud and abuse; as
well as journalists reporting on such information into traitors
treated as spies under the Espionage Act, is the removal of a
“bad faith” requirement. In
United States v Truong , the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals commented on the notion of bad faith being a requirement
for conviction writing that an “honest mistake” was not a
violation. However, in the Manning case as well as the
prosecution of former CIA agent John Kiriakou, the trial courts
found no evidence of bad faith was needed. Academics,
journalists, human rights lawyers and others concerned with the
First Amendment need to build the case that bad faith is an
essential requirement of prosecution under the Espionage Act in
order to protect the First Amendment. The Manning appeals may
become the vehicle for making this case and changing the law.
Judge Denise Lind now
begins the sentencing phase of the Manning court martial. This
is expected to last two to four weeks. Actual sentencing is
expected at the end of August or beginning of September. Even
the sentencing phase of this trial is controversial as the
government will call
13 witnesses who will testify in executive session and
rely on
three “damage assessments” that will also not be publicly
available (even Manning will not be able to see one, only his
lawyer). During the sentencing phase, issues that were excluded
in the guilt phase will be relevant, e.g. Manning's intent, the
impact of the release of the documents.
People should take heart
from history. Throughout U.S history, bad decisions have led to
social movements that created transformative change. In 1857
the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that slaves
were property without any human rights. The Emancipation
Proclamation freeing the slaves occurred six years later in
1863. Paxton's Case, in the pre-revolutionary period, upheld
the right of the British to search homes, businesses and the
persons of American colonists based on meaningless general
writs. At the end of that trial, a young court reporter, John
Adams, wrote “Then and there the child Liberty was born.”
And, Bradley Manning
should take heart from the experience of Daniel Ellsberg.
Unlike Manning, Ellsberg released top secret documents,
Mannings were low level secrets that hundreds of thousands had
access to. Ellsberg was also called a traitor and threatened
with over 100 years in prison; if not for Nixon administration
prosecutorial abuses he may have been convicted. But today,
most people recognize Ellsberg is a hero for exposing the
fraudulent foundation and purposes of the Vietnam War. Manning
is considered a hero by many today and no doubt will be
considered a hero by most Americans in the future.
Let the legacy of
Manning's courage be a rallying cry for all of us. It as an
opportunity to push back on the U.S. security state and demand
that the First Amendment protecting ourrights to Freedom of
Speech, Assembly and to a Free Press, be re-invigorated. It is
an opportunity to build a movement against U.S. empire and
militarism and a complete re-thinking of U.S. foreign policy.
These demands are ones for all Americans to insist upon; and
they are for each of us to work for. Success in restoring these
Constitutional rights and ending U.S. military interventionism
would be a great legacy for the courage of Bradley Manning.
August 01,
2013 "Information
Clearing House -
The verdict for Manning was predetermined, and the show trial in
a kangaroo court – a post-modern American remix of China in the
1960s during the Cultural Revolution – just signed, sealed and
delivered it.
The
President of the United States (POTUS) had already said he
was guilty. US corporate media had been screaming for three
years he was guilty. Now the US government – who
criminalized Manning with “evil intent” - has shown there
will be hell to pay for anyone who dares to reveal American
war crimes, which are, by definition, unpunishable.
As if
there was a need of additional evidence of the “bright” future
awaiting Edward Snowden – right on top of US Attorney General
Eric Holder’s pathetic letter promising Snowden would not be
tortured if extradited to the US.
All this
as the Angel of History once more threw a bolt of lightning
irony; Bradley Manning was pronounced guilty on no less than 19
counts by a Pentagon judge just next door to Spy Central, the
NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. . . . . See link above for rest of article.
PolitiFact rated as “mostly false” Paul’s argument that the new explicit standards in Levin/McCain defining the scope of the War on Terror are so vague and broad that they allow virtually anyone to be targeted by the President with force or detention; to support his claim, Paul cited the fact that, under this new language, the President is explicitly authorized to use force not only against members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the original 2001 AUMF provided), but also against anyone who “substantially supports” those groups or “associated forces.” As Paul put it in his supposedly false statement: “It’s (now) anybody associated with (those) organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated — so that makes all Americans vulnerable.”
Paul is far from the only person making this argument. The ACLU . . . . (see link for rest)
Written by Baker City Herald Editorial Board December 09, 2011 09:21 am
Imagine that a U.S. citizen is arrested as a suspected terrorist, on U.S. soil, and then placed in military custody for as long as officials deem necessary.
Oh, and this citizen doesn’t get a trial, so the mere suspicion of complicity in promoting terrorism is sufficient grounds for an open-ended detention.
. . . .
When it comes to our constitutional rights and the government’s protection of them, we consider the word “optional” inappropriate.
U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets. . . . .
"My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information."
You may have heard that a Montana blogger must pay a $2.5 million libel judgment because a federal judge ruled she was not a journalist, and was thus not entitled to protect her anonymous sources.
In fact, that's not quite what happened. The case actually had little to do with whether bloggers have the same right to protect their sources as traditional journalists. But U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez's opinion nevertheless threatens to weaken long-standing protections against libel suits, and to widen the already-gaping divide between the media and the rest of society. . . . .
But if Judge Hernandez's ruling on the shield law is nothing to be all that alarmed about, the same cannot be said for what he wrote elsewhere in his opinion. In a passage that I find astonishing, Hernandez found that Cox could not be considered a "media defendant," and that therefore Obsidian and Padrick would not have to prove she acted negligently. . . . .(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kennedy/the-real-danger-in-that-b_b_1136844.html)
__
The Meteoric Rise of Marco Hernandez Nine years from law degree to judge: Affirmative action and the diversity decades had absolutely nothing to do with it!
Marco Antonio Hernandez (born 1957) is an American attorney and judge in the state of Oregon. A native of Arizona, he served as a Circuit Court judge in Washington County from 1995 until 2011, including as presiding judge for three years. . . . .
Hernandez then moved on to a four-year school and received a B.A. degree from Western Oregon State College (now known as Western Oregon University) in 1983.[5][4] He then attended the University of Washington School of Law and earned his J.D. in 1986.[5] . . . .
After law school he returned to Oregon where he spent three years working for Legal Aid Services of Oregon where he often represented farm workers.[2][6] Hernandez himself had picked crops in the field in his youth.[2] Following his time with legal aid, Hernandez the[n] joined the Washington County District Attorney's office as a deputy prosecutor in 1989.[7]
Shortly before leaving office in January 1995, Governor Barbara Roberts appointed Hernandez to be a Circuit Court judge in Washington County, Oregon.
In January 2008, Hernandez was one of three candidates recommended by a six-member judicial selection committee to replace Garr King on the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.[11] President George W. Bush selected Hernandez to fill the vacancy on the District Court of Oregon and submitted his nomination on July 23, 2008.[2] Senators Gordon H. Smith and Ron Wyden supported the nomination, but it was made with less than six months remaining in the Bush Presidency.[2][12] The nomination was not acted upon by the 110th Congress and was thus returned.[13]
Republican Gordon Smith was defeated for re-election in 2008, and newly-elected President Barack Obama restarted the judicial selection process for the District of Oregon.[3] Democrat Ron Wyden recommended Hernandez in addition to five other candidates selected by a thirteen-member judicial selection committee.[12] On July 14, 2010, Obama renominated Hernandez to replace Garr King.[14] He is one of few people to be nominated to the federal bench by presidents from two different political parties.[7] The Senate failed to act on Obama's nomination, and President Obama nominated Hernandez again in January 2011.[4] On February 7, 2011, the Senate unanimously confirmed Hernandez as the newest judge for the District of Oregon,[4] and he received his commission on February 9.[10]
When, as an adult, I was able to explore the rural west, I was struck by its conservatism, as represented by the large majorities of registered Republicans and voting patterns in western rural counties. Millard County, Utah, where I once owned property and spent several months of each year, was a real shock, given that votes for Republican Presidential candidates hovered around 90%. When I moved to Grant, and then Baker County here in Oregon, similar feelings of minority political status surfaced, even though the political distribution was less lopsided and extreme than was the case in rural Utah. Only in these rural western counties had I experienced small town businesses putting pressure on local papers to tow a particular political line, and, at least in one case where the local businesses publicly spoke about removing their advertising, and thus the life-supporting revenue needed by the paper, if editorials or op-ed appeared with which they disagreed.
In the case of the small town commercial media, dependent on subscribers, and most importantly, on advertising revenue, one may reasonably suspect that when the opinions rendered by the local paper most often reflect the political makeup of the community, that it is the the local politics, especially those of the business interests that provide advertising revenue, that drives the opinions and articles rendered. On the other hand, one might also reasonably assume that people who pass the hiring filter at the local paper may reflect the political opinions of the publisher or owners who reflect the major political forces in the community. (After all, it is unlikely that a news outlet in business to make money is going to hire a howling progressive to run a paper in a conservative community.) Either way, it works out well for the commercial interest of the media outlet, with the only problem being that media likes to present themselves as the great objective voice that readers and viewers can trust, fair and balanced, as they say.
If anyone is aware of the local political demography here in Baker County, besides the County Clerk and political party heads, it is Jason Jacoby, editor of the Baker City Herald. He wrote a delightfully detailed article a while back (The urban-rural divide in Baker County; and eating crow on Dudley) that carefully described those demographics. His investigation revealed that:
- 46 percent of of all Baker County voters are registered Republicans. - 28 percent of all Baker County voters are registered Democrats - the rest, about 26 percent, are not affiliated with either party - Within Baker City, "41.9 percent are registered Republicans, and 30.5 percent Democrats."
More telling perhaps, is, as Jayson says:
"Voter registration isn’t a foolproof way to gauge the political preferences of a populace, of course.
In the 2008 presidential election, for instance, Baker County voters went for Republican John McCain in a relatively big way — 64 percent."
So it is a bit complicated, but none-the-less, quite "conservative." Nothing, however, like rural Utah.
My take on all of this is that there isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats in Baker County. Both parties here are really rather conservative, as they are nationwide. That's why some call them the two wings of the business party (or is that the war party?)
(I must admit, that I am particularly alone as a member of the Progressive Party aligned with the likes of Ralph Nader--do they still exist? Haven't heard much from them lately.)
Trust of media, of course, as opposed to trust of partisan bloggers like myself, depends on objective journalists, who try to stick to the facts, and check on whether those "facts" are actually facts. Otherwise, we would be left with demagogues, who report any notion, or recent email, as fact, and twist their falsehoods as they want, in order to please themselves and the political persuasion of their audience. Worse than self-admitted partisan bloggers perhaps.
Recall that Dan Rather, long-time anchor of CBS News was fired for reporting "facts" that may have actually been true:
"The documents [presented by 60 minutes in early 2009] suggested that Mr. Bush disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam, and that friends of the Bush family tried to "sugar coat" his Guard service.
After a stubborn 12-day defense of the story, CBS News conceded that it could not confirm the authenticity of the documents and asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi to conduct an independent investigation into the matter.
Their findings were contained in a 224-page report made public on Monday. While the panel said it was not prepared to brand the Killian documents as an outright forgery, it raised serious questions about their authenticity and the way CBS News handled them."
Was Dan Rather fired for reporting the "facts" or for reporting questionable facts? Apparently there is at least a selective standard applied to the "facts" that commercial media journalists report, as opposed to those reported by "crazy" bloggers ("crazy blogger"--Dave Miller-"Think Out Loud"/OPB/NPR).
In a county as conservative and ours, I have no doubt that it was well received by most.
About the Occupy Wall Street protests, Jayson, in his admirably sarcastic and flowery prose, says:
"Well, I kind of understand. The economy stinks.
And Wall Street is the symbolic, and malodorous, heart of the putrefying American financial system."
and that:
"(. . . the presence of sign-waving hordes is as predictable as autumn rain puddles.)
What’s not clear to me, though, is which actions we’re supposed to take against the omnipotent cabal that controls America — the so-called 1-percenters — that will confer any tangible benefit on everyone else.
And by “we” I mean the voters.
Forgive my childlike innocence, but I still believe the best way to fix any mess in the halls of power is with the ballot, generally speaking a more potent slip of paper than the most cleverly phrased protest sign."
"Childlike innocence" indeed, and from such a bright guy! This full half page (The Herald will give you 350 word to express your opinion.) of mocking misrepresentations, with its barely veiled contempt for Americans practicing their rights to protest policies that have left them in dire straits, was printed on the Friday (10/14/11) before last weekend's unprecedented worldwide protests against the prevailing global financial system involving "1,500 cities, including 100 cities in the United States—all in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement that launched one month ago in New York City." See Democracy Now!
I understand why, after the outrageous Obama fraud, and many fruitless protests over the years, one might question whether these protests will go anywhere, but given their depth and breadth across this nation and the world, I wouldn't characterize them to be exactly "as predictable as autumn rain puddles."
What actions are we, Jayson says, "supposed to take?"
Hint--Something more than badgering cynicism and demagoguery.
Something more than inferring that the most important social movement in recent American history is insignificant.
Something more than saying that one is worried about their 401(k), which Wall Street no doubt trashed a few years ago anyway, along with the 401(k) s of millions of other Americans.
"(CBS) The effects of the current economic crisis have touched everyone. Even if you still have a good job and a paid up mortgage, chances are your monthly 401(k) statement will remind you that you've lost a good chunk of your savings.
Trillions of dollars have evaporated from those accounts that have become the prime source of retirement funds for a majority of American workers, affecting their psyche and their future. If you are still young enough, there's time to rebuild and recover, but if you are in your 50s, 60s or beyond the consequences can be dire, and its drawing attention to the shortcomings of a retirement system that has jeopardized the financial security of tens of millions of people."
Something more than the cynical or naive true believer notion that "'we' ,,, "the voters" can fix the problem with a vote" in a system controlled by big money and the political elite.
Something more than blind faith in a system that in recent decades has failed the majority of Americans time and time again--from the union busting, consequent wage depression, and deregulation of the Reagan administration, to the long-term flooding of the labor market via mass immigration policies, to the savings and loan fiasco, to the high-tech bubble, and on to the really monstrous and predictable collapse of the housing bubble. Boom and bust, over and over. It is a system that burns up decent hard-working Americans in one crisis and phony war after another, and then largely ignores them. Looks like the people are getting a little tired of it and are willing to start doing something about it, which of course scares the bejesus out of the comfortable, who came through these upheavals unscathed for the most part.
"If you lived with a [loved one] who was as unstable as Capitalism, you would long ago have moved out, or demanded that [the] other person get some professional help! But you live in an economic system that is unspeakably unstable, and you accept it."
The Herald Op-Ed speaks about the 1 percent, but doesn't tell us much about them. The one percent are but a symbol, used by #Occupy Wall Street, to represent the social and economic inequality in this country. The inequality in wealth and opportunity between the top one percent and those in the middle and below is so enormous that, once understood, crystallizes in general discontent, now represented by a movement that is about much more than the one percent.
"The richest 1 percent in the 1970s only took in about "8-9 percent of American total annual income," whereas today they take in 23.5 percent.(9) Furthermore, as University of California-Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez states in his study of inequality, 10 percent of Americans as of 2007 have taken in 49.7 percent of all wages, "higher than any other year since 1917."(10)"
No big deal to the presently comfortable I guess.
The Herald piece goes on to say that:
"Even if we seize a significant portion of the 1 percent’s allegedly ill-gotten gains, I don’t see how, if we spread this considerable sum among the 99 percent in anything resembling an equal formula, that anybody’s going to end up with much more than a couple payments on the mortgage."
Perhaps, but the claim is really just a straw man distraction from the real motivations and intent of the #Occupy Wall Street movement, which is not simply about taking the money of the 1 percent and sending checks to the 99%.
Right now I don't have those figures, and the article doesn't provide a citation for them either, just some speculation. What is missing from the Op-Ed's analysis, is any understanding that Occupy Wall Street's 1% is simply symbolic of our country's gross inequality in income distribution, and all that it entails. Inferring that Occupy Wall Street is busy devising a scheme to seize and divvy up the 1 percent’s booty so as to send out checks to the 99% is a gross mischaracterization and distraction from what they are really about, which in part is to create a more participatory and meaningful democracy where greed, fraud, and inequality are minimized, starting with Wall Street.
For the sake of argument though, here is a figure from Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, concerning the effects on the typical family of the upward income distribution to the top 5%:
Robert Samuelson warns that our children may not do better than us. His warning is based on rising health care costs, aging of the population and the resulting rise in Social Security and Medicare expenses, and the risk of an end to productivity growth. Remarkably the upward redistribution of income doesn't feature in his story.
This is striking since upward redistribution is such a huge part of the picture. His example of workers not gaining is taken from a Health Affairs article that reported that 95 percent of compensation growth from 1999 to 2009 for a median four person family was eaten up by inflation and health care costs. However, if there had not been an upward redistribution of income over this period, compensation for a typical family would be about 10 percent higher (@$10,000 in today's dollars).
What about $10,000 per family, or at least a 10% increase in family income that was instead accrued by the top 5%? Is that enough money to pay the mortgage on foreclosed property owners for enough months to please the nervously comfortable?
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.
One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.
In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today.
The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible.
Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes. . . . .
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."
Next comes the suggestion that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we redistributed wealth:
"Besides which, if we take all that money then who’s going to pay the taxes that keep Medicare and Medicaid and all those social programs afloat?"
This question implies that the rich are paying so much money in taxes that we are fortunate that things are arranged the way they are.
Thing is, as Warren Buffet recently explained (see "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich", the very rich folks like himself are paying a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than do the middle class workers he employs. Buffett explains:
"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage [in taxes] may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher [Higher still, like around 90% for top brackets, if you go back to the 1940's--Chris], and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. . . . . I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."
"In a recent newspaper interview, I mentioned my absurdly low tax rate to illustrate the extent to which the tax system is biased in favor of the wealthy (my income varies widely from year to year, but is typically north of half a million dollars). My point was that with our country facing frightening budget deficits amid an ever-widening income gap between the rich and everybody else, I consider it both unwise and unfair that a former investment banker like myself pays less in taxes than working Americans with far lower incomes.
Among the dozens of emails I received in response were many from people who assumed that rich people avoid taxes through complicated strategies devised by an army of expensive advisors (many correspondents asked for the name of my accountant). But under our current tax system, the rich don't need high-priced lawyers who exploit obscure loopholes; I wasn't even trying to minimize my taxes (and, in fact, could have paid zero tax if I was). Warren Buffett has observed that if there's class warfare in this country, the rich are winning. I offer my 2009 tax return, then, as a flare to illuminate the battlefield.
Americans are understandably angry over the government's multi-billion-dollar bailouts of reckless bankers. But low tax rates on investment income have put far more money into Wall Street's pockets than the TARP bill did. Even President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the richest Americans would leave a top marginal rate on capital gains and qualified dividends of just 20% -- half the proposed rate on labor income.
This difference creates a loophole you can drive a Rolls Royce through. . . . ."
My take is that if the wealth were redistributed downward, more revenue would be raised, because the lower brackets seem to always pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If, in addition, tax rates on the very rich were raised back towards what they used to be, assuming reasonable fiscal responsibility in Congress, our budget problems would be over.
But who cares about concentration of wealth in America, because, after all, Jayson says:
". . . such abominations [should not be used] as a pretext for, in essence, busting up an entire economic system. For all its faults, that system has contributed to a society in which even those in the lower tier of the 99 percent, were they to consider the matter soberly and honestly, must admit they’ve made out pretty well over the decades.
(Sure there are exceptions. But how many bloated-belly toddlers have you seen recently? And Africa doesn’t count.) [Apparently, belly size is supposed to be the new standard for health and a satisfying and productive life. -Chris]
Yet dismantling the Wall Street oligarchy seems to be a theme among this budding protest movement.
This might sound satisfying when you’re striding down the street, aglow with populist solidarity, your critical thinking skills subsumed by the crude power of the crowd."
Whoa--wait a minute--"busting up an entire economic system?" "dismantling the Wall Street oligarchy?"
My take is that people participating in the protests want to see Wall Street and the financial system regulated in an effective manner (yes, they used to be) which prevents the sort of greed, fraud, bubble creation, and Too-Big-to-Fail behavior that has brought financial disaster, home foreclosures, and personal insecurity to many millions of Americans.
And given the thought and facts that went into the Op-Ed, don't get me started on "critical thinking skills."
Jayson Jacoby, the editor of the Herald then states:
"I haven’t filched any of my meager dollars from some oppressed minority of laborers, either. I just show up for work when I’m supposed to.
There are tens of millions of Americans who do the same (although not as many as a few years ago). We’re all part of that mistreated middle class the protesters purport to represent, and as I said, many of us are equally disgusted by the more egregious abuses of crony capitalism."
Great Jayson, so glad you have a job you can show up to, with the family and all, but many millions of Americans who want one, with families and all, don't have one. But then maybe they can't produce mindless Op-Eds that cater to the well off and conservative patrons.
"Equally disgusted?" I'm thinking maybe they are not equally disgusted, but in fact much more disgusted, given that they don't have a paycheck and the security you now have. They might be disgusted because the homes they live in, or used used to live in, and had invested in, are now underwater or foreclosed upon. Maybe many of them, our younger generation, are wondering how they are ever going to pay off their gargantuan student loans in a system that has provided no jobs for them. They might even be wondering why their government doesn't provide free or subsidized higher education, as some other successful countries do. Maybe they don't have the national heath insurance for all that other western industrial nations provide. Perhaps an unforeseen health issue has caused them to go bankrupt. Perhaps it was not because they didn't want to "show up for work," but because the system controlled by the greed and criminal behavior of Wall street speculators, bought off politicians, and corporations, not to mention simple discrimination, caused the current economic disruption they are victims of.
The Op-Ed goes on to toss out yet another straw man:
"But I’d also wager that most of us would appreciate it if the marchers avoid trampling our 401(k)s while they’re clambering up to the penthouse to get their hands on those conniving 1-percenters."
Interesting imagery considering that the protests have thus far been pretty peaceful, aside from some bad behavior by the gendarmes.
"But speaking as a member of the people, I don’t want to spend my golden years eating ramen three times a day (or scraps of poster board) because one of the consequences of my power grab is that the market gobbled my retirement and excreted a few pellets of Social Security.
One suspects that some true believers still don't understand the game.
While I understand people's nervousness, given the mainstream media's constant propaganda about the coming end of Social Security, the reference to the collapse of Social Security is not supported by the facts and only serves as a self fulfilling prophesy. As more people, young people in particular, are led to believe that Social Security won't be there for them, these claims provide political support for it's dismantling. Then all people will have is their winnings or losses gambled on 401(k)s, if they are wealthy enough to have one.
"it would take just 5 percent of the projected wage growth over the next 30 years to make the Social Security trust fund fully solvent for the rest of the century."
So there are some problems with the Op-Ed from my perspective. But then we get to the part that I found even more troublesome--the most flimsy "straw man" allegation of them all perhaps:
"But after perusing some of the material allegedly associated with their campaign, including a 13-point manifesto, I see little reason to trust my financial future to their judgment."
And
"I hate to be cynical but it may well be that the protesters aren’t motivated mainly, or even largely, by a beneficent concern for the well-being of ordinary, politically obtuse Americans like me.
Consider, for instance, demand number three on that manifesto I mentioned: 'A guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.'
I have no idea if most, or even many, of the people participating in the various protests consider this a reasonable demand. But I hope not."
These concerns are apparently in reference to a bogus manifesto that was circulating on the internet as early as October 9, 2011. But it was false.
The disclaimer is prominent at the top of the list:
Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
"We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow."
"No list of demands" We are speaking to each other, and listening. This occupation is first about participation." [The No list of demands statement was repeated in issue #2. ]
and that:
"Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include, but are not limited to: - Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy; - Exercising personal and collective responsibility; - Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions; - Empowering one another against all forms of oppression; - Redefining how labor is valued; - The sanctity of individual privacy; - The belief that education is human right; and - Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source."
They also said:
"Even now, three weeks later, the elites and their mouthpieces in the press continue to puzzle over what we want. Where is the list of demands? Why don’t they present us with specific goals? Why can’t they articulate what they need?
The goal to us is very, very clear. It can be articulated in one word — REBELLION. We have not come to work within the system. We are not pleading with the Congress for electoral reform. We know electoral politics is a farce. We have found another way to be heard and exercise power. We have no faith in the political system or the two major political parties. And we know the corporate press will not amplify our voices which is why we have a press of our own. We know the economy serves the oligarchs. We know that to survive this protest we will have to build non-hierarchical communal systems that care for everyone.
These are goals the power elite cannot comprehend. They cannot envision a day when they will not be in charge of our lives. The elites believe, and seek to make us believe, that globalization and unfettered capitalism are natural law, some kind of permanent and eternal dynamic that can never be altered. What the elites fail to realize is that rebellion will not stop until the corporate state is extinguished. It will not stop until the corporate abuse of the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick, children, those being slaughtered in our imperial wars and tortured in our black sites, stops. It will not stop until foreclosures and bank repossessions stop. It will not stop until students no longer have to go into massive debt to be educated, and families no longer have to plunge into bankruptcy to pay medical bills. It will not stop until the corporate destruction of the ecosystem stops, and our relationships with each other and the planet are radically reconfigured.
And that is why the elites, and the rotted and degenerate system of corporate power they sustain, are in serious trouble. . . . ."
A difficult task, for sure.
What troubles me, more than Jayson printing things he admits may not be true, even as he attacks them (straw men), is that somehow the Occupy Wall Street protestors "aren’t motivated mainly, or even largely, by a beneficent concern for the well-being of ordinary, politically obtuse Americans like me." Why would someone admit they lack political intelligence and sensitivity, and then suspect that the protesters might not be concerned about them? Could it be that protesters may not be concerned and beneficent towards people that are clearly hostile to them? Beats me. I do hope the statement is not yet another version of the "I'm doing OK, so what's wrong with you?--get a job!" mantra that seems so prevalent in conservative circles these days. Seems to me that the Occupy Wall Street folks are trying to create a more fair and democratic system (spare me the rhetoric about a "republic" unless you also want to talk about the "general welfare" mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution!) that benefits everyone, even newspaper editors that disparage them.
That's what it is about folks, from their own journal. It is not about the Straw Men erected by the media so as to discredit and trivialize a promising movement that the media and the comfortable see as threatening. It is in fact a serious movement with the best of intentions and values, backed by action and sacrifice, about real hope and social change--one that could bring something valuable to the whole of society, as well as to the oligarchs and their apologists. _____
We got preachers dealing in politics and diamond mines and their speech is growing increasingly unkind They say they are Christ's disciples but they don't look like Jesus to me and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We got politicians running races on corporate cash Now don't tell me they don't turn around and kiss them peoples' ass You may call me old-fashioned but that don't fit my picture of a true democracy and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We got CEO's making two hundred times the workers' pay but they'll fight like hell against raising the minimum wage and If you don't like it, mister, they'll ship your job to some third-world country 'cross the sea and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the free where the poor have now become the enemy Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy Living in the wasteland of the free
We got little kids with guns fighting inner city wars So what do we do, we put these little kids behind prison doors and we call ourselves the advanced civilization that sounds like crap to me and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We got high-school kids running 'round in Calvin Klein and Guess who cannot pass a sixth-grade reading test but if you ask them, they can tell you the name of every crotch on MTV and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We kill for oil, then we throw a party when we win Some guy refuses to fight, and we call that the sin but he's standing up for what he believes in and that seems pretty damned American to me and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the free where the poor have now become the enemy Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy Living in the wasteland of the free
While we sit gloating in our greatness justice is sinking to the bottom of the sea Living in the wasteland of the free Living in the wasteland of the free Living in the wasteland of the free __
- News & Views on Wolves in NE Oregon (4 Pups Out and About)
---- ODFW: Four pups for Imnaha wolf pack ---- Oregonian Editorial: Wolves in Oregon: Don't be so quick on the trigger (Comments) ---- Herald Editorial: Wolves and trust (Comments) ---- Oregon Natural Desert Association: Wolves in Oregon – More Bark Than Bite?
- What's With Obama's Top Political & Economic Advisor"s? (Simon Johnson at Baseline Scenario)
---- David Axelrod’s Talking Points ---- Wall Street Prostitute & Financial/Intellectual Scammer, Tim Geithner Fights Regualtory Reform From Within
- Social Security Threats
[In process-editing] __________
News & Views on Wolves in NE Oregon _____
Four pups for Imnaha wolf pack
Four pups from the Imnaha wolf pack. (ODFW Photo)
For immediate release July 14, 2010
Four pups for Imnaha wolf pack
The Imnaha wolf pack has at least four new pups this year, images captured on a motion-triggered trail camera show.
An image taken July 3 (attached) marks the first visual observation of new pups this year. The pack may have more pups than these four.
Wolf pups are born in mid-April and litters average four to six pups. Pups generally become active outside their pack’s den in June.
Six adult wolves were also seen in the images captured by the trail camera, including the alpha female. Past evidence, including a video taken November 2009, indicate at least 10 wolves made up the Imnaha pack before the pups were born this year. The alpha male, whose GPS collar has not been detected since May 31, was not seen in the images.
Michelle Dennehy Wildlife Programs Communications Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, OR 97303 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ tel. 503 947 6022 cell 503 931 2748 email: Michelle.N.Dennehy@state.or.us
Adult wolf from the Imnaha pack (ODFW Photo)
Four adults from Imnaha wolf pack (ODFW Photo)
The two in the foreground of the photo are similar to the two I saw near Sheep Creek on the 39 rd, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, back in August (9 I think) of '07. It all happened so quickly that I couldn't get a photo. If I'd had my wits about me I would have stopped and looked to take photographs of the tracks. Also photographed what appear to be wolf tracks (4 inches or so) on the East Eagle Creek bridge at the wilderness boundary maybe the following spring (That one may not be with us any more.). - Chris _____
Published: Sunday, July 11, 2010, 10:36 AM Updated: Sunday, July 11, 2010, 5:30 PM The Oregonian Editorial Board
Throughout Western history, it has always been easier to shoot wolves than to live with them. Now, just as the first small packs of gray wolves are getting a toehold in Oregon, it is vital that this state not go back to the old way, the easy way, every time there is a conflict with wolves.
There's just such a conflict now. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife responded to several documented cases of wolf depredation on Wallowa County livestock by ordering the killing of two suspected wolves in early June. Conservation groups filed a federal suit in Portland challenging the kill permits, and a judge blocked the shooting of the wolves at least until July 31.
We understand that Oregon cattle and sheep ranchers operate on terribly thin margins and face a long list of threats to their stock, including harsh weather, disease, coyotes, mountain lions and domestic dogs. It's too much to expect them to welcome another predator. Furthermore, it isn't fair that a small number of ranchers must shoulder virtually all of the costs, all of the burden, of returning wolves to Oregon's wild country.
We are not against killing wolves that develop a taste for cattle, sheep and other livestock. Two such wolves, identified by their radio collars, were tracked down and killed not long ago, reducing Oregon's wolf population from 16 to 14. Those killings were justified.
Moreover, we strongly believe that Oregon ought to have a tax-supported compensation fund so that all the Oregonians -- more than 70 percent by one poll -- who support the recovery of wolves in this state do their own small part to pay for the costs of bringing them back.
But in the current case, Oregon seems too quick on the trigger and too willing to sidestep the sensible rules in its own recovery plan for gray wolves. Those rules generally require wildlife officials to document several wolf incidents on one or more adjacent ranches and clearly identify the targeted animals before issuing kill permits. That wasn't done in this case; about all that's known of the suspected wolves is that both are gray in color and neither one is wearing a radio collar. There are, of course, a lot of wolves that meet that description.
While Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have spent years grappling with wolf issues, this is still relatively new territory for Oregon. Our state had the advantage of watching wolves re-establish themselves and saw how they have affected elk and deer herds and domestic livestock. Ranchers have learned in most cases to live with wolves and take common-sense precautions, such as burying animals that die of disease and other causes to avoid inadvertently baiting wolves onto their lands. Problem wolves have been killed by wildlife authorities. Ranchers elsewhere generally have been compensated for losses.
After the first gray wolves swam the Snake River into Oregon beginning in 1999, a panel of ranchers, wildlife experts, hunters, Native Americans and others wrote a plan for how Oregon would respond to the arrival of wolves. It's not a perfect plan -- as we noted, it lacks a compensation fund for ranchers -- but it's a reasonably good one. And wherever and whenever one of Oregon's precious few wolves creates a problem, Oregon wildlife officials should adhere to that plan, rather than take the old way, the easy way, out.
Click on title link above to find comments, including my own, but here is my recent version:
I guess my job is to make the mainstream environmental movement and Editorial Board look reasonable. ;-)
I agree on some points and disagree on others. I agree that shooting more wolves should have been blocked, and that they should not change the plan in a way that expands the area from that which documents "several wolf incidents on one or more adjacent ranches" and requires clear identification of "the targeted animals before issuing kill permits."
I find some of the Editorial Board's conclusions more problematic. They say that "Those killings were justified" in reference to the Baker County wolves. Maybe so. But they should have also indicated that in that case, the ranch or ranches had also buried a carcass or carcasses too close to home ranch operations, and that besides poorly designed and pitifully inadequate protective fencing at the sheep operation in question, the state had removed usually effective defensive measures many weeks prior to the final attacks that initiated the kill order. Given the poor defensive measures (pathetic in some instances, and lack of actual onsite herding, care taking, or proper carcass burial practice in the more recent Wallowa County instances), it was preordained that serious attacks would occur. The wolves were "baited," inadvertently, or otherwise. It is, after all, in the rancher's interest to create hysteria about another predator that threatens their economic interest.
As pointed out by the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, and the other groups, "In May and early June, six cattle deaths were confirmed as wolf depredations. For comparison, in 2005 — the year the wolf plan was created — domestic dogs killed 700 sheep and cows in Oregon, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. No new wolf depredations on livestock have occurred since June 4."
The "tax-supported compensation fund" is just another subsidy to already highly subsidized ranchers (subsidies paid for by federal and state tax dollars that should be going to a higher public benefit, i.e., that which benefits more, hopefully the majority, of citizens.) Ranchers and others ventured into wolf country and shot all the wolves [see:Wolves Again. . . .] so they could utilize (and ultimately seriously damage) public ecosystems for private profit with their private enterprise grazing and browsing. The people have changed the priorities towards the health of their public ecosystems and the retrieval and restoration of native species. Just as I have to non-lethally protect my chickens, pets and plants from native and non-native predators (foxes, coyotes, domestic dogs, etc) and herbivores (deer) here in Baker City, so should ranchers in a restored wolf country be required to do the same.
The plan, at a minimum, needs to maintain current protections, while requiring increased non-lethal protective measures by ranchers. There shouldn't be a double standard as to the burden for protection of one's property and animals from wild, and not so wild, life; i.e., one standard for ranchers, and one for the rest of us.
Written by Baker City Herald Editorial Board July 09, 2010 10:56 am
Despite evidence to the contrary, in the form of dead sheep in Baker County last year and dead cattle this year in Wallowa County, we believe wolves and livestock can both thrive in Northeastern Oregon.
But achieving that goal will require compromise.
And not between wolves and their domestic prey.
We’re talking about the relationship between the state and federal agencies responsible for managing wolves, and the coalition of groups that celebrate the return of wolves to Oregon after an absence of more than half a century.
What happened last year in Baker County, when a pair of wolves killed more than two dozen livestock in Keating Valley, proves that that relationship can work.
Although we’ll concede that that situation was more straightforward than what’s taken place this year in Wallowa County.
In Baker County there was ample evidence, including photographs, linking the two wolves to the livestock kills.
When those wolves, after being gone for most of the summer, returned to a ranch in Keating Valley and resumed their attacks on livestock, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) authorized officials from the federal Wildlife Services to kill the two wolves.
Federal workers did so in early September.
None of the pro-wolf groups filed a lawsuit to block the federal hunters.
This year in Wallowa County, wolves killed at least six cattle (some ranchers contend the tally is higher) in May and early June.
There hasn’t been a confirmed wolf attack on livestock there since June 4.
ODFW issued permits to Wildlife Services to kill two wolves. The permits are effective through Aug. 31.
Although no wolves have been killed, a quartet of conservation groups on July 1 sued Wildlife Services, accusing the agency of not fully studying the effects of killing two wolves.
Wildlife Services responded the next day by voluntarily agreeing to not kill any wolves until Aug. 1 at the soonest.
And that’s where the tenuous ceasefire stands.
The plaintiffs posed a valid question: Would killing two wolves now, this month, save any livestock in Wallowa County?
It makes no sense to kill wolves if doing so is not necessary to protect domestic animals. However, absent permission from ODFW, federal hunters can’t deal with the Wallowa wolves should they suddenly regain their taste for beef. That, too, is unacceptable.
The key issue in this situation, ultimately, is trust.
Specifically, whether wolf advocates trust that ODFW, even accounting for its decision to issue wolf-kill permits, is committed to enabling wolves to re-establish a healthy, sustainable population in Oregon.
Based on the recent lawsuit, it seems that trust is lacking.
But what we’ve seen leads us to believe that ODFW truly intends to seek a balance not only between wolves and livestock, but also between wolves and game animals such as elk.
The return of wolves to Oregon was never going to be harmonious. But consensus is possible, as last year’s events in Baker County proved.
Such consensus will prove elusive, though, if wolf advocates file lawsuits when the only animals that have been killed are livestock.
__
As to the conclusions of the Baker City Herald Editorial Board, I offer the following:
The Herald says that they think "wolves and livestock can both thrive in Northeastern Oregon."
Let's hope so. But then they say:
But achieving that goal will require compromise. And not between wolves and their domestic prey.
OK. Their are several interested parties from whence compromise might come if warranted. These include, the ranchers, the enviros and wolf supporters like myself (In another article below, Bruce Fenty, ONDA Exec. Director, points out that Oregon polls show "70% of people are in favor of wolves returning to Oregon" and I might add, millions of others across the nation.), hunting interests (mostly within the state of Oregon), as well as the federal and state agencies that manage wolves and their suitable habitat.
But the Herald says:
"We’re talking about the relationship between the state and federal agencies responsible for managing wolves, and the coalition of groups that celebrate the return of wolves to Oregon after an absence of more than half a century."
(Emphasis added)
Notably absent from the Herald's "compromise" are the ranchers, who absent any interest in increasing their own investment in non-lethally protecting their own livestock, stand to suffer personal losses and increased expense if wolves are successfully reintroduced. Is this realistic? How can the Herald reach the conclusion that such a major player and obstacle to successful reintroduction should be excused from any "compromise?" They, after all, were the motivation and major players in the original extirpation of wolves from Oregon.
Getting rid of the wolves helped them create an environment where they could turn their livestock (except for sheep, who are normally herded) out in the spring, sans supervision, and collect them in the fall, without losses due to wolves. Something will obviously have to change with the reintroduction of wolves to their rightful place and their necessary ecological role as an apex predator. That something is that ranchers are going to have to start looking after their livestock with active herding and the implementation of non-lethal controls and other non-lethal measures. That is the the part of the compromise that is mysteriously missing from the Herald's equation.
The Herald continues:
"In Baker County there was ample evidence, including photographs, linking the two wolves to the livestock kills.
When those wolves, after being gone for most of the summer, returned to a ranch in Keating Valley and resumed their attacks on livestock, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) authorized officials from the federal Wildlife Services to kill the two wolves."
What the Herald leaves out is that they returned to the pitifully unprotected sheep operation several weeks after the quite often effective non-lethal measures had been removed. Why would the Herald leave that fact out?
They also state, much to my chagrin:
"None of the pro-wolf groups filed a lawsuit to block the federal hunters."
So . . .(bleep) what? Are we supposed to conclude that because regional "pro-wolf" groups didn't file suit concerning the first two killings of young wolves in Baker County, that the killings of set-up young wolves by the Feds were OK or that the "pro-wolf" groups don't care? One could easily conclude something quite different, but due to the lack of other relevant information or logic, it would be just as meaningless. Any conclusion based on that the single fact that they didn't file suit, such as they didn't file suit because they are chronic compromisers, or politically weak, or inept strategists, or underfunded, underpaid, overwhelmed, and otherwise broke, would be just as baseless without additional information.
They also state:
"It makes no sense to kill wolves if doing so is not necessary to protect domestic animals. However, absent permission from ODFW, federal hunters can’t deal with the Wallowa wolves should they suddenly regain their taste for beef. That, too, is unacceptable.
The key issue in this situation, ultimately, is trust.
Specifically, whether wolf advocates trust that ODFW, even accounting for its decision to issue wolf-kill permits, is committed to enabling wolves to re-establish a healthy, sustainable population in Oregon.
Based on the recent lawsuit, it seems that trust is lacking."
Trust? Well . . ., of course it's lacking--that's why the groups filed suit. When the agencies quit working for the ranchers with taxpayer money so as to help the ranchers evade responsibility, there will be a chance to develop trust. As for the part about killing wolves to protect domestic animals, that just ignores a core portion of the problem. The reason they want taxpayer funded agencies to kill wolves, is because they refuse to shoulder the responsibility and expense of protecting their livestock with non-lethal measures (as the rest of us are required to do).
If I had the time I would respond to some of the other interesting opinions in the piece, but the last portion of the editorial must get a response. The Herald says:
". . . consensus will prove elusive, though, if wolf advocates file lawsuits when the only animals that have been killed are livestock."
Here the Herald misrepresents the purpose of the lawsuit and ignores the fact that two young wolves were needlessly killed in the area north of Keating in Baker County after they did what they naturally do when finding inadequately protected livestock where no effective non-lethal measures were in place. Two more had been placed under imminent threat of death. Again, the purpose of the lawsuit as stated by the environmental groups:
"Four conservation groups sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s predator control branch, Wildlife Services, today for its role in killing wolves at the behest of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The state has issued, and now extended to Aug. 31, a permit to the federal agency to hunt, track and kill two wolves across a 70-square-mile area in eastern Oregon. According to the conservation groups’ lawsuit, Wildlife Services never conducted the environmental analysis required to disclose the impacts of killing a substantial portion of Oregon’s wolves. Cascadia Wildlands, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Oregon Wild and the national Center for Biological Diversity brought the suit, and are also strongly considering suing the state for its role in authorizing the kill permits."
While the Herald's editorial seem like a case of fuzzy thinking, what is clear to me is that they can't go wrong in Baker County sheep & cow country when they excuse ranchers from compromise and place the blame on environmentalists and the agencies for problems in achieving so-called 'compromise" & "consensus." _____
"Oregon’s Wolf Management Plan is currently under a 5-year review to determine the future of wolf populations. Over the past century, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) has borne the brunt of man’s attempt to dominate the wild west. For example, wolves were extirpated in Oregon in 1946 after decades of over-hunting fueled by State-paid bounties for every wolf hide.
Over the past several decades, Americans have grown to understand that the recovery of wolves is essential to ecosystem health and to restoring our wildlands. As Aldo Leopold once commented, “Harmony with the land is like harmony with a friend. You cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left. That is to say you cannot have game and hate predators. The land is one organism.” As such, the gray wolf was put on the federal Endangered Species List in 1974, and since then efforts to re-establish wolf populations have led to wolves now being found in Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and, recently, Oregon.
As you may recall, the first known gray wolf to return to Oregon was a female that migrated from Idaho in 1999 but she was quickly returned to Idaho by the Oregon Department of Wildlife (ODFW). In 2002, ONDA successfully petitioned the ODFW to comply with State law and create a state Wolf Management Plan. This plan was completed in 2005, and set a goal of 5– 7 breeding pairs in the State before the has only two documented breeding pairs which are located in the northeast corner of the State.
While polls in Oregon have shown that 70% of people are in favor of wolves returning to Oregon, there is a vocal minority objecting to the re-establishment of viable wolf populations. The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association has all but declared war on wolves in Oregon, recently stating that “wolves are terrorizing eastern Oregon.” The underlying argument is that wolf populations will threaten livestock. However, Oregon produces 1.5 million head of cattle annually and so far there have been only six cattle deaths from wolf predation. In response to these conflicts, ODFW recently issued kill permits for an area spanning nearly 40 square miles; such action bears an unfortunate and uncanny resemblance to Oregon’s unsavory past efforts which led to the extermination of wolves.
Some conflicts between livestock grazing and native wildlife such as wolves are unavoidable particularly given the fact that the vast majority of our public lands are grazed by livestock. Conservation groups have worked to find ways to address such conflicts with wolves. For example, Defenders of Wildlife set up a fund to reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to wolf depredation, and since the establishment of this fund it has paid out $3,900 to Oregon ranchers. Another option would be to permanently or temporarily retire grazing permits on public lands where conflicts between wolves and livestock exist. Regardless, ranchers, as outlined in the Wolf Management Plan, must take responsibility for the safety of their livestock by improving inventory, fencing and employing fladry lines or other non-lethal hazing tactics to scare wolves away from livestock. Ultimately, wolves need to be treated as native wildlife – not as unwanted predators.
A draft of the revised plan should be available by September and we have joined Hells Canyon Preservation Council in commenting on proposed revisions. A public meeting will be held in Bend on October 1st and ODFW will be making its recommendations for the Wolf Management Plan. I encourage you to attend this meeting and become involved in the protection of wolf populations in Oregon. In the meanwhile, keep an eye on your inbox for email updates on the Wolf Management Plan and please don’t hesitate to contact staff for more details on how to support wolf recovery."
__________
See Also (The last post listed is perhaps instructive):
David Axelrod was on the Diane Rehm show this morning – a great opportunity to connect with listeners who will actually stop what they are going and pay attention, at least for a short while. He was awful.
He had even the most basic facts wrong – it’s not “8 million people have lost their jobs” but rather “more than 8 million jobs have been lost” since December 2007. He rambled – it was hard to see his point, particularly in the introduction. But most of all, there was no narrative – why exactly did we have a recession, why has it been so bad, and why aren’t the jobs coming back?
Without a narrative, how can anyone make sense of the past 18 months?
Axelrod can choose his narrative – and obviously doesn’t need to agree, for example, with the view that the financial system became dangerous and now needs to be reined in - but he has to say something coherent. You can’t just make isolated points like “the fiscal stimulus helped” or (even more confusing) “we’ll now address the budget deficit.”
There was really no explanation for why the economy has become such a difficult place for so many people. How did we go from apparent prosperity in 2007 to the deepest recession of the past 50 years? And how are we going to get the jobs back?
Blaming things on the Republicans in some vague sense (e.g., tax cuts) also doesn’t make sense to people. If you want to get partisan, you have to connect the dots in a convincing manner – otherwise people will (rightly) tune out.
Does the problem here lie with the economic briefing that Axelrod received before going on air? If so, changing those responsible would be an obvious first step.
But the issue may be deeper – or higher up the administration. It is entirely possible, based on what we are seeing and hearing now, that even Axelrod and other members of the political wing of the White House don’t really understand what happened (the big banks blew themselves up) – and why they are now so powerless to do anything about it (after being rescued, the banks fought hard to block effective change). The credit system remains fundamentally damaged and unfixed; this undermines expectations for the future in many ways and slows the recovery of jobs. [Emphasis added]
__
Wall Street Prostitute & Financial/Intellectual Scammer, Tim Geithner Fights Regualtory Reform From Within
In modern American life, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stands out as amazingly resilient and remarkably lucky – despite presiding over or being deeply involved in a series of political debacles, he has gone from strength to strength. After at least eight improbably bounce backs, he might seem unassailable. But his latest mistake – blocking Elizabeth Warren from the heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – may well prove politically fatal.
Geithner was a junior but key member of the US Treasury team that badly mishandled the early days of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and received widespread criticism (Life #1). He was promoted as a result and thereafter enjoyed a meteoric rise.
As President of the New York Federal Reserve from 2003, and de facto head of the government’s financial intelligence service, he completely failed to spot the problems developing in and around the country’s financial markets; nothing about this embarrassing track record has since stood in his way (Life #2). He subsequently became Hank Paulson’s Wall Street point person for one of the most comprehensively bungled bailouts of all time – the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, which in fall 2008 first appalled Congress with its intentions and then wasn’t used at all as advertized (Life #3).
TARP and related Bush-Paulson-Geithner efforts were so completely and clearly unsuccessful in October/November 2009 that the crisis worsened and Geithner was offered the job of Treasury Secretary by President-elect Obama; the incoming team felt there was no substitute for “experience”. Nevertheless, he almost failed in the confirmation process due to issues related to his taxes (Life #4) and then stumbled badly with his initial public repositioning of the TARP (Life #5), which was going to buy toxic assets again but in a more complicated way (perhaps his most complete and obviously personal political disaster to date).
His next Great Escape was the stress tests in spring 2009 – it turned out, supposedly, that there was really no financial crisis. Most of the big banks really did have enough capital; all that had been missing was the government’s endorsement of this fact (this is the story, honest). If this seems too good to be true, look at the mass unemployment still around you and tell me if the financial sector really looks healthy (Life #6).
Life #7 was expended concurrent with the forceful arrival on the financial reform scene of Paul Volcker. The Geithner-Summers “financial reform” package from summer 2009 was weak to start with and weakened further as it was discussed in the House; the entire effort was rudderless. Volcker’s new proposals helped rescue the reform and restore momentum – but instead of (appropriately) discrediting the Geithner approach in the eyes of the White House, it actually helped the Treasury Secretary climb new pinnacles of influence. Go figure.
Life #8 is the blatant failure of the Geithner strategy to “just raise capital requirements” as the way to deal with distorted incentives and the tendency to take irresponsible risks at the heart of our financial system. Treasury insisted on “capital first and foremost” throughout the Senate debate this year – combined with their argument that these requirements must be set by regulators through international negotiation, i.e., not by legislation. But the big banks are chipping away at this entire philosophy daily through their effective lobbying within the opaque Basel process – as one would expect. The latest indications are that capital requirements will barely be raised in any meaningful sense.
Secretary Geithner likes to say, “Plan beats no plan” and in some positive interpretations this is the secret of his success. But it turns out that he had no plan really – the stress tests were a grand improvisation (ultimately implying scary sized government implicit guarantees), the initial financial reform proposals fizzled (the Volcker rescue was against Geithner’s wishes), and the much vaunted tightening of capital standards is completely illusory (doesn’t anyone in the White House read the newspapers?).
On top of all this, it now appears that Secretary Geithner will oppose Elizabeth Warren becoming the new chief regulator responsible for protecting consumers from defective financial products – despite the fact that she has led the way for this issue, on both intellectual and political fronts, over the past decade. The financial sector has abused many of its customers badly over the past decades. This simply needs to stop.
Throughout the Senate debate on financial reform, Treasury insisted that complex details regarding consumer protected need to be left to regulators – and thus the Geithner team pushed back against many sensible legislative proposals that would have tightened the rules. Treasury also promised – although in a nonbinding way – that the new generation of regulators would be an order of magnitude more effective that those who eviscerated whatever was left of our oversight system during the Bush years.
With his track record of survival, Geithner and his team apparently feel they can push hard against Elizabeth Warren and give the new consumer protection job to someone closer to their philosophy – which is much more sympathetic to the banking industry.
This would be a bad mistake – trying the patience of already exasperated Congressional Democrats. If the Obama administration can’t even complete the deal they implicitly agreed with Senators over the past months, this will set of a firestorm of protest within the party (and with anyone else who is paying attention).
Financial “reform” is already very weak. If Secretary Geithner gets his way on consumers protection, pretty much all of the Democrats efforts vis-à-vis the financial sector’s treatment of customers have been for naught.
Tim Geithner is sometimes compared to Talleyrand, the French statesman who served the Revolution, Napoleon, and the restored Bourbons – opportunistic and distrusted, but often useful and a great survivor with a brilliant personal career. In the end, of course, no one – including Talleyrand – proves indispensible. And everyone of this sort eventually pushes their luck too far.
If the Democratic leadership really wants to win in the November elections, they should think very hard about the further consequences of Mr. Geithner. __________
There has been a serious push in policy circles to cut Social Security benefits for near- and/or current retirees. The argument for such cuts has been based on the deficits in the federal budget; the finances of the Social Security program have been at most a secondary consideration. However, the finances of the current or near-retirees who would be affected by these cuts have also largely been ignored in this discussion. This is striking because this group has been hardest hit by the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting plunge in stock prices. These workers had accumulated some wealth – mostly in the form of home equity – which they stood to lose as a result of the crisis. Since they are at or near retirement age, they will have little opportunity to replace their lost wealth.
This paper assesses the cuts implied by three common proposals for reducing Social Security benefits:
- Adopting a “progressive price” indexation (PPI) formula for the basic benefit structure, - Accelerating and extending the increase in the normal retirement age, and - Reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment. It calculates the implied cut in benefits and projected income for various age groups and income quintiles of retirees and near-retirees.
From the Executive Summary:
"Since the vast majority of near-retirees will rely on Social Security for the vast majority of their income in retirement, cuts in Social Security imply large cuts in income for a population that is already not especially wealthy. (Median household income for people over age 65 is less than $30,000.) Ironically, the drive for these cuts is being driven by budget problems resulting from the collapse of the housing bubble. This is a disaster for which older workers were the primary victims, since they lost the most equity in their homes."
.jpg)
