EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
Thanksgiving Victories and Some Leftovers
President Obama put off the Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline decision -- which Bill McKibben thinks will effectively kill the plan. Thanks to the thousands who have worked tirelessly on this issue at and with 350.org, a major victory was won. Thank you, in particular, to the leader of the fight to stop the Tar Sands pipeline -- Bill McKibben (author of The End of Nature and Eaarth) -- and thank you to all the activists who marched, went to jail, and more.
The November 21, 2011 vote in Trenton, NJ, set to take place by the Delaware River Basin Commission, to allow for Fracking in the Delaware river region, was postponed indefinitely -- thanks to Delaware Governor Markell's letter to the commission stating that he would not vote in favor of the drilling.
For this extraordinary action -- a huge thanks goes to to Josh Fox -- the brilliant filmmaker of Gasland and tireless activist, for alerting the American public to the dangers of hydraulic fracking and spearheading "fractavisim". Gasland is possibly the most important environmental film ever made -- it has woken our nation up to the horrors of hydraulic gas drilling. Thanks, also, to all the impassioned activists who have joined this battle -- including the actor Mark Ruffalo, Sandra Steingraber, Bill McKibben, and the thousands of other activists who worked to save the water and lives in our region! The fight is not over yet, but we're on our way.
The Occupy movement in New York City and elsewhere has changed everything. What the Occupy movement makes clear: the sinking of our economy and the middle class, the rise in poverty, homelessness and hunger, the demise of our educational programs, the high cost and inaccessibility of medical benefits, the destruction of our environment, and the lack of community and connection (including racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia) -- throughout the US, are systemic and interconnected crises. Capitalism benefits the 1% and too many of the 99% are in desperate straits, including planet earth. We've been a nation of shoppers -- not creators, activists, thinkers, lovers, or good citizens. All that is changing now. Thank you to all the Occupiers who are working so hard, so joyously, and with so much love to build a more unified and healthy way of (re)thinking. Unfortunately, and very sadly, police and university officials at some rallies have responded with violence. This is unacceptable.
Fukushima and Nuclear Power/Radiation: the denial continues in Japan by Tepco and the Japanese Government, and many Americans are clueless -- we have 23 nuclear plants here of the same design: GE MARK 1. Whistleblowers (engineers who worked for GE) Dale Bridenbaugh et al warned GE about the design flaws of the Mark 1 in the 1980s. Doesn't this scream scandal? What are we waiting for? Another accident here or elsewhere? Why don't Americans know this or care?
Notice how high cancer rates are since the 1950s. What changed post WWII? Two major industries were born and have taken root with a vengeance: chemical and nuclear. Since the mid-twentieth century, these industries have been producing and polluting a lethal combination of toxic materials. Our government does not control these industries; they control our government. No wonder we're all so sick.
The nuclear industry will tell you there is no factual basis for linking 'much' cancer to low-level exposures from nuclear leaks and the meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima, but this is because they don't want you to connect the obvious dots.
Of course low-level radiation causes cancer. That is why we stopped giving x-rays except when and where they are absolutely necessary. That is why we don't x-ray fetuses. That's why the Presidential Cancer Report of 2009 recommends very limited use of Catscans. Epidemiologists, doctors, and scientists know this and have known this since the mid 1950s. Read the work and studies of Dr. Alice Stewart, Dr. Rosalie Bertel, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Barry Commoner, Linus Pauling, among many others.
The nuclear industry downplays the dangers of radiation leaks and exposures, double-speaks it, and creates doubt. 'Clean nuclear energy', as in 'clean coal' is baloney. Exactly how much radiation causes cancer, in whom, and when -- is hard to prove, because scientists can't put people (especially babies, children or pregnant women -- who are the most vulnerable) in a laboratory to do controlled studies. Just because we don't have exact numbers from peer-reviewed studies, however, does NOT make nuclear safe.
So, along with one of my heroes, Sandra Steingraber (Living Downstream, Having Faith and Raising Elijah), I'd rather be safe than sorry. I'll cast my vote with the precautionary principle. Let the nuclear industry do the studies first to prove without a doubt that all levels of radiation are safe. Let them prove first that they can clean up toxic and irradiated sites after disasters and restore locations to safety fully. Let them find ways of disposing of radioactive materials and waste from nuclear power plants safely first, before producing more. The problem is, they can’t.
Stay tuned with the Safe Chemicals Act 2011, set to overhaul our chemical safety regulations in the US. Legislation was introduced in April and November. We'll see what the outcome is. To learn more and lend your voice, read about the bill introduced by Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Boxer, Klobucher, here.
My students at Stony Brook, where I teach Sustainability, did projects on the environment and food just before the Thanksgiving break. This was timely work, but now, how to eat or buy food without feeling guilty or paranoid? I forked over $80 for a local turkey and was told it walked around outside, ate healthy food, and had an acceptable turkey life while it lived. Laugh, but watch a few movies on factory farming and you'll never feel the same way about eating meat again!
Climate Change. This Thanksgiving was way too warm in New York. What’s this with 70 degrees in late November? As the head nun in the Madeleine stories says when she senses mischief is afoot, "something is not right." Until very recently, Thanksgiving was always frigid.
For a perfect end to my Thanksgiving weekend, I’m going to a rally:
Climate Day Rally. Sunday November 27 @NYC Washington Square, 2pm-5pm
Followed by a march to Liberty Square
Investigative journalist Greg Palast will prosecute BP for ecocide.
Other speakers: Josh Fox, Bill McKibben, Alice Slater, and others.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show AllModerator's Note: No censorship going on here. Due to violations of our Comment Policy with a commenter posting under multiple aliases in a deceptive manner caused us to put a hold on commenting on this article. When a user's account is deleted any underlying 'children' in the thread of comments are also automatically deleted. See: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
Interesting. Apparently, Souixrose has been right about these psuedo-poseurs.
Thank you, Slim. I come to this forum to share what I have spent my life studying & learning, and in turn, to learn from those equipped in areas where I am not as well-versed as they might be. Too often I've had slime thrown my way over those intent upon granting me false witness. I'm open to debate; however, deceptive commentary and well-orchestrated tag teams lying about my work, beliefs, and reputation have posed as an ongoing event, if not threat, to me and several others.
I know that "I luv Big Brother" is an honest poster, as is Kay Johnson. I understand why they questioned the disappearance of posts, but there are entities active on this website who are NOT what they seem. And yes, I do feel vindicated to finally see the Site Administrator relay what I have known--and experienced--for some time.
Debate is a wonderful thing. We all hone our arguments when that takes place. When debate becomes a shooting gallery with character assassins in position, it's something else entirely.
Thank you for noticing. The lies told often enough are perceived as true by too many. And that was becoming the case. We are living in stange times where there's so much surveillance, and so many imposters, that suspicion becomes a natural reflex. Time will tell what new devices those with compromised agendas dream up. They want to control the discussions on these threads, and they have sincere-seeming posters in place to decimate the reputations of many of the key figures on the Left. I've pointed this out on numerous occasions, and my own integrity was placed in jeopardy (by those who do not want this information known) as a result. My commitment to Truth (and acting as a messenger) compelled me to remain active on these threads to help ward off the lies being planted against so many... apparently for the express purpose to weaken the Left, and see to it that no alternatives to the bankrupt/corrupt status quo even stand up to the light of fair consideration.
Amen!
And, Amen!
"We've been a nation of shoppers -- not creators, activists, thinkers, lovers, or good citizens. All that is changing now." Really, had me fooled. I was a big supporter of #OWS till recently.Lately, I've noticed its increasingly being hijacked by anti-semitic elements of the left and right.
we have taken a few steps on a 1000 mile hike this is not yet the time to pat ourselves on the back
As per the disappearance of articles & posters' comments, a lot of people resist the idea that we're living in an Inverted Totalitarian system, and that the State holds tools that would have made J. Edgar Hoover & Joseph McCarthy blush (at the least). If mainstream media is rendered a controlled environment, bought out in order to Manufacture Consent; and if inroads into control of the Internet are underway, why would we presume that CD has ULTIMATE freedom of content? It's known what happened to Bradley Manning for releasing data inconvenient to The State, added to the threats hovering over Julian assange. Stories about whistle-blowers, each on the SIDE of justice, and what was extracted from them in the way of ruined careers and/or legal fees, are becoming legend.
I am stating this anecdotal data not to justify the mysterious policies of this site, but to explain why there may be legal aspects that cause the administrators to delete certain commentary. That's my conjecture. If we only focus on THIS site without looking at the wider social-political milieu, then we miss the scope of what's going on.
Just as police violence has begun an organized campaign to make all the protesters at the various OWS disappear, certain forces would prefer that ideas which they deem too radical (or otherwise outside of allowable discourse) also manage to disappear.
The site owners could be held liable in times as twisted as these. I'd love to see the justification for what's been going on; however, it seems to me that legal advice has mandated the site owners to do what they're doing in order to keep the site functioning. It's the same argument for why voices like Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, Michael Moore, and others don't go as far as many of us would like in overt condemnation of certain party politics and operatives. To do so would mean these individuals, the only voices of the Left with platforms, would likely lose their public venues. It's easy for those who have never been in media to PRESUME that free speech entirely means that, and rather naive given the nature of our era. Again, I am not justifying any of these approaches. This post represents my own attempt to understand what motivates them.
Your points are well taken. Frankly, with all the time I spend on CD I never go to the sites you've mentioned. Obviously this site is more friendly to the Democrats, and while it may not lean Left enough for some, I am grateful for the quality of information not found elsewhere. I wonder if the sites you've mentioned post items on these topics: global climate change, the net impact of Fukushima, what's happening in Haiti, Bolivia's efforts to bring the rights of Mother Nature into binding legal contracts of a global nature, violence directed at women in the US military, Congo, etc. In other words, this site carries a wide array of topics and features an interesting blend of authors (some I'd never heard of before).
The political spectrum is not just black or white. The persons who qualify under "shades of gray" add nuance and probably speak to some minds that are not quite as Left of center as you may be. They speak in an idiom necessary to awaken those who have not considered radical positions before.
The legal item was my attempt at understanding what has not been published by this site, nor gone public. Perhaps it's not the answer. As I said, you raised valid points.
As to this article, a moratorium on fracking seems most prudent at this time. Allowing the willy-nilly use of hundreds of dangerous chemicals is outrageous. Perhaps in time a relatively safe mixture of fracking sand and water would be acceptable in many areas.
Safe Chemicals Act 2011, brought to us by my Senator Amy Klobuchar (DEMOCRAT), among others. Go ahead, vote third party and waste your vote. What's a few more cancer deaths. We have overpopulation anyway (rationalizing is easy, eh?).
Who knows? Perhaps certain posts answering yours have not been published. It seems a strange game here on CD; maybe we're just being toyed with. Too little to do and the need for a little fun on the part of whoever comes in and mucks up sites. Whatever.
So, I am most curious about these multiple persona posters. What are their agendas? I suppose some might like the idea of having "friends" to support their views. Some may do this for kicks. Some may do this to add quantity to their arguments, hoping to sway others to their views. Personally, I have never felt that all of those arguing for third party voting are truly doing this for the good of our nation. I would guess that a few hope to splinter liberal voters, thereby causing the election of more republicans. Some are likely republicans. Some likely anarchists hoping to rush a sort of mini Armageddon. I am reminded of my past argument with VP. I accused him of possibly doing something along these lines. He became quite irate. Perhaps he protested too much? Now, to be perfectly clear, I certainly do believe that most who advocate third party are truly following their consciences.
I can understand this thought process. Others might say that relentless stumping for a dominant political party with an empirically rotted agenda might be equally disingenuous, but of course, I would say that most people going to bat for democrats are truly following their consciences.
I can honestly say Greg, that if I live to see the final destruction of the Democratic party, it will be without question one of the happiest days of my life.
I am so glad I found these post on this topic. I will be more vigilant.
Godfrey of Ibelin:” Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath.” – Kingdom Of Heaven –(2005)
In regards to this article, here is another "left over" :
– The Rights of Revolution Algernon Sidney, Discourses concerning Government 1698 (posthumous)
A flock cannot subsist under a shepherd that seeks its ruin, nor a people under an unfaithful magistrate. Honour and riches are justly heaped upon the heads of those who rightly perform their duty, because the difficulty as well as the excellency of the work is great. It requires courage, experience, industry, fidelity, and wisdom. "The good shepherd, says our Saviour, lays down his life for his sheep." The hireling, who flies in time of danger, is represented under an ill character; but he that sets himself to destroy his flock, is a wolf. His authority is incompatible with their subsistence. And whoever disapproves tumults, seditions, or war, by which he may be removed from it, if gentler means are ineffectual, subverts the foundation of all law, exalts the fury of one man to the destruction of a nation, and giving an irresistible power to the most abominable iniquity, exposes all that are good to be destroyed, and virtue to be utterly extinguished.
If they were created by the public consent, for the public good, shall they not be removed when they prove to be of public damage? If they set up themselves, may they not be thrown down? Shall it be lawful for them to usurp a power over the liberty of others, and shall it not be lawful for an injured people to resume their own? If injustice exalt itself, must it be for ever established? Shall great persons be rendered sacred by rapine, perjury, and murder? Shall the crimes, for which private men do justly suffer the most grievous punishments, exempt them from all, who commit them in the highest excess, with most power, and most to the prejudice of mankind? Shall the laws that solely aim at the prevention of crimes be made to patronize them, and become snares to the innocent, whom they ought to protect? Has every man given up into the common store his right of avenging the injuries he may receive, that the public power, which ought to protect or avenge him, should be turned to the destruction of himself, his posterity, and the society into which they enter, without any possibility of redress? Shall the ordinance of God be rendered of no effect; or the powers he has appointed to be set up, for the distribution of justice, be made subservient to the lusts of one or a few men, and by impunity encourage them to commit all manner of crimes? Is the corruption of man's nature so little known, that such as have common sense should expect justice from those, who fear no punishment if they do injustice; or that the modesty, integrity, and innocence, which is seldom found in one man, though ever so cautiously chosen, should be constantly found in all those who by any means attain to greatness, and continue for ever in their successors; or that there can be any security under their government, if they have them not? Surely if this were the condition of men living under government, forests would be more safe than cities; and it were better for every man to stand in his own defence, than to enter into societies. He that lives alone might encounter such as should assault him upon equal terms, and stand or fall according to the measure of his courage and strength; but no valour can defend him, if the malice of his enemy be upheld by a public power. There must therefore be a right of proceeding judicially or extrajudicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown. Extrajudicial proceedings, by sedition, tumult, or war, must take place, when the persons concerned are of such power, that they cannot be brought under the judicial. They who deny this deny all help against an usurping tyrant, or the perfidiousness of a lawfully created magistrate, who adds the crimes of ingratitude and treachery to usurpation. These of all men are the most dangerous enemies to supreme magistrates. For as no man desires indemnity for such crimes as are never committed, he that would exempt all from punishment, supposes they will be guilty of the worst; and by concluding, that the people will depose them if they have the power, acknowledges, that they pursue an interest annexed to their persons, contrary to that of their people, which they would not bear if they could deliver themselves from it. This, shewing all those governments to be tyrannical, lays such a burden upon those who administer them, as must necessarily weigh them down to destruction.
"He that has virtue and power to save a people, can never want a right of doing it."
I liked this article. I tried to get a post in.
But I don't know that the true story of Thanksgiving as I researched and one article in this forum made it clear it's a time to celebrate but rather it would seem a time to mourn and to say never again to such genocide and war of European aggressive invasion.
As to 1698, it seems to be a reference to England, which I have to say in 1698 was a "Meet the new boss/same as the old boss" garbage. Oliver Cromwell was if anything worse than Charles I and his genocide against the poor people of Ireland a stain on England. Things didn't come out so well. It didn't get better with the 1702 Act of Succession putting the Hanover dynasty on the British throne without the consent of Scotland which was to become part of a united kingdom (not a proper name at the time) in 1707. England had annexed and lost Scotland on a few occasions before this and lost it a few times as well.
This was a time in Briitish history of "change they shouldn't have believed in." Where was that fellow in the White House then when he could have done just as lousy a job?