Tag Archives: alabama

Gulf Coast Must Act Now! Community meeting with Dr. Riki Ott and Dr. Steven Picou

Dr. Steven Picou, Professor of Sociology at University of South Alabama and Dr. Riki Ott, marine toxicologist and foremost authority of the Exxon Valdez disaster spoke to a group of people from Mobile and Baldwin Counties at Alabama Delta Resource Center. An interesting and almost unbelievable note is that Riki Ott and Steven Picou became close friends after the Exxon Valdez incident. Dr. Picou left Mobile and spent a lot of time in Alaska conducting research about the social impact the oil spill had on residents. Riki Ott said, “Steven was there to help my people, and now I’ve come to help his people.” Such is a bitter-sweet twist of fate. Dr. Picou opened the meeting by speaking about what we can expect from the social impact, and how the cleanup efforts will be more destructive than the oil spill itself. He referred to PTSD — Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He and Dr. Ott agreed that the BP disaster is the Exxon Valdez in fast forward mode, that everything is unfolding at a much faster rate. In Alaska, the first suicide took place 4 years after the spill. The Gulf Coast experienced its first suicide (the charter boat captain at Gulf Shores, AL) on Day 65. Dr. Picou diagrammed how the loss of social capital emerges into a corrosive community. We have already witnessed the loss of trust in BP, and then the loss of trust in the federal government, then it dribbled down to the state government. (The newspapers and media are quoting leaders on the local government level as having lost trust in the state government.) When the only trust in government the community retains is for government at the local level, Dr. Picou warned that, too, will soon fade (and it already is). This downward spiral will continue until citizens turn against other citizens, then family members against each other. (Already, in the last 4 weeks, the hard-hit fishing community of Bayou La Batre, AL has witnessed a 50% crime rate increase.) Not only in Bayou La Batre, but everywhere that is directly affected, we’re seeing what some are calling the “spillionaires” and what one member in the audience called the “BP Whores.” In other words, BP picks and chooses who will work for them. One unemployed fishermen gets to participate in the Vessels of Opportunity program (skimming, laying boom, etc.) while his/her neighbor’s boat sits idle, and the owner faces bankruptcy in less than a handful of months. (Note from Jen: I spoke with an occupational safety expert who worked Exxon Valdez. He told me that Exxon placed “moles” in the community there to find the families who were feuding with each other, and then stoked the flames by hiring from one family and not the other. BP is doing the same. They are pitting us against each other because as long as they can keep us fighting amongst ourselves, we cannot see clearly enough to unite and fight with them. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE. SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING AND CHANGE IT!) “This is not a 100-meter dash we’re running. This is a marathon. And we haven’t even run the first lap, yet.” Riki Ott describes the oil as an amoeba — it’s constantly moving, yawning, stretching, growing. It’s an evolving monster and we are under siege by it. “The Exxon Valdez incident directly impacted the lives of 22,000 people. The BP Oil Spill will directly impact the lives of 30 million people.” Dr. Ott — “When BP says that we will make you whole again, what they are really saying is that we’ll see you in court.” Nineteen years after the Exxon Valdez, Exxon ended up paying 10 cents on the dollar for every claim filed. The law that is written holding oil companies responsible does not include: devaluation of property, or symptoms that are related to cold, cough or flu. This is the loop-hole that will get BP out of this. The toxins will attack our respiratory tracts, leaving long-term damage, yet because “cough” is excluded, BP will end up having to pay very few medical claims. Dr. Ott said that we are in a democracy crisis, that she thought it was bad during the Exxon Valdez, that Exxon was aggressive and the U.S. government was passive, but what she is seeing here is much worse. BP is much more aggressive than Exxon ever was in that it is calling all the shots in the clean-up effort and has seized control of the media and censorship, even down to seizing control of no-fly zones. She said that if the U.S. government was passive during the Exxon Valdez, they are, for all intents and purposes, non-existent during the Gulf crisis. She said that one EPA whistle-blower had once stated that the South was the region of the country to which EPA formulated one extreme end of the spectrum for its “tolerance” test, i.e. how much people would take before they began to scream in protest. She said that Southerners are known to be more docile, accepting and respectful of authority, that it’s the way we’re raised — a part of the “southern hospitality” package. With a twinkle in her eye, Dr. Ott said, “But just what if the South were to rise again!” She came to the Gulf Coast May 3. What she witnessed caused even her to relapse into post-traumatic stress syndrome. She had to get away, if only for a few days. Memorial Day weekend she decided to fly back home to Alaska for a few days. She got as far as Seattle airport, turned around and came back. She knows what it is like, and for the time being, she isn’t leaving us. (Friends, it was so hard to cut off any of this article, please go to the link for the entirety – there's not one bit you should miss.) added by: samantha420

6’4" Cop Bullies 4’11" Videographer as She Videos a BP Worker Taken Away in Ambulance

! Watch this video of an Alabama Police Officer harassing a petite videographer as she tries to video tape a oil spill clean up worker as she is being taken away in an ambulance. Must Watch Video…Amazing journalism! added by: rodstradamus

U.S. Oil Reponse is literally "Sketchy"!

” It could be one of the sloppiest engineering plans the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has ever seen—a hand-drawn plan illustrating how engineers would fill in a channel in Dauphin Island to prevent oil from reaching sensitive wetlands. The corps posted the permit application and asked for comment from agencies and public in just a few hours. The project could be a good idea, scientists say, but it's hard to tell given the rough plans, and it's equally hard to have confidence in such a quick evaluation. “It's very symptomatic of this whole episode,” says George Crozier of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, referring to the Deepwater Horizon leak. “There is a lot of panic and uncertainty.” But federal agencies evaluating the project say they have enough expertise to evaluate the risk of problems, such as whether the project might cause erosion problems or harm endangered species. Over the last decade, hurricanes have cut a wide channel through Dauphin Island, a 23-kilometer-long barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico. After the Deepwater Horizon accident, the Dauphin Island Restoration Task Force and other groups asked the Governor of Alabama to fill in the channel so that oil can't pass through and enter Mississippi Sound. Much about the proposal remains unclear. The official applicant for the USACE permit to fill the gap is BP, which did not return calls. Observers suspect that the Governor's office asked the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to draft the permit application, but ADEM spokesperson Scott Hughes could not confirm this. “The Department's role is to ensure that any permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is consistent with the requirements of Alabama's coastal program,” he writes in an e-mail. Another mystery is who created the drawings. One of them, simply initialed “C.J.”, has a Post-it note covering up letterhead for Jordan Pile Driving in Mobile, Alabama. D. S. Jordan, the chairperson of the company, says he received drawings from Thompson Engineering in Mobile. The project manager there couldn't be reached. The plans first became public on 27 May, when USACE posted them on its Web site in the morning. One option described in the proposal is to block the 2.2-kilometer-wide channel with sheet piling. The other option is to drop in 76,000 cubic meters of rock. Either measure would be removed within a year. USACE asked for comments on two options by 3 p.m. the same day. Coastal geologist Robert Young of Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina, says he was stunned by the short deadline. Young, who says he often comments on permit applications for coastal engineering projects, only came across the proposal later that evening. “This makes me wonder how many of these emergency permits are out there that I haven't seen.” Young and other experts were also flabbergasted by the rough plans. “They're done by hand on a piece of notebook paper. I've never seen anything like this in my life.” Young says it's difficult to tell from the drawings exactly what the consequences of filling the channel might be. And then there's the vague note on the map indicating “various buried pipelines.” http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/emergency-oil-spill-responseho… added by: DeliaTheArtist

Today’s Oil Spill Nonsense: Overt Media Censorship, Plus: BP Nixes Peat Moss to Protect Profits

As the BP oil spill moves from being a short and bloody battle to a long and drawn out war, I’ve personally have moved to from anger to trying to think more constructively, but here are two pieces of news which drag me right back to frustration: 1) In an Alabama wild… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original:
Today’s Oil Spill Nonsense: Overt Media Censorship, Plus: BP Nixes Peat Moss to Protect Profits

Dr Riki Ott on dispersants & what BP is hiding

“We know from Exxon Valdez that giving people hardhats instead of respirators is a very bad idea” – Riki Ott See Also: BP using dispersants to hide size of spill, and their financial liability http://current.com/news/92526824_use-of-dispersants-questioned-allegations-that-… What Mainstream Media is Not Telling You about the Gulf Oil Cleanup (NaturalNews) What surface oil dispersant for oil spills is so toxic and ineffective it has been banned in England for a decade? The one that British Petroleum (BP) is using now in the Gulf of Mexico. It's loaded with 2-butoxyethanol, which kills marine and wetland wild life while causing serious lung problems to humans! It is more toxic than the oil it purports to clean, and it simply sends the newly formed toxic globules of dispersant and oil further into the depths where it forms underwater plumes. It's like pouring paint thinner on spilled paint and letting it drip out onto the lawn and garden, except the underwater plumes of thinned oil and toxic dispersant spread onto the shore lines, wetlands and coral reefs and into the Atlantic via the Gulf Stream and beyond. Yet there are many less toxic, even 100% green, oil spill solutions available that are more effective. EPA and BP It was initially reported that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had given BP 72 hours to change the current oil dispersant chemicals to something less toxic and more effective. After a sharp reply from BP, the EPA seems to have back pedaled claiming they only want BP to use less of it. It appears somebody with clout stepped in for BP! BP is involved with a few other large international corporations. Among them is the company that makes the toxic oil dispersant banned in England containing 2-butoxyethanol, which kills what is supposedly being protected! Richard Charter, advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, says this about the chemical dispersant being used in the Gulf: “It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically.” So in addition to siphoning some of the oil pouring from the ocean floor into tankers, oil that can be separated from the water and sold later, BP execs are enjoying financially incestuous gains. (source below) Ignored Solutions… (cont http://www.naturalnews.com/029127_Gulf_Coast_cleanup.html ) ~~~ EPA just released it's first set of findings on Corexit, here is one response: “Mobile Baykeeper Executive Director Casi Callaway said Thursday she is “disappointed” with the EPA’s methods. She pointed out, “They did the minimal testing of a limited substance. They didn’t do the test of oil and dispersants mixed with water, and they only tested shrimp and small fish. They didn’t do any field testing. They only tested in a lab.” Callaway said dispersants should not be used in the first place because oil is suspended in the water column, which not only endangers marine creatures, but also makes defense systems such as floating booms ineffective. The products do seem to bolster BP’s public image, however, according to Callaway. “The purpose is to hide it. They think if (the oil) is out of sight, people will forget about it and the problem will go away,” she said. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is somewhat complicit by making its testing data difficult to obtain, she added. http://networkedblogs.com/5sBK9 ~~~ “Corexit a know poison” The BP disaster is far worse than we are being allowed to know via mainstream news: The toxic dispersant Corexit is gasifying getting into the atmosphere to return as rain, thus and affecting people, crops, far inland. Corexit is manufactured by a company making huge profits for many admin and other bigwigs, including Warren Buffet, Al Gore, & George Soros – a listing which makes me automatically suspect that this piece may be NeoCon finger-pointing – a side-effect which would unfortunately detract from the main news here regarding the degree of disaster that’s coming. Could it be there’s actually a $$$ reason for NOT stopping the leak? It would explain why neither Sen. Cantwell or Sen. Murray called me back after I left messages with their office staffers that I had a pretty good idea for dealing with the spill – I’ve heard nada despite 3 calls to each. Anyway, the following article with extensive details and links will bring you up to speed on a major disaster and perhaps the most hideous crimes. http://ow.ly/26Tih http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS66fomgWFI&feature=youtu.be added by: samantha420

American Jihadi: A Best Friend’s Perspective

Islamic extremist Omar Hammami’s childhood friend from Alabama talks about witnessing his friend’s dramatic transformation.

See the original post:
American Jihadi: A Best Friend’s Perspective

CBS and NBC Delight in Al Franken’s Sketch of Sessions: ‘Suitable for Framing’

CBS and NBC took time Wednesday night to showcase Democratic Senator Al Franken’s artistry — not to scold Franken’s frivolity, but to luxuriate in it. As CBS displayed Franken’s drawing of Republican Senator Jeff  Sessions next to a picture of the Alabamian, fill-in anchor Scott Pelley admired what Franken had created during the hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan: A look over Franken’s shoulder reveals his talent. On his pad is a sketch of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Not bad. Suitable for framing. Over on the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams relayed, sans Pelley’s “suitable for framing” puffery: Well, if you have ever wondered what Senators do during committee hearings when they’re not talking? Here’s what one of them does. Senator Al Franken drew this depiction of fellow committee member Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a pencil drawing on United States Senate stationery. Franken said he would give the signed original to Sessions. Pelley’s entire item, which followed a story from Jan Crawford on the hearing, aired on the June 30 CBS Evening News: What is a Senator to do at one of these hearings when other Senators are talking? Well, it can be an art just staying engaged and for Minnesota’s Al Franken at the Kagan hearing the art is quite real. A look over Franken’s shoulder reveals his talent. On his pad is a sketch of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Not bad. Suitable for framing.

See the original post here:
CBS and NBC Delight in Al Franken’s Sketch of Sessions: ‘Suitable for Framing’

Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews framed Sen. Jeff Sessions’ criticism of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “brutal assault,” during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Senate hearing Monday afternoon. “It’s a brutal assault on this nomination,” Matthews complained about the Alabama Republican’s remarks. Matthews also seemed to cast Sessions as an unsophisticated country bumpkin challenging Kagan’s prestigious Ivy League background. “It’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law,” Matthews crooned. “It’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents. That is probably a pretty rich target.” He accused Sessions of describing Kagan as pro-terrorist and tried to get liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to say that Sessions’ “assault” would whip up a storm. “You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings,” Matthews insisted. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here, just bashing her?” “Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke?” Matthews later asked. Durbin tempered the debate by saying that, although he might not agree with Sessions, his colleague was doing his job in raising issues with Kagan. “I think it’s fine,” Durbin replied. “Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash.” The transcript of the two segments, which aired at 12:53 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. EDT, respectively, are as follows: MSNBC June 28, 2010 12:53 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid out the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has never happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. So this is a very tough – particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law – he went through all of the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: (Garbled) …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – maybe an infelicitous reference, but it is a voodoo doll – she is being used as Barack Obama in that chair- EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington POst: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing – (Crosstalk) – trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. She’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch – MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that. To a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. # # # MSNBC ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS June 28, 2010 1:07 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) Sen. JEFF SESSIONS (R-Ala.): Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. Sen. DICK DURBIN (D-Ill.): I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? Sen. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands.  MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? Sen. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Sem. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it.

Go here to see the original:
Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

Video: Former Oil Worker Says Cleanup Just For Show

GULF SHORES, Alabama – Former oil clean-up worker Candi Warren says she signed up to make a difference, but soon found out the work of cleaning the beaches was all cosmetic. That's what she was told, she says. Warren says she knew that when crews worked during the day, the tide and surf buried oil overnight. But they were forbidden to dig it up. She quit in disgust three weeks ago despite the $18 per hour pay. She said she was told to only clean the surface of the sand, that this is all cosmetic. She was on a crew at Gulf State Park where tourists go. She says it has priority so as to make it look like the beaches are clean. Warren says she believes money is being wasted on the crews and says “At some point the real clean-up will have to begin, but I'm afraid the money will be gone.” She used a shovel and dug down six, eight, maybe twelve inches into the sand to show us the layers of oil close to the shoreline. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/86/506/Video:_Former_Oil_Worker_Says_Cleanup_Just… added by: TomTucker

The New World Order is REAL….and your an idiot if you think otherwise!

http://www.documentarywire.com/invisible-empire-a-new-world-order-defined I often see on this site, and in the world in general that people who show any lack of trust for the workings of our government are portrayed as right-wing lunatics, and tin foil hat wearing loons. I am not an ultra conservative. I don't even own a gun. I voted for Gore, and Kerry. ( In my defense how could you look at Bush and Kerry side by side, and hear them speak and think the little guy was the one best suited to run our nation?) I'm a man with a beautiful wife and two even more beautiful children. All I want is a world where they have a chance at happiness. That said, the term “Novus Ordo Seclorem” means New Order of the Age or World. It is printed on the back of your dollar bill, beneath a pyramid capped by the eye of Horus. (Some of you smart ass bible bangers can tell me what relevance a pagan symbol has sharing the dollar bill with “In God We Trust”? But that's another layer of the lie.) The term new world order is synonymous with One World Government. Simply put there are politicians, and business people, and intellectuals from all over the globe who believe the only solution to the coming problems of our times is a One world Government. Rather than debate me on the merits of what I am saying, I can point you too a source that will give you around two hours of video footage of our statesmen and leaders professing their desire for a New World Order. In their own words, from their mouth to your ears. People like Obama, Clinton, H.W. Bush and jr., Bill Gates, Tony Blair, and our patron saint AL GORE, just to mention a few of the hundred or so dignitaries filmed professing their desire for a One World Government. After which You may be able to debate me on whether you think it's a good thing or an evil one, but you won't be able to tell me it's a theory. It's as real as cancer. The problem I find with this philosophy is that it requires We the People of the United States to blend our values with those of say China. How do we find a middle ground on Civil Liberties with China? Why should we? http://www.documentarywire.com/invisible-empire-a-new-world-order-defined added by: DefKid