Tag Archives: country

New Orleans TV: “Alarming discovery” of adult crabs “filled with some sort of black substance”

A pair of fishermen in Mississippi made an alarming discovery that has many wondering what's happening below the surface in the Gulf of Mexico. They found several full-sized crabs filled with some sort of black substance. While it's tough to find oil on the surface along the beaches in Mississippi, Hancock County EMA director, Brian Adam said oil is there, you just can't see it. “We're still seeing tar balls everyday, and I'm not talking just a few tar balls. We're seeing a good amount everyday on the beaches,” said Adam. He said a rock jetty near Waveland was covered in about 1,000 pounds of tar balls in just three days, and now there's been a disturbing discovery inside about a half a dozen full-sized crabs found near the mouth of Bay St. Louis. “You could tell it was real slick and dark in color so I grabbed it, and opened the back of the crab, and you could see in the 'dead man' or the lungs of the crabs.. you could see the black,” said Keith Ladner, longtime seafood supplier and owner of Gulf Shores Sea Products. He said he's never seen anything like it. Ladner said a crab's lungs are normally a white, or greyish color, and that a crab would have to be extremely old and deteriorated to look the way these did. “It wasn't that case. The meat was in tact, but lungs were in bad shape,” Ladner explained. Through BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, longtime fisherman Robert Mayne, a few days ago, started pulling boom on the bottom, and believes that's where the damaged crabs are coming from. “We would slow down, let it (boom) go to the bottom and then 10 minute pulls that we had made.. it was just saturated with brown, solid brown substances,” Mayne said. FOX 8 News reporter, Shelley Brown asked: “This is where the crabs live, on the bottom?” “Correct,” answered Ladner and Mayne. “And it's shocking to me that the shrimp season opened just a week ago and these shrimp travel across the bottom like crabs,” Ladner continued. Ladner said he couldn't sell shrimp even if they wanted too. He said some of the largest processing facilities in the country say they just can't buy from him right now because they say the sentiment around the country is that this oil and dispersant mix is at the bottom and in our seafood. “We've seen a lot of large fish since this has happened that are dead on the beach. We're seeing large bones like on days that are low tides like tonight.. mammals, turtle bones,” Hancock County Hazardous Material lead liaison Jesse Fineran said. Emergency managers and fishermen want to know what's causing this, and they're hoping just because there's no oil on the surface, this does not become an out of sight, out of mind situation. Some fishermen said they would see oil on the surface one day, and the next day, crews were out spraying and it would be gone. They believe the oil and dispersant mix is accumulating on the bottom. (video at link) added by: samantha420

CNN: ‘Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters?’

On Friday, CNN prominently featured an article at the front page of its website with the headline,”Can Bush-bashing Help Sway Voters?” (pictured right). Click on that link , and the reader was treated to an even more inflammatory title: Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters? Not surprisingly, the article was just as defamatory to America’s 43rd President: While he’s not on the ballot, George W. Bush is still vital to the midterm election as far as the nation’s top Democrat is concerned. President Obama has made a point recently to invoke Bush’s name in what many say is a calculated effort to remind voters of the previous administration’s economic policies, which Democrats argue led to the worst recession in modern history. Author Ed Hornick next used some polls to validate Obama’s strategy: A Quinnipiac University poll, taken July 13-19, asked 2,181 registered voters: “Who do you blame more for the current condition of the U.S. economy: former President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama?” Fifty-three percent said Bush; 25 percent said Obama; 21 percent said either neither, both or unsure. Perhaps the most stark example of why Bush’s name is now a part of Obama’s stump speech comes from a poll by the Benenson Strategy Group, the president’s chief polling firm. The poll was taken for Third Way, a moderate think tank. Let’s be a tad more specific about the last pollsters. The New York Times in January referred to BSG as “a Democratic polling firm.” As for Third Way, it refers to itself at its website as “the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.” That makes it moderate for progressives not moderate! Even more telling: “Three of our former chairs now serve in the senior ranks of the Obama administration: Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Under-Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher.” As such, to support his point concerning why Bush-bashing is a good strategy for Obama and the Democrats this election, Hornick referenced a study by a Democratic pollster and a progressive think-tank with three former chairmembers now working for the White House! With this in mind, readers shouldn’t be at all surprised with their findings:  Conducted June 19-22 of 1,100 likely voters, the poll found that Bush’s economic principles are “almost universally rejected” by a large margin — and merely bringing up Bush’s name causes a swing in attitudes. When respondents were asked whether they would prefer a candidate who “will stick with President Barack Obama’s economic policies” or “one who will return to President George W. Bush’s economic policies,” the result was a 15-point advantage for the Obama approach. “President Bush is the key here,” said Sean Gibbons of Third Way. “If you enter President Bush’s name into the equation and ask people when they’re making a choice at the polls between going forward with President Obama’s economic agenda or voting for a candidate who will pursue similar economic ideas as President Bush, Obama runs the table by 49 points. That is extraordinary.” Obama and his Party should feel very comfortable in using this strategy, as they clearly have CNN on their side.

See the article here:
CNN: ‘Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters?’

PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Reporting a U.S. District Court judge overturning California’s Proposition 8, PBS correspondent Spencer Michaels noted that if the case is appealed to a higher court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would handle it. Michaels watered down the court’s infamous history of liberal rulings, saying that though it may be liberal, it is not more so than any other U.S. Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit has “kind of a liberal bias – at least that’s the charge,” Michaels quickly corrected himself. “In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court,” he insisted of the circuit with the dubious distinction of being the most-overturned of any by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has a long history of being stacked with liberal judges since the days of President Carter, and infamously struck down “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in 2002. The Court has arguably inched to the right with the addition of moderate and conservative judges, but is still widely regarded as the most liberal of the circuit courts. James Taranto, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, described the court as “notoriously liberal,” in his piece about the reversal of Proposition 8. Ashby Jones, writing for the WSJ’s law blog, said that the court has a reputation for being “packed with liberal judges.” The sentiment isn’t confined to conservative-friendly publications. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that 15 of the court’s 16 cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court were reversed. “Judicial analysts attribute the high reversal rate at least partly to the 9th Circuit’s reputation as a liberal-dominated bench, even though more recent conservative appointments have diluted that influence,” the paper reported. Indeed, the New York Times reported this past spring that “outside experts who have examined the circuit for quantitative evidence of its leanings say that over all, it is indeed the most liberal circuit – but not by all that much.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 4 at 7:10 p.m., is as follows: JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS anchor: And as you suggest, the proponents of Proposition 8 had already served notice that they plan to appeal. What is their recourse here? SPENCER MICHAELS, PBS correspondent: Well, they’re going to go to the Ninth Circuit, which is California and the rest of the West’s appellate court in the federal system. That court has a kind of a liberal bias, at least that’s the charge. In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court. They’re going to take up this case, and from there, what one of the lawyers I talked to today said, is that what happens in the Ninth Circuit is going to be very, very important, that they will set precedent. And if they set a precedent that makes the Ninth Circuit different than the rest of the country, then the Supreme Court will want to step in and settle this issue. You can’t have gay marriage approved in the Ninth Circuit and not in the rest of the country. So the Supreme Court will want to get involved in that. So that’s probably what will happen. It probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually. The people who are in favor of gay marriage aren’t really happy to go to the Supreme Court at this point. They know the make-up of that court, and they probably figure that they don’t have a big chance of winning. WOODRUFF: And Spencer, you were saying in your report a few minutes ago that it’s not clear the effect this is going to have on the other 49 states right now. What is your understanding of that? MICHAELS: Well as I said, right now this court is just a district court, a trial court – it doesn’t present a precedent. If it goes to the Ninth Circuit, then there is a precedent involved, and the Ninth Circuit rules in most of the states west of the Rockies. But the rest of the country is not bound by the Ninth Circuit. So the U.S. Supreme Court would have to make a decision for the rest of the country.

Visit link:
PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Uganda Anti-Gay Bill Stalls In Committee

The anti-gay legislation investigated in Vanguard's “Missionaries of Hate” is stalled in committee and, according to local gay activists in the country, unlikely to pass during this current parliamentary session. Correspondent Mariana van Zeller said she was taken aback by the fervor surrounding the anti-gay movement, especially at one of Pastor Ssempa’s inflammatory church rallies. “One of the shocking experiences that we had [in Uganda] was being in this congregation, with children, old women, and there he was with his laptop, showing these very graphic images of gay porn,” Mariana said. [Watch more commentary with Mariana.] “You could see the faces of the congregation. They were completely shocked. And this is what they are taking home with them.” Although religious leaders and politicians had managed to elevate the discourse to fever pitch earlier this year, local activists report that the general population of Uganda is more tolerant, and the government seems to be responding to international pressures that the bill be withdrawn from parliament. From the Global Post: “Politicians find that homosexuals are a great scapegoat or red herring to divert attention to more pressing issues … such as unemployment, corruption, poor health facilities, reform of electoral laws and so forth,” wrote Ugandan lawyer Sylvia Tamale, the first female dean of law at Makerere University law school. “If we are to be absolutely honest with ourselves, we should ask whether there are not more pressing issues of moral violation in other areas such as domestic violence, torture and corruption. None of these areas have specific laws outlawing their practice,” wrote Tamale. Rev. Mark Kiyimba of the Ugandan Unitarian Universalist Church, also known as “Pastor Brown,” is a leader in Uganda’s LGBT community. He says that international pressure, especially from the Obama administration, has “cooled down progress on the bill.” “We have shifted our focus and are now concentrating on HIV, spirituality and social issues,” said Kiyimba. “We don’t hear anything anymore about the bill. Besides, parliament will dissolve next month, so it is too late to debate the bill before the close of parliament.” Watch a clip from “Missionaries of Hate” in which Mariana and a

Chinese Missile Could Shift Pacific Power Balance

Naval power has been a prerequisite for national dominance during the last 500 years, and Chinese planners are astute historians. It is time Americans face up to the probability that China will challenge our way of life through aggressive military action within the next 10 years. What would the consequences of Chinese-American military conflict include? 1) Severe food and resource shortages for the majority of people in both countries. 2) Heavy casualties on the battlefield and high seas. 3) Unpredictable refugee migrations which would disrupt the lives of nations allied with either country. 4) Long-term environmental damage. 5) The end of international Internet communications as a result of both countries destroying satellites, and, as a result, a return to pre-1990 conditions in terms of communications. 6) Human misery on a scale not seen since the Second World War. What can we do to prevent such conflict from taking place? Since American public opinion is devalued in China (as a result of heavy Chinese government censorship and organized propaganda), Americans with ties to Chinese citizens must reach out more to strengthen the ties of common interest and friendship. Americans must press their military leaders to become more innovative and adaptable in facing new forms of threats from China and other nations. This must include reassessment of the top-heavy and bloated American military-industrial complex which does not currently provide us with a reliable defense system. We must also become more self-sufficient in producing our own food, clothing, and shelter, so that if the nation's infrastructure is destroyed, we can survive to fight on. War is an obscenity, and planning for war is a sickening and disheartening task; however, those who refuse to face real threats end up imprisoned, enslaved, or dead. added by: Progresshiv

Ecuador Will Receive $3.6 Billion to Not Drill for Oil

Photo via BankTrack While many countries throughout the world are seeking to boost their economies by pumping the oil within their borders , Ecuador is now set to receive $3.6 billion for leaving it in the ground. In a UN agreement that’s the first of its kind, the country has committed to not drill in its Yasuni National Park — one of the most biologically-diverse corners of the

Go here to read the rest:
Ecuador Will Receive $3.6 Billion to Not Drill for Oil

TIME’s Epic Distortion of Plight of Afghan Women

Tomorrow, TIME Magazine will treat newsstand customers everywhere to one of the most rank propaganda plays of the Afghanistan War. The cover features a woman, Aisha, whose face was mutilated by the Taliban, next to the headline, “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.” Far more people will see this image and have their emotions manipulated by it than will read the article within (which itself seems to be a journalistic travesty, if the web version is any indication), so TIME should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for such a dishonest snow job on their customers. Readers deserve better. Let’s clarify something right off the top when it comes to this cover: Aisha, the poor woman depicted in the photograph, was attacked last year, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops tramping all over the country at the time. This isn’t the picture of some as-yet-unrealized nighmarish future for Afghan women. It’s the picture of the present. Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) recently published report on this issue, The “Ten-Dollar Talib” and Women’s Rights, provides key context for the struggle for women’s political equality in Afghanistan: Afghan women assert their rights in what is already a deeply hostile political environment. Any assessment of women’s rights, and indeed the prospects for long-term peace and reconciliation needs to be made in the context of the very traditional and often misogynistic male leadership that dominates Afghan politics. The Afghan government, often with the tacit approval of key foreign governments and inter-governmental bodies, has empowered current and former warlords, providing official positions to some and effective immunity from prosecution for serious crimes to the rest. Backroom deals with abusive commanders have created powerful factions in the government and Parliament that are opposed to many of the rights and freedoms that women now enjoy. As one activist told us, “We women don’t have guns and poppies and we are not warlords, therefore we are not in the decision-making processes.” This is something that folks who put together TIME’s cover better understand right now: the fox is already in the hen-house. There is a very powerful set of anti-women’s-equality caucuses already nested within the Afghan government that the U.S. supports. These individuals and groups are working to reassert the official misogyny of the Taliban days already, independent of the reconciliation and reintegration process. Given the opportunity, these individuals and groups in the U.S.-backed government will manipulate the reconciliation and reintegration process and leverage armed-opposition-group participation in the process to push through policies they’d prefer already as compromises with their “opponents.” This is why the propaganda of TIME’s cover is so pernicious: the women of Afghanistan are caught in a vice already, stuck between their opponents in the insurgency and in the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. If one is concerned about the rights of women in Afghanistan, the question is, how do we give women the most leverage possible in this situation? Further, TIME’s incendiary headline, “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan,” is a total misrepresentation of the issue discussed in the article. Here’s Aisha in her own words: “They [the Taliban] are the people that did this to me,” she says, touching her damaged face. “How can we reconcile with them?” Here’s another quote from another woman that gets at the issue much better than TIME’s headline: “Women’s rights must not be the sacrifice by which peace is achieved,” says parliamentarian Fawzia Koofi. And another quote: “When we talk about women’s rights,” Jamalzadah says, “we are talking about things that are important to men as well — men who want to see Afghanistan move forward. If you sacrifice women to make peace, you are also sacrificing the men who support them and abandoning the country to the fundamentalists that caused all the problems in the first place.” If we are to believe the setup on the cover and in the article, the women of Afghanistan see two options: the U.S. can “stay” and ensure the rights of women, or we can “leave” by route of selling them out. But that’s neither what the women’s quotes say nor what Human Rights Watch found when they interviewed 90 “working women and women in public life living in areas that the insurgents effectively controlled or where they have a significant presence to illustrate the current nature of the insurgency.” While they found an intense anxiety over the consequences of the Taliban regaining a share of national power, they also found that: “All of the women interviewed for this report supported a negotiated end to the conflict.” The quotes of the women in TIME’s article express anxiety about the Kabul government negotiated away women’s rights to warlord war criminals, not us “staying” or “leaving.” See what TIME did there? They’ve taken these quotes from Afghan women and manipulated them to portray a false dilemma. TIME Magazine throws out this useless bromide: “For Afghanistan’s women, an early withdrawal of international forces could be disastrous.” Early compared to what? How can a pull-out almost a decade into a conflict be remotely described as “early?” Even if we build a shining utopia for women while U.S. troops were there in large numbers, women’s rights would evaporate the day after we departed if U.S. troops were the force holding them in place. That’s what Afghan Women’s Network’s Orzala Ashraf meant when she told Rethink Afghanistan that, “I don’t believe and I don’t expect any outside power to come and liberate me. If I cannot liberate myself, no one from outside can liberate me.” The struggle is the liberation as Afghan women discover and use their power. Grassroots involvement in social struggle is what creates societies rooted in democratic values, not men with guns from other countries. Although you wouldn’t know it from TIME’s editorializing within the article or from the horrendously misleading cover, the issue is not even remotely “if” we leave Afghanistan. We will. The questions are “When?” and “How?” added by: pinkpanther

‘I Feel Like I Don’t Live In America:’ The Best Worst Prop 8 Reactions

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 — the voter initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual — is unconstitutional. The usual pro-Prop 8, anti-gay marriage suspects began hollering almost immediately. Here, the best of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it): The Founding Fathers Would Be Shocked From the chairman of National Organization for Marriage, or NOM: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. Shocked, probably. But $10 says the Founding Fathers would also be shocked by women wearing pants, a black man becoming president and cable news. But The Judge Is Gay From the president of the American Family Association: It's also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That's why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial. His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He'd have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that. This Will Be Dangerous When We Have A Lesbian On The Supreme Court From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society. In other words, “cough cough Kagan's totally gay cough.” What Next? Is Jesus Unconstitutional? From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): Today's wrongful court decision is another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage. added by: TimALoftis

Watch: What a Legal Pot Economy Would Look Like

Sometimes a cartoon can be worth a thousand words. … or even more than 100,000. Haik Hoisington's 'Flower' video has hit a nerve and has gone viral on the internet. The Flower was released by the online news service AlterNet on July 29 – and in just five days has been viewed more than 175,000 times. This fall Californians will go the polls with a chance to make history. They will be able to cast a vote to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol or cigarettes. California's Proposition 19 is one of many similar initiatives cropping up on state ballots across the country. Whether it's calls for decriminalization or medical marijuana the end of cannabis prohibition has never seemed closer. In this short animated parable, “The Flower,” award winning artist Haik Hoisington contrasts a legal marijuana economy with an illegal one, to show how everyone stands to benefit from ending the war on weed. “The Flower” contrasts a utopian society that freely farms and consumes a pleasure giving flower with a society where the same flower is illegal and its consumption is prohibited. The animation is a meditation on the social and economic costs of marijuana prohibition. added by: Stoneyroad

Kanye West Debuts Apologetic ‘Power’ Freestyle

‘Ye raps regrets to ‘every one of y’all a year ago that I made feel ashamed,’ during Singapore concert. By Jayson Rodriguez Kanye West Photo: Getty Images Kanye West has apologized to Taylor Swift repeatedly. He’s apologized to his fans over and over again, but the Chicago MC may have uttered his most heartfelt take on his VMA outburst last year in a freestyle he delivered overseas Wednesday night. The rapper spit new rhymes over his “Power” track during a show in Singapore and in the lyrics West vows that he’s now a changed man. The moment was captured on amateur video , and the crowd erupts as Kanye reaches his lyrical climax. “And I’m so sorry to y’all, everyone of y’all that had to fight for my name,” West rapped. “Every one of y’all a year ago that I made feel ashamed/ Everyone that said Kanye is that n—-, quit taking names/ And all y’all … I’m the one to blame/ And to the people that I let down, I wanna tell you right here, right now that I’m a new man that understands my relation to power.” Last September, West drew jeers when he stormed MTV’s Video Music Awards stage in New York and interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech for Best Female Video. The rapper protested the country pop star’s win, insisting that nominee Beyonc