bid to ban hybrid human animal embryos was defeated

An epidemic of extinctions: Decimation of life on earth

The world's species are declining at a rate "unprecedented since the extinction of the dinosaurs", a census of the animal kingdom has revealed. The Living Planet Index out today shows the devastating impact of humanity as biodiversity has plummeted by almost a third in the 35 years to 2005.

Again, a reminder - Jimmy Carter in 1977 or how the right wing destroyed America

[...]
We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
[...]

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

[...]

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

[...]

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

[....]

And then Reagan was installed through back door deals with Iranians by Poppy Bush, the traitor, and America began to decay at a furious rate in order to enrich a handful of corporate thugs

Oil sets record near $128; pump price at high, too

CEO Payout, however, is still Booming

John Mack, Morgan Stanley
After nearly $11 billion in write-downs last year and the first quarterly loss in company history, some investors demanded a showdown over Mack's pay. That confrontation didn’t materialize, and Mack survived without new limits.

James Cayne, Bear Stearns
Long before the recent meltdown, when Bear lost $10 billion in one day, the value of Cayne's stock had skyrocketed to about $1 billion and his compensation had reached $40 million.

Bob Nardelli, Home Depot
The mortgage crisis has made for tough times at Home Depot, which posted a drop in annual sales last year for the first time in three decades. Shareholders sued to stop Nardelli from leaving with a $210 million payout in 2007. Home Depot later settled.

Stan O'Neal, Merrill Lynch
Write-downs in the neighborhood of $30 billion over the past three quarters mean hard times ahead for ­Merrill. But O’Neal, the recently departed C.E.O., walked away from the mess in October with $162 million.

Massive Wall Street Layoffs

[...]

While the financial markets have found a bit of a footing lately, banks are pushing ahead with plans for some of the deepest job reductions in years. Since last summer, banks worldwide have announced plans to cut 65,000 employees.

But exactly how many jobs have been or will be eliminated is unclear. In the past, banks typically made sharp reductions all at once. After the 1987 stock market crash, for example, employees were herded into conference rooms and dismissed en masse.

This time, companies are making many small cuts over the course of weeks or even months. Some people who have lost jobs, and many more struggling to hold them, say banks are keeping employees in the dark about the size and timing of layoffs.

Citigroup, for example, said last year that it would eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its work force. Then in January, Citi said it would dismiss 4,200 more people. In April, it said an additional 8,700 would go.

By contrast, after the financial upheaval of 1998, when many Wall Street banks pared payrolls, Citigroup eliminated 10,600 jobs, or about 6 percent of its work force at the time.

[...]

Obama Is Target of GOP Jabs at Gathering of Nincompoops

Kkkarl Rove, shit stain.

Professional Nincompooop and Presidential Choice of Religious Right Mike Huckabeast

[...]
As Huckabee was delivering his remarks, there was a thumping sound offstage.

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," Huckabee joked. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

Huckabee late Friday issued a statement apologizing for the remark, The New York Times reported.
[...]

U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan. Big Boost To War Profiteers.

[...]

Military officials have long been aware of serious problems with the existing detention center in Afghanistan, the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. After the prison was set up in early 2002, it became a primary site for screening prisoners captured in the fighting. Harsh interrogation methods and sleep deprivation were used widely, and two Afghan detainees died there in December 2002, after being repeatedly struck by American soldiers.

[....]

The Pentagon is planning to use $60 million in emergency construction funds this fiscal year to build a complex of 6 to 10 semi-permanent structures resembling Quonset huts, each the size of a football field, a Defense Department official said. The structures will have more natural light, and each will have its own recreation area. There will be a half-dozen other buildings for administration, medical care and other purposes, the official said.

The new Bagram compound is expected to be built away from the existing center of operations on the base, on the other side of a long airfield from the headquarters building that now sits almost directly adjacent to the detention center, one military official said.

It will have its own perimeter security wall, and its own perimeter security guards, a change that will increase the number of soldiers required to operate the detention center.

The military plans to request $24 million in fiscal year 2009 and $7.4 million in fiscal year 2010 to pay for educational programs, job training and other parts of what American officials call a reintegration plan. After that, the Pentagon plans to pay about $7 million a year in training and operational costs.

[...]

But the senators, in a May 15 letter to the deputy defense secretary, Gordon England, demanded that the Pentagon explain its long-term plans for detention in Afghanistan and consult the Afghan government on the project.

The population at Bagram began to swell after administration officials halted the flow of prisoners to Guantánamo in September 2004, a cutoff that largely remains in effect. At the same time, the population of detainees at Bagram also began to rise with the resurgence of the Taliban.

Military personnel who know both Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site, 40 miles north of Kabul, as far more spartan. Bagram prisoners have fewer privileges, less ability to contest their detention and no access to lawyers.

Some detainees have been held without charge for more than five years, officials said. As of April, about 10 juveniles were being held at Bagram, according to a recent American report to a United Nations committee.

Iraq Veterans Describe Atrocities to Lawmakers

[...]

"On several occasions our convoys came upon bodies that had been lying on the road, sometimes for weeks," said Marine Corps veteran Vincent Emanuele, who served in al-Qaim near the Syrian border in 2004 and 2005.

"When encountering these bodies standard procedure was to run over the corpses, sometimes even stopping and taking pictures, which was also standard practice when encountering the dead in Iraq," he told the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which organized the hearing.

[...]

Nine veterans of the Iraq war told their stories before members of Congress and a packed gallery. One of the veterans had also served in Afghanistan. About 40 veterans were in the audience.

The veterans spoke about extremely lax rules of engagement handed down by commanding officers, which they said virtually guaranteed atrocities would be committed, and which in turn created a violent backlash among Iraqi people and a continued cycle of violence.

Former U.S. Army Capt. Luis Carlos Montalvan served directly under Gen. David Petraeus in 2005 and 2006.

"We have beaten our drum to try to raise the issue of the dereliction of duty committed by a number of generals who have been promoted and promoted again and continue to perpetuate the lies [that] paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq," he said.

Montalvan said he personally witnessed U.S. military personnel carrying out waterboarding, the mock-drowning interrogation technique that has long been considered torture by U.S. courts.

[...]

Venezuelan Traitor Praised in US. The Next Ahmed Chalabi ?

Looks like the big Pentagon Propaganda machine is loaded, cocked and aimed at Hugo Chavez.

CARACAS, Venezuela — For his outspoken opposition to President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's best-known college student has been called a U.S. collaborator and has had his nose broken in a scuffle.

Known best to ..... ? Who can name a single other Venezuelan college student? Anyone?

On a wall opposite the converted garage where Yon Goicoechea lives, graffiti denounces him as a defender of the rich and powerful. Now, state television airs a cartoon of him holding a fistful of dollars and stamped "Made in USA."

Dollars with declining value thanks to the American right wing. These weak dollars are helping to make gas at the pump too expensive for impoverished America.

Lately the attacks have intensified because of the $500,000 award he received last month from the Cato Institute, a U.S. think tank that advocates individual liberties and free markets, for his "pivotal role in organizing and voicing opposition to the erosion of human and civil rights in his country."

"Free Market", the right wing euphemism for unregulated, unaccountable, predatory capitalism, and also the mantra uttered by multinational totalitarian organizations who prey in the name of profit upon governments and people; aka corporations.

In America, thanks to republicans (with an assist by dumbocrats) such corporations are increasingly unimpeded by labor law, environmental regulation and even common sense.

Markets have nothing to do with democracy. If the United States doesn't provide example enough, look at totalitarian china, a capitalist regime rife with markets. Where's the democracy?

Cato Institute also has a symbiotic relationship with corporate captains who have destroyed America for profit. Because Cato Institute is not just a supporter of unregulated capitalism that destroys democracy and shifts power into the hands of a relatively few extraordinarily wealthy robber barons and corporate chieftains. These organizations fund Cato and Cato does their public relations.

Cato supports Big Oil (including Exxon Mobil), Big Tobacco, Secret Campaign Funding, Social Security Privatization, and a whole gob of other loony, fuck the public, right wing, frothing for billions schemes that are completely unsustainable and have already left the world such a wreck many of us are beginning to wonder if our species will last another 100 years.

These companies that have done so much to destroy America, to lower the standard of living and erase even the semblance of democracy, also generously financially support Cato and other right wing think tanks, members of whom are trotted out on MSM TV as "experts" on topic like Venezuela.

The 23-year-old law student and protest leader arrives in the U.S. today and will collect the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, named for the late Nobel laureate economist, in New York on Thursday.

Friedman was one of the worst things to ever happen to America (and other places glommed onto by American multinationals). He provided right wing extremists their free market battle cry. But even the most cursory examination of his theories shows how ridiculous his ideas were. His Nobel should be rescinded.

"In Venezuela you can't speak of democracy because all branches of government are controlled by one single branch," he said in an interview. "It's growing dangerously close to a totalitarian regime."

Actually, that sounds like America under George Bush. In Venezuela a majority of the population supported Hugo Chavez for president. Apparently this boy is being rewarded for lying. American corporations want to take Venezuela's oil without paying a fair market price. They want to kill Chavez and replace him with a compliant dictator who will pocket millions, oppress the people, and play for the American multinationals. Just like Saddam in Iraq or Pinochet in Chile or the Shah in Iran or a hundred other examples around the globe.

Still, his activities and occasional triumphs suggest Venezuela's opposition has room to maneuver, despite Chavez's efforts to tighten his socialist grip on the country.

Chavez has worked within the law of his country to see to it that multinational oil companies leave some of the profit behind for the people who own the oil. And nothing upsets the rabid right war mongers like fair markets or social justice. Exxon Mobil especially would like to see Chavez dead.

Goicoechea first drew attention last year, when he led protests against a government decision that forced an opposition TV channel off the air.

Hmm. A typically vague statement, exactly the kind used in Psychological operations run by the pentagon, NSA and CIA against the American public as they try to head off any protests or dissent or democratic movements.A.. Link here for what really occurred.

It runs in the family

His big moment came when he helped organize protest marches and made passionate speeches against constitutional changes that would have included removing presidential term limits and giving Chavez emergency powers to suspend civil liberties.

The reform was rejected in a December referendum, dealing Chavez his worst political defeat.

Goicoechea says an early influence was his Cuban-born grandmother, who left the island in the 1940s and became an ardent foe of Fidel Castro.

Goicoechea was just 14 when Chavez was elected in 1998, and says she warned him: "That guy's a communist."

An honor student at the private Andres Bello Catholic University, he emerged as a charismatic speaker while rallying students to vote "no" to Chavez's "dictatorial reform" and calling for "struggle against totalitarianism."

I need to see some proof , proof that Chavez is a totalitarian, not just this name calling supported by a handful of people who stand to profit to an obscene level by getting rid of Chavez. Since he is overwhelmingly popular in his country and has the overwhelming support of Venezuela, just how is he a dictator? Face it, Goicoechea is another Curveball or Ahmed Chalabi, a traitor and liar and willing to get a whole bunch of his country men killed in order to line his own pocket.

Chavez dismissed last year's protests as rich kids serving his critics in Washington. The $500,000 from the Cato Institute has led to posters going up on Caracas streets calling Goicoechea "Half-a-Million Yon." Mario Silva, a pro-Chavez talk show host, says the student is "a launderer of money that's going to be used to continue conspiring against Venezuela."

At a university event where Goicoechea was to speak last year, he was pummeled by several young men in the crowd, emerging with a fractured nose.

I'd like to spank his ass myself.

Goicoechea is unapologetic about accepting the prize. He says he is still studying the legal requirements for bringing the prize money into Venezuela but wants to use it to develop a foundation and train others in Latin America who share his values.

Psychopath Bill O'Reilly

Bush Seeking War in Venezuela?

Venus of Willendorf

Families demand answers in Iraq electrocutions Caused By Military Privatization

Maseth's electrocution, the latest of 14 among service personnel in Iraq since 2003, set into motion a series of events to determine how and why these deaths occurred.

In March, a congressional committee started an investigation into all Iraq electrocutions. A month later, Maseth's parents sued the defense contractor responsible for the Chinese electrical system, alleging it failed to meet U.S. safety standards. And now, families across the country say they want more detailed information about the earlier deaths of loved ones.

"I want answers, not revenge," said Bart Cedergren of South St. Paul, Minn., who suspects his son died of electrocution Sept. 11, 2005, near Iskandariyah, Iraq.

No one knows whether everyone serving in Iraq is aware of the potential for electrocution, despite warnings in an October 2004 report by Army safety specialist Brett Blount. He wrote that five soldiers were electrocuted in that fiscal year alone and advised military leaders to get electrical experts to inspect generators and electrical systems.

Frank Trent of the Army Corps of Engineers said in the report that improper grounding was a "factor in nearly every electrocution and is a serious threat for soldiers and civilians there."

n April, they sued KBR in federal court, alleging the firm inspected the facilities at the Radwaniyah complex where their son died. They claim the contractor knew that hazardous conditions existed from improper grounding of faulty electrical systems manufactured in China for sale only to countries outside the United States because they did not comply with U.S. electrical safety standards.

The wrongful death lawsuit contends that the contractor knew of other electrocutions and failed to repair electrical problems, despite orders to do so from the Defense Contract Management Agency. It adds that KBR did nothing to warn U.S. troops.

Taser jolt can cause fatal heart rhythm, probe told

[...]

Ken Stethem, founder and chairman of Ageis Industries, told the public inquiry into Taser use that Taser International's methodology was flawed in designing, developing and deploying the conducted energy weapons (CEWs).

Normally a company would develop medical and safety data, then test the product on animals and humans, Stethem told the inquiry.

"In my humble opinion that's not how the current CEWs were developed and deployed. And that's why we're having problems today.

Stethem disputed several claims made by Taser on medical evidence and safety connected to the device.

He pointed to Taser's patent information that says the device puts out between 100 and 500 milliamps of electricity.

Medical experts say it only takes about 100 milliamps to cause the heart to go into a fatal rhythm, Strethem told the inquiry.

He said medical studies say low voltage electrocutions can happen without any visible evidence of injury.

"Now the burden of proof has been shifted to the public that these aren't safe, instead of law enforcement and manufacturers that they are," Strethem told the inquiry.

[...]

John McCains Conventiona Manager Lobbied for Military Dictatorshipin Myanmar

Goodyear is chief executive of DCI Group, a lobbying firm that Newsweek reported in a story posted online was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Myanmar's junta.

Cyclone Nargis left more than 60,000 people dead or missing, and the U.N. estimates that at least 1.5 million people have been severely affected. Human rights organizations and dissident groups have bitterly accused the junta of neglecting disaster victims and blocking foreign donations of relief supplies.

According to Newsweek, Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to "begin a dialogue of political reconciliation" with the regime and led a public relations campaign to improve the junta's image. Newsweek said the firm drafted news releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing claims by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses.

"It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Newsweek quoted Goodyear as saying. The magazine said Goodyear added that the junta's record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

Analysis: Good economic news something of a mirage

[...]

Some seemingly good economic numbers can be something of a mirage masking weaknesses in the national economy.

Let's take the unemployment rate, which dipped to 5 percent in April, from 5.1 percent in March. A closer look reveals that the decline in unemployment is not as good as it looks at first blush. The drop came as the number of people holding part-time jobs for economic reasons swelled to 5.2 million in April, up sharply from 4.4 million a year earlier.

The dip in the unemployment rate also occurred as employers cut jobs for the fourth month in a row, pushing up total losses beyond the quarter-million mark — to 260,000. Wages barely grew and workers' hours were trimmed. Taken altogether, these things point to a tepid picture of employment conditions nationwide.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues recently used the word "softened" to describe the labor situation.

U.S. productivity — an important ingredient to the country's long-term vitality — grew solidly in the first three months of this year. That efficiency gain, however, came at the expense of workers.

"Productivity gains were due primarily to declines in hours worked," the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics explained. Those hours fell at a 1.8 percent pace, the biggest drop in five years. Employers also shed workers in the first quarter. Thus, companies were able to produce more with fewer workers, and that boosted productivity, the amount an employee produces for every hour of work.

"American workers, you just got to love them," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisers. "They just seem to produce more and more and more. That was the case in the first quarter of the year as fewer workers working fewer hours managed to produce more," he said.

Still, healthy efficiency gains are important for the economy because they can blunt inflation; that's good for companies' profits and good for those earning paychecks.

Let's take a closer look at the nation's trade deficit. It shrank to $58.2 billion in March as the United States' appetite for imports fell faster than foreign demand for U.S. exports.

A drop in the United States' foreign oil bill — reflecting less oil being imported — played an important factor in the decline in imports. However, demand for foreign-made autos, furniture, toys, clothing and other goods also waned, underscoring the strains faced by U.S. consumers.

Consumers have turned cautious, battered by housing and credit problems and high food and energy prices. Many — watching their single-biggest assets, their home, sink in value are less inclined to spend. High energy and food prices are leaving people with less cash to buy other things. And, harder-to-get credit has made financing big-ticket goods, like cars, appliances and of course, homes, more difficult.

In the first quarter of this year, consumer spending increased at the slowest pace — a mere 1 percent growth rate — since the last recession in 2001. Consumer spending accounts for the single-biggest chunk of U.S. economic activity. Thus, how consumers behave shapes whether the country will survive the blows of the housing, credit and financial debacles or fall victim to them as many fear.

U.S. exports, meanwhile, have been helped by the falling value of the U.S. dollar. That makes U.S.-made goods and services less expensive to foreign buyers. But that weaker dollar also makes imported goods more expensive in the United States. That contributes to the surging prices for oil, food and other commodities.

And, while falling interest rates in the United States help ordinary people and businesses, it also contributes to the dollar's decline. Add to that the perception of economic weakness in the United States and the U.S. dollar has fallen to record lows compared with the euro.

[...]

Ronald Reagan's War on Labor

[...]
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.

Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.
[...]
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.

Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.

The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.

Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.

The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.

Autoworkers union: American Axle proposal includes closing 3 plants

[...]

About 3,600 UAW members went on strike Feb. 26 at five plants in Michigan and New York in a dispute over wage and benefit cuts the company is seeking. The two sides failed to reach a new contract agreement.

Unions members previously had said the company wanted to negotiate the closure of American Axle's Detroit and Tonawanda, New York, forge operations. Gettelfinger confirmed Saturday that those closings had been agreed upon.

[...]
Many of its U.S. competitors won deals from the United Auto Workers to pay newly hired workers about $14 (€9) per hour. But American Axle workers say they won't take that big of a pay cut from a company that made $37 million (€24 million) last year.

Burma exports rice as cyclone victims starve

Mad Cow. Is the Bush Administration Hiding an Epidemic of Mad cow?

Bush administration Works To Stop Testing For Mad Cow Disease

[...]

The government seeks to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy demand from overseas customers in Japan and elsewhere.

Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for the disease under Agriculture Department guidelines. The agency argues that more widespread testing does not guarantee food safety and could result in a false positive that scares consumers.

"They want to create false assurances," Justice Department attorney Eric Flesig-Greene told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[...]

More About How the Rabid Right Agenda Destroyed America. And Friedman was getting Wrong even in 81

[...]

Mr. Reagan's supporters argue that his reduction of Government funding for solar development will put an end to the creeping ''solar socialism'' of the Carter era. Through its largesse, they say, the previous Administration attracted a great number of people who were enamored with the solar idea, but produced equipment that only the Department of Energy could afford to buy.

[...]

In addition to the development of what might be called direct solar energy, which depends on the sun's rays, solar is used in a wider sense to include biomass (wood and liquid fuels from vegetable matter and animal wastes), ocean thermals (the differences in temperature in ocean currents) and wind.

The small manufacturers of low-technology solar collectors or passive solar equipment, who did not depend on Government contracts, report that decontrol of oil prices has finally made their end of the solar business viable. Passive equipment depends primarily on collecting heat from the sun in containers filled with liquids, usually water, and redistributing the heat through pipes.

[...]

Great Article About How Right Wing Hero (and subject of homoerotic worship by repiglikkkan males) Reagan killed Transition to Solar Energy

[...]
"They're going to kill your study," the gray-suited informant warned Hayes, before slipping down the corridor.

The study, a yearlong investigation by some of the nation's leading scientists, provided a convincing blueprint for a solar future. It showed that alternative energy could easily meet 28 percent of the nation's power needs by 2000. The only thing that solar and wind and other nonpolluting energy sources needed was a push, the study concluded -- the same research funding and tax credits provided to other energy industries, and a government committed to lead the way to reduced reliance on fossil fuels. But the messenger in the corridor signaled that the solar future would only be won with a little guerrilla warfare. Hayes phoned a colleague at his office in Golden, Colorado, and told him to make 100 copies of the study and circulate them around the country. Energy Secretary Jim Edwards killed the study, all right, but not before it had been published in the Congressional Record.

It was a bold gesture, but not enough to alter the outcome. The quashed study proved to be the beginning of the end. The budget for the solar institute -- which President Jimmy Carter had created to spearhead solar innovation -- was slashed from $124 million in 1980 to $59 million in 1982. Scientists who had left tenured university jobs to work under Hayes were given two weeks notice and no severance pay. The squelching of the institute -- later partly re-funded and renamed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory -- marked the start of Reagan's campaign against solar power. By the end of 1985, when Congress and the administration allowed tax credits for solar homes to lapse, the dream of a solar era had faded. The solar water heater President Carter had installed on the White House roof in 1979 was dismantled and junked. Solar water heating went from a billion-dollar industry to peanuts overnight; thousands of sun-minded businesses went bankrupt. "It died. It's dead," says Peter Barnes, whose San Francisco solar- installation business had 35 employees at its peak. "First the money dried up, then the spirit dried up," says Jim Benson, another solar activist of the day.

[...]

Allah says Kill! KillKillKill!

Chop 'em up in the name of Allah! Israel made me, but they can't beat me in war!

Israel Has Been Stealing Lebanon's Water for Years Creating War and Opposition Groups

There is no reason for Palestinians to claim that just because they sit on lands, they have the rights to that water," Mr. Katz-Oz [Israel's negotiator on water] said. "The mountains do not own the water that fall on them. It's the same with Canada and the United States. It's the same all over the world." -- NYT 10/93

On the whole, when it comes to the common water resources shared with Palestinians and other Arabs, Israel ... acts like a great sponge. -- Sharif Elmusa (1993)

Palestinian hopes for genuine self-determination hinge on a number of factors, not the least of which is Israel's ability to solve its perennial and growing water shortage. According to Dr. Hussein A. Amery, of the Department