Equity or nothing at UN climate talks. Still valid. And Obama knows what this is about. And the importance. He has Stephen Chu on staff. That guy reads books. He didn't get elected by oil companies. They supported Old Man and Alaska Crazy Lady. We have Obama in office now. And this is the best we can get? The US, once again blocking progress at the international climate talks? Continuing to refuse to set targets and timetables? Jonathan Pershing used to work at World Resources Institute, but he is a "realist" as EcoEquity says. What is so realistic about resigning ourselves to a fiery future? Does the climate of Venus sound appealing to you?
American negotiators in Durban: Drop all your pre-conceptions about what is "realistic" and what Eric Cantor will say yes to. Contraction & Convergence is the only way forward. Per capita equity is the goal. Obama can push for a Cap & Dividend climate bill that allows him to sign a future climate treaty without 66 Senators. Bohner's grandchildren will thank you in 20 years.
Thank you Occupiers and 350.org folks for being vocal when we need you most.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
An Occupy Ask to Obama: Fire Geithner Hire Warren
Here I was, with what I thought was a great original idea, for the Occupy Movement (of which I am not a spokesperson): Tell Obama: Fire Geithner, Hire Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary!
This other person had posted the exact same thing back in 2010. Nice job, Mosquito! Here's another one from last month. Is that a chorus I hear?
Now is the right time to do it, before the Repubs have selected Obama's opponent. Obama could seize the headlines, and make a statement. If he does it later, he may miss this moment when the Occupiers have the media's attention, despite the media's attempts to focus on police evictions and tent bans rather than on the 99% and the 1%.
Naysayers will say, yeah, and then he can hire Van Jones back too. This is 2008 neverland hope and changey stuff. It won't happen in the cynical late-2011 post-debt ceiling world of crushed hopes and dreams. But I reply, yes we can? No, but like the Green Party it's still a good idea.
The last time I had an idea like this, it was 2003 and I suggested that Colin Powell resign over what he knew was faulty intelligence (pressure from Cheney on the CIA to say there were WMDs in Iraq - as Rick Perry would say, "oops") and change his party affiliation to independent and run against Bush in 2004. I still think it would have worked. A few weeks later Powell went to the UN and flushed his reputation down the toilet. That's what you get for hangin with Dubya Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that's what Obama will get for stickin with Geithner at a moment when America is waking up.
This other person had posted the exact same thing back in 2010. Nice job, Mosquito! Here's another one from last month. Is that a chorus I hear?
Now is the right time to do it, before the Repubs have selected Obama's opponent. Obama could seize the headlines, and make a statement. If he does it later, he may miss this moment when the Occupiers have the media's attention, despite the media's attempts to focus on police evictions and tent bans rather than on the 99% and the 1%.
Naysayers will say, yeah, and then he can hire Van Jones back too. This is 2008 neverland hope and changey stuff. It won't happen in the cynical late-2011 post-debt ceiling world of crushed hopes and dreams. But I reply, yes we can? No, but like the Green Party it's still a good idea.
The last time I had an idea like this, it was 2003 and I suggested that Colin Powell resign over what he knew was faulty intelligence (pressure from Cheney on the CIA to say there were WMDs in Iraq - as Rick Perry would say, "oops") and change his party affiliation to independent and run against Bush in 2004. I still think it would have worked. A few weeks later Powell went to the UN and flushed his reputation down the toilet. That's what you get for hangin with Dubya Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that's what Obama will get for stickin with Geithner at a moment when America is waking up.
Monday, June 06, 2011
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Mr. Panetta, Please Change the Military's Mission to Saving the Oceans - Declare War on Climate Change
Before Rumsfeld invaded Iraq, he chaired a commission that advocated the militarization of space. Hence, Rumsfeld Invaders (a take-off of the Atari video game for those of you who didn't grow up in the 80's).
Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!
If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.
Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.
OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?
Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.
Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:
Declare War on Climate Change!
You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.
Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?
Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!
Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!
If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.
Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.
OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?
Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.
Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:
Declare War on Climate Change!
You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.
Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?
Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Osama's Dead, and Thoughts on the Military-Industrial Complex
Osama bin Laden is dead.
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.
In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.
The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.
So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)
We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.
In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.
The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.
So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)
We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Judgement Day
Fighting to save the world from climate change can be tiring. This is how I relax in my spare time.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Known Idiot
Hi Rumsfeld watchers,
I've been blogging about Rumsfeld since 2001. Tens of thousands of people have played a fun video game called Rumsfeld Invaders that is based on the famous Atari game Space Invaders that involves shooting a Darth Vader helmet wearing former Secretary of Defense who likes invading countries. Level 2 is PResident Evil (Cheney).
It is a known known that Rusmfeld is an idiot. We don't need him to write a book for us to know known this. You could read this blog instead. Here are a few links of some of our greatest Rumsfeld disses.
Rumsfelds-last-day-6-years-too-late.html
rumsfeld-and-chicken-feces.html
deep-iran-penetrator-use-viagra.html
now-its-personal-rummy.html
I've been blogging about Rumsfeld since 2001. Tens of thousands of people have played a fun video game called Rumsfeld Invaders that is based on the famous Atari game Space Invaders that involves shooting a Darth Vader helmet wearing former Secretary of Defense who likes invading countries. Level 2 is PResident Evil (Cheney).
It is a known known that Rusmfeld is an idiot. We don't need him to write a book for us to know known this. You could read this blog instead. Here are a few links of some of our greatest Rumsfeld disses.
Rumsfelds-last-day-6-years-too-late.html
rumsfeld-and-chicken-feces.html
deep-iran-penetrator-use-viagra.html
now-its-personal-rummy.html
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
SNL parodies TSA Groping
I am really pleased that this has become an issue and that there are millions of people who think the TSA is not keeping us safe by groping and fondling my wife and grandma.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, homeland security is renewable energy and healthy eating habits. Sure, there are a few dozen impoverished uneducated Somalis and Taliban that hate America, but the real terrorist threat comes from the oil and coal companies (making our planet uninhabitable for future generations) and the industrial meat complex (killing millions of Americans every day from heart disease and obesity related problems). I know this does not fit the conventional wisdom about 9/11, but look at the numbers - millions of species and the future of the planet (climate change), and millions of Americans every day (heart disease and obesity related problems) versus dudes with Turbans (3,000 Americans and two big buildings). It was still sad, but look at the numbers. You're not looking.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, homeland security is renewable energy and healthy eating habits. Sure, there are a few dozen impoverished uneducated Somalis and Taliban that hate America, but the real terrorist threat comes from the oil and coal companies (making our planet uninhabitable for future generations) and the industrial meat complex (killing millions of Americans every day from heart disease and obesity related problems). I know this does not fit the conventional wisdom about 9/11, but look at the numbers - millions of species and the future of the planet (climate change), and millions of Americans every day (heart disease and obesity related problems) versus dudes with Turbans (3,000 Americans and two big buildings). It was still sad, but look at the numbers. You're not looking.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Gretchen sucks, Mondo should have won
This is my first post about fashion. Yes, it's about the show Project Runway. Yes, I'm married, and for you snickering single dudes out there, this is what happens when you get married. So go listen to Motley Crue and drink 5 beers and a Prairie Fire shot right now.
Anyway, the point is: Gretchen sucks, and Mondo should have won. It has been the Mondo Show for at least 5 episodes. If it were the Gretchen Show I would have stopped watching several episodes ago. Michael and Nina were a little like the Bush Administration, deciding first (to invade Iraq), and then coming up with reasons afterwards. A bad Southwestern 70s catalog? The producers are probably regretting that.
OK, well, that was a nice diversion. Now back to serious matters, such as that our country totally sucks, and all these teabag idiots are going to get elected by Nina and Michael, I mean, the voters tomorrow.
Anyway, the point is: Gretchen sucks, and Mondo should have won. It has been the Mondo Show for at least 5 episodes. If it were the Gretchen Show I would have stopped watching several episodes ago. Michael and Nina were a little like the Bush Administration, deciding first (to invade Iraq), and then coming up with reasons afterwards. A bad Southwestern 70s catalog? The producers are probably regretting that.
OK, well, that was a nice diversion. Now back to serious matters, such as that our country totally sucks, and all these teabag idiots are going to get elected by Nina and Michael, I mean, the voters tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Excerpt of interview with Jonathan Safran Foer about Eating Animals
Here's the link:
http://fora.tv/2010/09/21/Eating_Animals_Jonathan_Safran_Foer#chapter_08
I like when he says that all parents make a choice. Meat eating parents are choosing to lie to their children about what meat is and where it comes from. Sounds radical, but he's pretty common sensical.
http://fora.tv/2010/09/21/Eating_Animals_Jonathan_Safran_Foer#chapter_08
I like when he says that all parents make a choice. Meat eating parents are choosing to lie to their children about what meat is and where it comes from. Sounds radical, but he's pretty common sensical.
Excerpt of How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airport
I don't know if I totally believe all of this, but I do get annoyed at TSA. They are ridiculous, and I don't think they are making us safer. They are trying to make people scared so that we will be sheep and vote for Dubya and Rumsfeld. Oh, Obama is in office now? Well, it still feels pretty Dubya-ish when you're at the airport.
How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airportby Mike Adams
Natural News
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to "opt out" of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here's what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn't mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn't need a private room.
He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less "personal" and more detached. That way, air passengers can't complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.
It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn't especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA's credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can't possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women's health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I'm not exactly taking the U.S.government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is "harmless."
As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don't want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA's graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn't a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that's just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scanrather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I'm not convinced that the TSA's naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn't from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question "Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?" The answer is now unequivocally YES!
Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they're told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of "fighting terrorism" these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!
I don't know about you, but I don't think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that's all the more reason to not add the body's radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples' bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don't know why the TSA never pursued its "trusted traveler" program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to air security, and it's the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry "trusted traveler" cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating "I'm being arrested" pose.
It's actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That's the really amazing part about this.
Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA's naked body scanners, but after a year or two – once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms – these scans will become mandatory. That's the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who's wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Reprinted with permission from Natural News.
How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airportby Mike Adams
Natural News
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to "opt out" of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here's what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn't mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn't need a private room.
He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less "personal" and more detached. That way, air passengers can't complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.
It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn't especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA's credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can't possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women's health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I'm not exactly taking the U.S.government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is "harmless."
As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don't want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA's graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn't a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that's just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scanrather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I'm not convinced that the TSA's naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn't from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question "Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?" The answer is now unequivocally YES!
Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they're told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of "fighting terrorism" these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!
I don't know about you, but I don't think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that's all the more reason to not add the body's radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples' bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don't know why the TSA never pursued its "trusted traveler" program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to air security, and it's the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry "trusted traveler" cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating "I'm being arrested" pose.
It's actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That's the really amazing part about this.
Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA's naked body scanners, but after a year or two – once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms – these scans will become mandatory. That's the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who's wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Reprinted with permission from Natural News.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Million Letter March for a Better Climate Bill
This video is by a friend of mine.
It's a nice concept, if only millions of letters could change a Senator's mind. But it's a start, and it's hopeful. And hey, Rumsfeld Invaders is supposed to be about that hopey and changey thing in the post-Rumsfeld Obama years.
It's a nice concept, if only millions of letters could change a Senator's mind. But it's a start, and it's hopeful. And hey, Rumsfeld Invaders is supposed to be about that hopey and changey thing in the post-Rumsfeld Obama years.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion
About why the Senate failed:
"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."
A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."
About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:
Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."
"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."
Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."
Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."
"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."
A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."
About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:
Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."
"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."
Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."
Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Bummed about Schneider
We really need everyone we can get. And Stephen Schneider was a climate hero. It is a huge loss, for the climate and the planet. I hope there are more like him to take up the fight.
Friday, July 02, 2010
An International Climate Framework with Cap, Share & Dividend
The UN needs an equity framework to bring countries together. The best approach is Contraction & Convergence, which sets a future date to converge to global per capita equity in GHG emissions. It can be implemented with Cap & Share www.capandshare.org, where people in 1st World countries must buy the 3rd World's extra permits. This money flow will help the 3rd World leapfrog dirty coal and finance sustainable development. In the meantime, the US should implement its own domestic program that caps total emissions and returns the proceeds from an escalating carbon price back to the people: Cap & Dividend. Please ask your Senator to support the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act www.supportclearact.com.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth
I've been veg for over 10 years, but still liked lox and sushi (I felt bad while eating it, but it was just so delicious). The BP oil spill finally got me to stop eating fish and shrimp. We should probably start assuming that 30% of American seafood is tainted. The industry will convince the regulators to let them sell it and people will die. Better protect yourselves, because the Terminator machines have risen, it is corporations versus humans, and that judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Seafood and oil in the Gulf of Mexico
Should there be health advisories about eating seafood in the U.S. due to the BP Gulf oil spill/disaster? If 30% of American seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico, how much of that is contaminated by this spill? Even if not directly, once oil enters the food chain and the global industrial supply chain, it could show up anywhere, right? Is that too alarmist? Or six months from now will there be a "suprising" epidemic linked to people who ate contaminated seafood? Maybe we should stop eating seafood (I'll miss you sushi and lox).
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
