Wednesday, November 9, 2016
A RIGGED ELECTION
Irony of ironies! Donald Trump repeatedly criticized the election process during the month prior to the election yesterday as "rigged". Well it was rigged in favor of Trump, but not by Hillary Clinton's team or the democrats. It was rigged not by Trump the accuser, but by our illustrious forefathers who designed and scripted the rigged process called the Electoral College. Here again for the second time in this century, a candidate for president registered a clear majority vote of the electorate, but lost the election in the archaic process called the Electoral College (which is neither fair to the electorate nor a college in any way).
The message is clear. As long as this absurd excuse for a democratic election stands as part of our process, the United States is a grossly imperfect democracy. As part of our getting together and healing, let us all unite and get rid it ASAP. It is the non-partisan thing to do.
In the meantime, no member of the Trump team should consider this election a mandate, You won by a rigged system.
In the meantime, no member of the Trump team should consider this election a mandate, You won by a rigged system.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
The "Torture Candidates" Unworthy of The Nomination
This past week in New Hampshire, presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz stated that they would advocate return of water-boarding and other forms of torture in the name of national security. For the record, it should be recalled that candidate Ben Carson had done so back in 2014 in editorials. It should be recalled that in December of 2014, CIA Director Brennan testified before Congress that torture did not add to intelligence effectiveness. Further, that whether torture saved lives was "unknowable". What is knowable and factual is that the CIA secretly used foreign prisons and agents to torture at sites out of the United States, euphemistically called "rendition". In so doing we shredded our constitution, twisted the law and trampled on all that we stand for and gave the enemy jihadists an enormous propaganda wedge. The Senate Report on Torture of some 500 pages was extracted from 6500 pages--we had only a glimpse of the truth. Perhaps this is the price of a never ending state of war. But war, Candidates Trump and Cruz, can never become an excuse for abandoning our principles of civilization. You cannot paint your enemy as uncivilized when you yourself are not. To return to the failed policy of President George W. Bush is terribly devoid of any enlightened leadership. I hope the voters of New Hampshire take note today.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Observations On the New Constitution of Egypt
Observations on The New Constitution of Egypt
The draft document begins with a very wordy preamble expressing eleven principles. The first is that the people are the source of all equality and equal opportunities are established for all citizens, that democracy is a system of government providing for among other things, the peaceful transfer of power, recognizing that the dignity of the individual and that women must be "appreciated", freedom of opinion, expression and creativity, that equality and equal opportunities are established for all citizens The sixth principle calls for an independent judiciary. Seventh notes the importance of national unity and adds "the rights and freedoms of all citizens shall be protected without discrimination". The eighth principle notes the place of the Armed Forces in not being involved in political affairs and the ninth, the role of the police.
Principle number ten is a statement calling for Arab unity and the need for Egypt to be part of the Muslim world and eleven is an extension of a dedication to Egypt's intellectual and cultural role, again with an emphasis on Islamic institutions including the national church and Al-Azhar University and Islamic Sharia.
The constitution follows in five parts. Notable in Part I[The State and Society] is Article 2, stating that Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation. Freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed but by article 44, Insult or abuse of all religious messengers and prophets shall be prohibited. Article 82 says the legislative power shall consist of the House of Representatives and the Shuria Council. Article 85 provides for a 350 member House of Representatives and Article 128 for 150 member Sharia Council
[of which the president shall appoint 15]..
An opinion on this document must recognize that the document is a translation, but that said, the two points of weakness must be these: 1.) As others have pointed out, the draft constitution guarantees equality before the law, but does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender, sex, religion and origin. 2.) There is no separation of church and state, and therefore the guarantee of rights of women is very much in question regardless of the provisions.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Profiles in Cowardice
The meaning of the closure of the General Motors Fuel Cell Research Center in
They did not wish to stand and fight. Too bad. We could have started building solar-hydrogen stations fueled by cheap solar panls and water, and in the process lessened foreign oil depencency, improved the greening of the environment, and moved forward with the solution to unemployment in a major way. We could have been the fulcrum toward correcting our international accounts deficit. We could have made the argument for natural gasfracking moot. But history is repeating itself, is it not? We could have had the Hadron Super Collider and world class high energy physics technology locate in Wayne County twenty years ago, but we again had no leadership. In the end it is we the people who failed ourselves.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
AFTER-THOUGHTS OF 9-11
The perfidious attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was a tragedy, exceeded only by the tragedy of our response. Why was the response a greater tragedy? Because it cost us 6,400 dead American soldiers and 45,000 military personal wounded--some severly and forever, and cost 6 trillion dollars. It caused civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan of 300,000 known (probably twice that), and it did not clearly define who was behind and funded Al Quida nor was there an under standing of the extent of support of world Islam behind the Jihad warriors. It made George W. Bush a wartime president rather than defining the attack as a crime against humanity--against civilization. We are yet to obtain all the facts about the information known to the CIA, military intelligence and the president's briefings prior to 9-11. The final tragedy has been a destruction of clear thinking.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
What's Lacking in Fracking?
I have read the revised Supplemental Generic Impact Statement [SGIS] on high volume hydraulic fracturing [HVHF] for natural gas. It is deficient
I draw attention to Ch 5.4 Fracturing Fluid. It cites 235 products from 15 chemical suppliers of 322 chemicals whose CAS [Chemical Abstract Service #] is known and at least 21 additional ones in which the CAS is not known, listed by the manufactures in what was referred to as MSDS [Medical Safety Data Sheets]. The point to be made is that this list is not complete and the list is misleading. NO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE EVERY CHEMICAL USED and no chemical should be an unknown.
In testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2011 investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which showed that over a 750 compounds are in hydrofracking products, reference was made to the MSDS as follows: The MSDS is a list of chemical components in the products of chemical manufacturers, and according to OSHA, a manufacturer may withhold information designated as “proprietary” from this sheet. When asked to reveal the proprietary components, most companies participating in the investigation were unable to do so, leading the committee to surmise these “companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment” . Refer to:
Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff. April 2011. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf
Another study in 2011, titled “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective” and published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; and of these, more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens and mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately. The study recommended full disclosure of all products used, along with extensive air and water monitoring near natural gas operations; it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.
You may wonder why hydraulic fracturing for the purpose of oil, natural gas, and geothermal production was exempted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was the result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, also known as the Halliburton Loophole because former Halliburton CDEO Vice President Dick Cheney was involvled in the passing of this exemption.
The revised GEIS statement is further deficient by its own admisision on flowback water:
"Most fracturing fluid components are not included as analytes in standard chemical scans of flowback samples that were provided to the Department, so little information is available to document whether and at what concentrations most fracturing chemicals occur in flowback water." The statement implies that flowback water, which it estimates may be as much as 2.7 million gallons, will be contained in metal, sealed tanks and refers to Chapter 7. Chapter 7 states:
" The volume of flowback water that would require handling and containment on the site is variable and difficult to predict, and data regarding its likely composition are incomplete. Therefore, the Department proposes to require,via permit condition and/or regulation, that flowback water handled at the well pad be directed to and contained in covered watertight steel tanks or covered watertight tanks constructed of another material approved by the Department. Even without this requirement, the pit volume limitation proposed above would necessitate that tank storage be available on site. TheDepartment will also continue to encourage exploration of technologies that promote reuse offlowback water when practical." The statement then goes on to say that, " Fluids would be removed within 45 days of completing drilling and stimulationoperations", but it does not say where to. All this is vague and deficient.
Secondly, there are issues that the revised SGEIS does not address. The State of New York joined as a headwater partner to the Chesapeake Bay program in 2000. About 11% of the state drains into the Bay through the Susquehanna River and its network of tributaries. The part of upstate New York that drain into the Susquehanna River is essentially an overlay of the propopsed hydrofracking area. Yet there is no mention of our partnership obligations to the Chesapeake Bay Program in the SGEIS.
Outside of the criticism of the SGEIS itself is the political implications of the policy statement by Governor Cuomo who supports ending a moratorium on hydrofraking on private land in New York State, but has said the practice should be banned within watersheds serving New York City and Syracuse. Mayor Bloomberg concurs. I sincerely hope the Governor and the Mayor will tell us why their drinking water should be at lest risk than mine. And while we are looking for explanations, perhaps Dick Cheney could tell us where he gets his drinking water in that he has a nice spread on the Easterr Shore of Chesapeake bay.
Finally, I must be noted that in Australia, there is currently a moratorium on hydrofraking in the state of New South Wales, and that their government has banned certain chemicals as additives. In Canada, Nova Scotia is currently reviewing th practice, and that the practice has been suspended in Quebec. In France, hydraulic fracturing was banned in 2011. In South Africa, there is a moratorium in Karoo region despite the efforts of several energy companies.
January 11, 2012 will be the end of public input into the revised Supplimentalhile Generic Eivironmental Impact Statement [SGEIS] on proposed high volume hydraulic fracturing [HVHF] for natural gas in NYS, prepared by the NYS Department of Environmental Convservation [DEC]. This revised SGEIS document is available to all on the internet as a pdf file. Although larbge, 46 Mb in size , it is downloadable and searchable.
In addition, the proposed regulations are in a separage document. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html. Read them. Then let your representatives know how you feel. I vote for no one who favors hydrofraking.
I draw attention to Ch 5.4 Fracturing Fluid. It cites 235 products from 15 chemical suppliers of 322 chemicals whose CAS [Chemical Abstract Service #] is known and at least 21 additional ones in which the CAS is not known, listed by the manufactures in what was referred to as MSDS [Medical Safety Data Sheets]. The point to be made is that this list is not complete and the list is misleading. NO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE EVERY CHEMICAL USED and no chemical should be an unknown.
In testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2011 investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which showed that over a 750 compounds are in hydrofracking products, reference was made to the MSDS as follows: The MSDS is a list of chemical components in the products of chemical manufacturers, and according to OSHA, a manufacturer may withhold information designated as “proprietary” from this sheet. When asked to reveal the proprietary components, most companies participating in the investigation were unable to do so, leading the committee to surmise these “companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment” . Refer to:
Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff. April 2011. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf
Another study in 2011, titled “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective” and published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; and of these, more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens and mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately. The study recommended full disclosure of all products used, along with extensive air and water monitoring near natural gas operations; it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.
You may wonder why hydraulic fracturing for the purpose of oil, natural gas, and geothermal production was exempted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was the result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, also known as the Halliburton Loophole because former Halliburton CDEO Vice President Dick Cheney was involvled in the passing of this exemption.
The revised GEIS statement is further deficient by its own admisision on flowback water:
"Most fracturing fluid components are not included as analytes in standard chemical scans of flowback samples that were provided to the Department, so little information is available to document whether and at what concentrations most fracturing chemicals occur in flowback water." The statement implies that flowback water, which it estimates may be as much as 2.7 million gallons, will be contained in metal, sealed tanks and refers to Chapter 7. Chapter 7 states:
" The volume of flowback water that would require handling and containment on the site is variable and difficult to predict, and data regarding its likely composition are incomplete. Therefore, the Department proposes to require,via permit condition and/or regulation, that flowback water handled at the well pad be directed to and contained in covered watertight steel tanks or covered watertight tanks constructed of another material approved by the Department. Even without this requirement, the pit volume limitation proposed above would necessitate that tank storage be available on site. TheDepartment will also continue to encourage exploration of technologies that promote reuse offlowback water when practical." The statement then goes on to say that, " Fluids would be removed within 45 days of completing drilling and stimulationoperations", but it does not say where to. All this is vague and deficient.
Secondly, there are issues that the revised SGEIS does not address. The State of New York joined as a headwater partner to the Chesapeake Bay program in 2000. About 11% of the state drains into the Bay through the Susquehanna River and its network of tributaries. The part of upstate New York that drain into the Susquehanna River is essentially an overlay of the propopsed hydrofracking area. Yet there is no mention of our partnership obligations to the Chesapeake Bay Program in the SGEIS.
Outside of the criticism of the SGEIS itself is the political implications of the policy statement by Governor Cuomo who supports ending a moratorium on hydrofraking on private land in New York State, but has said the practice should be banned within watersheds serving New York City and Syracuse. Mayor Bloomberg concurs. I sincerely hope the Governor and the Mayor will tell us why their drinking water should be at lest risk than mine. And while we are looking for explanations, perhaps Dick Cheney could tell us where he gets his drinking water in that he has a nice spread on the Easterr Shore of Chesapeake bay.
Finally, I must be noted that in Australia, there is currently a moratorium on hydrofraking in the state of New South Wales, and that their government has banned certain chemicals as additives. In Canada, Nova Scotia is currently reviewing th practice, and that the practice has been suspended in Quebec. In France, hydraulic fracturing was banned in 2011. In South Africa, there is a moratorium in Karoo region despite the efforts of several energy companies.
January 11, 2012 will be the end of public input into the revised Supplimentalhile Generic Eivironmental Impact Statement [SGEIS] on proposed high volume hydraulic fracturing [HVHF] for natural gas in NYS, prepared by the NYS Department of Environmental Convservation [DEC]. This revised SGEIS document is available to all on the internet as a pdf file. Although larbge, 46 Mb in size , it is downloadable and searchable.
In addition, the proposed regulations are in a separage document. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html. Read them. Then let your representatives know how you feel. I vote for no one who favors hydrofraking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)