Please Send a Message to Leonard.

25 August at 22:19

Friends,

In correspondence with one of Leonard (Peltier's) lawyers, I know that he's in fairly good spirits, all things considered. Family has said the same.

But, both have also said he needs our support now more than ever. This has not been an easy decision to receive, as you can imagine. So...I had an idea.

If you want to send me 2 or 3 sentences - a message to Leonard from you. Plus name and where you're from. I will compile these and print them out, and send them to him.

All I ask is that you keep it to a few sentences, and include your first name - last name optional - AND where you are from - city or country. I think this would really give him a boost.

We are just shy of 3,000 people on this site, so that is why I'm asking your message to be short. I need to have all messages by this coming Sunday night.

He hears us talk about supporters from all over, but I think to see, and read the volume of messages plus the places would be really something for him.

If you don't get a thank you from me it will mean there's a Facebook, or a hotmail glitch - so please resend. I don't know how many messages either can actually hold til I get to them. I hope to hear from you.

The easiest way for me to 'cut & paste' will be through my hotmail account - bkfidlin@hotmail.com. But, I will check here as well if you'd rather send it through Facebook. Hope this makes sense - I may be asking for more than I can handle!!!! I think this will make him smile...

Thank you!
Billie

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

USA: Denial of parole to Leonard Peltier after more than 32 years in prison, disappointing.

Amnesty International today regretted the US Parole Commission’s decision not to grant Leonard Peltier parole despite concerns about the fairness of his 1977 conviction for murder. The organization called for the immediate release on parole of the activist, who is serving two consecutive life sentences and has spent more than 32 years in prison.

A prominent member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), Leonard Peltier was convicted of the murders of two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, Jack Coler and Ronald Williams, during a confrontation involving AIM members on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota on 26 June 1975. While Leonard Peltier admits having been present during the incident, he has always denied shooting the agents at point blank range as alleged by the prosecution at his trial.

Amnesty International recognizes the seriousness of the crime for which Leonard Peltier was convicted. However, having studied the case extensively over many years, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the process leading to his conviction, including questions about evidence linking him to the point-blank shootings and coercion of an alleged eye-witness.

One of Amnesty International’s concerns is that Leonard Peltier’s extradition from Canada in 1976 -- where he had fled following the shootings -- was secured on the basis of the coerced testimony of an alleged eye-witness which the FBI knew to be false. The witness, Myrtle Poor Bear, later retracted her testimony that she had seen Leonard Peltier shoot the agents but the trial judge did not allow her to be called as a defence witness at his trial. Other concerns include the withholding by the prosecution of evidence, including potentially key ballistics evidence that might have assisted Leonard Peltier’s defence.

"The interest of justice would be best served by granting Leonard Peltier parole,” said Angela Wright, US Researcher at Amnesty International. “Given the concerns around his conviction, the fact that appeals before the courts have long been exhausted and that he has spent more than 32 years in prison, we urge the Parole Commission to reconsider its decision.”

The parole hearing, which took place over four hours on 28 July, was the first full parole hearing to be held in the case since 1993. In addition to the concerns about the fairness of his conviction, parole was sought by Peltier and his lawyer based on his good conduct record in prison and arrangements made by the Turtle Mountain tribe to receive him into their community on his release.

Background Information
Leonard Peltier is an Anishinabe-Lakota Native American who was a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), an activist group involved in promoting the rights of “traditionalist” Indians during a period of intense conflict in the 1970s. In the two years prior to the confrontation in which the agents were killed, more than 60 Indians on the Pine Ridge reservation had been killed, allegedly by paramilitary squads connected to the tribal government, without anyone being brought to justice for the crimes. AIM members who had come to the reservation to assist “traditionalists” opposing the tribal government were also allegedly threatened. Relations between AIM and the FBI were also tense, with accusations that the authorities had not done enough to protect those at risk on the reservation.

The confrontation in which the two FBI agents were killed took place after the agents entered the reservation with an arrest warrant for four people and started following a van. A fire-fight ensued. Evidence was presented at trial to show that the agents received multiple shots and were quickly disabled before being shot dead at point-blank range.
Two other AIM leaders, Darelle Butler and Robert Robideau, were initially charged with the agents’ murders and were tried separately: no evidence was presented to link them to the point-blank shootings.

The jury acquitted them after hearing evidence about the atmosphere of violence and intimidation on the reservation and concluded that, arguably, they might have been acting in self-defense when they were involved in the exchange of gunfire.

Following their acquittal, the FBI renewed its efforts to pursue Leonard Peltier, who had fled to Canada. At his trial, the prosecution alleged that the rifle which killed the agents belonged to Peltier. During post-trial investigations, the defence team discovered a teletex message suggesting that the rifle in question contained a different firing pin from the one used to kill the agents; this was raised on appeal and an evidentiary hearing held at which the significance of the teletex was contested by the government. On appeal, the government also argued that sufficient evidence had been presented to the jury at trial to show that Leonard Peltier had “aided and abetted” the killings even if he had not been the actual killer.

However, Amnesty International believes that the outcome may well have been different had Peltier been able to challenge the ballistics evidence linking him to the fatal shots more effectively.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke."

by:Marc Ambinder
What The White House's Public Plan "Retreat" Really Means

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said.

This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.

The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A New Sound.

People often ask me what the environment has to do with poverty, and why communities of color are getting so active in the fight against climate change.

Today, we released a new video that says it all.

A New Sound communicates both the pain of the old economy, and the promise of the new. It illustrates why the Senate must pass bold climate legislation this fall, and why we need a vibrant movement based in low-income communities and communities of color.

It is a moving depiction of why we need an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.

Watch the video and take action. Then share it with your friends and family.

Thank you for all you do.

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins
Chief Executive Officer
Green For All

Please support Green For All. We need your contribution now more than ever, to build the rhythm for a brighter future.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do! Live your values. Love your country. And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The United States of Corporate Welfare.

Quote of the Day: "Even in the best economic times, you won't find an investment with a greater payoff than what these companies have been getting." -- Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of The Center for Responsive Politics

Subject: The United States of Corporate Welfare

The Congressional Oversight Panel charged with monitoring the T.A.R.P. bailout scheme thinks more bailouts may be needed.

In case you've forgotten . . .

* T.A.R.P. stands for Toxic Asset Relief Program
* The T.A.R.P. was supposed to spend $700 billion buying so-called toxic assets from institutions that were supposedly too big to fail, but . . .
* After Congress said yes to this proposal the Treasury Department instead used the funds to buy stock in major banks
* In other words, The Toxic Asset Relief Program ended up having nothing to do with toxic assets

It get's worse. According to Wikipedia . . . .

"On February 5, 2009, Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told the Senate Banking Committee that during 2008, the federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion."

And even worse . . .

"During 2008, the companies that received bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. These companies received $295 billion in bailout money."

Thus, our quote of the day. Spending $114 million on lobbying to gain $295 billion dollars from the taxpayers is a hell of a deal. Many thoughts flow from this . . .

* Those who told us that strong campaign finance laws would curtail corruption were wrong
* Those who tell us we need Big Government to control evil corporations overlook the fact that big corporations want big government, because they benefit from it, and largely control it
* The same kind of lobbying and corporate control is behind the scheme for increased government involvement in health care
* And the $800 billion stimulus bill was another heaping helping of corporate welfare too

Sadly, this isn't a new development. President Obama and the Democratic Congress are just continuing the policies of President Bush and the Republican Congress . . .

* Go back and scratch beneath the surface of Bush's prescription drug program and you'll find that it was mostly a corporate welfare scheme for Big Pharma.
* In addition, T.A.R.P. was passed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

As long as partisan loyalists continue to believe that their particular political party, and their particular political savior (be it Obama, Bush, whoever) is somehow different, we'll continue to be victims of the same insanity. And at some point we might as well change the country's name to . . .

The United States of Corporate Welfare

Here's the bottom line . . .

* If you want to stop the looting then you need to be heard to the same extent as the Big Corporate lobbyists.
* We created DownsizeDC.org to bring that about.
* But it isn't something we're going to achieve in a Big Bang.
* It's going to happen bit by bit and day by day -- because that's how real change usually happens.
* In fact, that's how the United States of Corporate America was created in the first place.

Please use DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System (sm) to send your Congressional employees another message opposing corporate bailouts.

Tell them you object to the Congressional Oversight Panel's report calling for T.A.R.P. to finally be used to buy toxic assets. If the past is any guide then these assets will be bought at above market prices, and will just be one more heaping helping of corporate welfare.

You can use DownsizeDC.org's "No Bailouts" campaign to send your letter.

To stay on pace to exceed the 50,802 messages Downsizers sent to Congress last month we must send 2,598 messages today.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your army is growing, check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

We grew by 10 net new members yesterday. This brings us to 3,450 net new members for the year. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 27,799 -- nearly 80% of the way between 27,000 and 28,000!

YOU can make the army grow even faster by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

R.I.P. Eunice.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver, 1921-2009

Executive Vice President, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation
Founder and Honorary Chairperson, Special Olympics

As founder and honorary chairperson of Special Olympics and executive vice president of the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, Eunice Kennedy Shriver was a leader in the worldwide struggle to improve and enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities for more than three decades.

Born in Brookline, Massachusetts, the fifth of nine children of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, Eunice Mary Kennedy received a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology from Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

Following graduation, she worked for the U.S. State Department in the Special War Problems Division. In 1950, she became a social worker at the Penitentiary for Women in Alderson, West Virginia, and the following year she moved to Chicago to work with the House of the Good Shepherd and the Chicago Juvenile Court. In 1957, Shriver took over the direction of the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation.

The Foundation, established in 1946 as a memorial to Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr.--the family's eldest son, who was killed in World War II--has two major objectives: to seek the prevention of intellectual disabilities by identifying its causes, and to improve the means by which society deals with citizens who have intellectual disabilities.

Under Shriver's leadership, the Foundation has helped achieve many significant advances, including the establishment by President Kennedy of The President's Committee on Mental Retardation in 1961, development of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development in 1962, the establishment of a network of university-affiliated facilities and mental retardation research centers at major medical schools across the United States in 1967, the establishment of Special Olympics in 1968, the creation of major centers for the study of medical ethics at Harvard and Georgetown Universities in 1971, the creation of the "Community of Caring" concept for the reduction of intellectual disabilities among babies of teenagers in 1981, the institution of 16 "Community of Caring" Model Centers in 1982, and the establishment of "Community of Caring" programs in 1200 public and private schools from 1990-2006.

Recognized throughout the world for her efforts on behalf of persons with intellectual disabilities, Shriver received many honors and awards, including: the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Legion of Honor, the Priz de la Couronne Francaise, the Mary Lasker Award, the Philip Murray-William Green Award (presented to Eunice and Sargent Shriver by the AFL-CIO), the AAMD Humanitarian Award, the NRPAS National Volunteer Service Award, the Laetare Medal of the University of Notre Dame, the Order of the Smile of Polish Children, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Freedom from Want Award, The National Women's Hall of Fame, the Laureus Sports Award, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Theodore Roosevelt Award, and the International Olympic Committee Award.

Her honorary degrees included: Yale University, the College of the Holy Cross, Princeton University, Regis College, Manhattanville College, Newton College, Brescia College, Central Michigan University, Loyola College, University of Vermont, Albertus Magnus College, Cardinal Strich University, Georgetown University and Marymount University

On 24 March 1984, U.S. President Reagan awarded Shriver the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, for her work on behalf of persons with intellectual disabilities, and in, 2005 she was honored for her work with Special Olympics as one of the first recipients of a sidewalk medallion on The Extra Mile Point of Light Pathway in Washington D.C.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver died on Aug. 11, 2009. She was survived by her husband, Sargent Shriver, and five children: Robert Sargent Shriver III, Maria Owings Shriver Schwarzenegger, Timothy Perry Shriver, Mark Kennedy Shriver and Anthony Paul Kennedy Shriver.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sick for Profit.

Dear fellow Americans,

What does UnitedHealthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley have to lose if Congress passes real health care reform this year? Well, for starters, his nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in unexercised stock options might lose a few pennies on the dollar. What does Isabella, a four year-old girl in Winsconsin who is physically incapable of eating and has had to be tube fed her entire life, have to gain from healthcare reform? The treatment she needs to live a normal life.

See Isabella's Story Donate To Help Brave New Films Expose The Greed Of Insurance CEOs

Brave New Films is launching a major new campaign to reveal the truth about the health insurance industry, and we need your help to do it. Contribute $25 today so we can create more campaigns exposing the obscene wealth of the CEOs of Aetna, CIGNA, Humana and WellPoint and the policyholders they've abandoned for profit.

The chance for Isabella to become a normal, healthy child depends on Congress passing healthcare reform this year. But Stephen Hemsley opposes reform, and after making the equivalent of $4,096,815 each and every week of this year, it doesn't take an expert to figure out why.

We need to show the public that the only interests the insurance companies represent are their own. Give $25 today to help Brave New Films expose the truth about what the status quo means for insurance executives, and what it means for the rest of us. Lastly, share your health insurance company story to be posted on our website.

The big insurance companies are lying to the public and turning out right-wing zealots to town halls to yell and scream and incite violence. It's time to take back the terms of this debate. It's time to show America what these insurance CEOs really are: billionaire rip-off artists who are amassing fortunes at the expense of the health and security of working Americans.

Already, our new campaign Sick For Profit is making an impact on the national debate:

Watch Robert on the Ed Schultz show:
Watch Robert in an interview with MSNBC's David Shuster and co-host Tamron Hall:

Yours,

Robert Greenwald and the Brave New Films team

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

What’s Your Water Footprint?

Nice jeans. Too bad they cost the planet 2,866 gallons of precious H2O.
by: Josh Harkinson

Illustration: Alex Nabaum

ON THE EDGE of Jim Diedrich’s 1,500-acre almond and tomato farm is a rustic office where his son would normally be sitting in front of a flat screen, controlling a superefficient drip irrigation network. But he’ll have some more time on his hands this summer. California is in the midst of its most severe drought in nearly 20 years. And to make things worse, two years ago a federal judge ruled that pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta were killing off the threatened delta smelt. And so Diedrich’s farm outside the Central Valley town of Firebaugh is receiving almost no irrigation water this year. Sitting in his office, commiserating with a neighboring farmer, he griped, “It’s unbelievable the power of the goddamn wacko environmentalists.”

Then his neighbor, Shawn Coburn, turned toward me and demanded if I knew how much water it took to grow one almond, a cantaloupe, or a pound of tomato paste. (I didn’t. Turns out it’s 1 gallon, 25 gallons, and 55 gallons, respectively.) “The people in the city, they don’t know what their footprint on nature is,” he scoffed. “They sit there in an ivory tower and don’t realize what it takes to keep them alive.”

Even in thirsty California, where the battle lines between the big rural irrigation districts and urban water utilities were drawn long ago, this was a new angle on an old argument. The farmers’ complaint underscores a curious, often unexamined aspect of our relationship with water: Even as the greenest among us cut our showers short and let our toilets go yellow, we may be blissfully unaware that our household water use accounts for only 6 percent of the water that we consume. The other 94 percent comes from the products we buy, everything from almonds and tomatoes to blue jeans and microchips. (See “Big Gulp.”) The average person in the developed world drinks a gallon of water each day but “eats” another 800 gallons. And as Americans, our water consumption per capita is twice the world’s average. Each one of us uses enough water annually to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool—four times what someone in Yemen uses.

In an effort to get consumers, companies, and entire countries to recognize the true costs of their water use, a few environmental groups are promoting the concept of our “water footprint.” The idea “very much brings the water problem to the people,” explains its creator, Arjen Hoekstra, scientific director of the Netherlands-based Water Footprint Network. Just as calculating carbon footprints has encouraged—and shocked—many Americans into seriously considering their personal environmental impacts, Hoekstra hopes that water footprinting will reveal the gushing faucet behind every purchase we make. “And then it shows that maybe people can do something about it.”

We’ve got a long way to go. In the past 50 years, the world’s water use has tripled. More than a third of the western United States sits atop groundwater that is being consumed faster than it’s replenished. Half of the world’s wetlands are gone, killed off in part by irrigation and dams, which have destroyed habitats along 60 percent of the planet’s largest river systems. Since 1970, the population of freshwater species has been halved; one-fifth of all freshwater fish vanished in the past century—an extinction rate nearly 50 times that of mammals. And consuming more water has concentrated pesticides and fertilizers in what’s left over: It’s unsafe to swim or fish in nearly 40 percent of US rivers and streams, and polluted water sickens nearly 3.5 million Americans a year.

Farmers often get blamed for these water woes. Take California, where agriculture uses 80 percent of the state’s water. According to the Pacific Institute, better conservation on farms in the semiarid Central Valley could save 1.1 trillion gallons of water a year. That’s almost enough to supply all nonfarm uses in Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. But adopting efficient technologies like drip irrigation systems and computerized moisture sensors is too expensive for many farmers, whose profits depend on shoppers with no sense of a vegetable’s water footprint but a keen eye for a penny’s difference in price. The federal government sends mixed signals on conservation: The estimated $263 million the farm bill annually spends to get farmers to save water is dwarfed by the roughly $5 billion it hands out for growing water-intensive crops like rice, soybeans, and cotton, often in parched regions like Arizona. All of which conspires to keep water flowing freely and cheaply without regard for scarcity or impact.

To put an end to these perverse incentives, the Alliance for Water Stewardship, a partnership between a water industry trade group and five environmental organizations, including the Pacific Institute and the Nature Conservancy, wants to reward farmers who minimize their water footprints. By 2012, AWS aims to begin certifying businesses as “water stewards” and possibly introduce a “blue” ecolabel that would identify water-friendly products on grocery store shelves.

Devising this label is a lot trickier than coming up with a feel-good logo. A field of cotton in Alabama and one in California can use the same amount of water but have very different environmental impacts; cotton is more sustainable in the humid South than in the arid West. “We often say everything about water is ultimately local,” says Brian Richter, a water scientist at the Nature Conservancy’s freshwater program. That’s why the alliance’s footprint certifiers will use a formula that balances the size of a farm’s water footprint with its efficiency and impact on its watershed. Yet deciding exactly how that formula should work will take years of research and debate. “Water is not like carbon, which has impacts that are fairly evenly distributed around the globe,” Richter says. “You have to approach water stewardship in a fundamentally different way.”

Water footprinting has already caught the attention of some large, PR-savvy corporations. In the past two years, 50 companies, including Coca-Cola and Levi Strauss, have signed on to the United Nations CEO Water Mandate, making a loose commitment to cut their water use and encourage their suppliers and customers to do the same. Last year, Unilever, the Dutch and British conglomerate that buys 7 percent of the world’s tomatoes, announced that in making its Ragú pasta sauce it would favor California tomatoes grown by farmers who use efficient drip irrigation systems. “We’re highly reliant on water as a source material,” explains John Temple, the company’s sustainability director. “If we don’t have a handle on water availability, we might not have the business in the future.”

In April, the Finnish food conglomerate Raisio became the first company of its kind to print a product’s water footprint on its packaging. In the absence of an internationally accepted footprint formula, it had to devise its own. Spokeswoman Heidi Hirvonen says the move was in response to “an increasing consumer demand” for this kind of data. Yet other large food companies and some members of the Alliance for Water Stewardship argue that consumers won’t fully understand a water-footprint label, let alone a more sophisticated “blue” label that factors in how and where water is used. “It’s very hard to find the words to make it clear enough for people to understand,” explains Stuart Orr, the World Wildlife Fund’s representative at the alliance. He thinks the campaign should focus on showing companies how they can minimize their exposure to water scarcity by creating a “bluer” supply chain.

Water footprinting may also clash with some tenets of the sustainability movement. Locally grown, organic, or fair-trade food might seem less appetizing if consumers knew it was grown using water from fragile salmon habitat or a depleted aquifer. “For some of those people who are heavily involved in the food-miles issue, the water issue throws a complete curveball,” Orr notes. “Should we rely on countries that have a lot of water and allow them to trade that through foodstuffs?” In other words, could it be better for a shopper in Los Angeles to buy an avocado from water-rich New Zealand than from Southern California’s irrigated desert? (See “Liquid Assets.”)

The answers to such questions hold promise and peril for farmers such as Jim Diedrich. The Alliance for Water Stewardship plan could deem the entire Sacramento River watershed unsuitable for use in irrigated agriculture, or it could embrace farmers like him who’ve invested heavily in conserving water.

For now, however, he doesn’t feel like he’s part of the solution. On a recent afternoon, he climbed into his Dodge Laramie with his golden retriever, Joey, and drove through his fallowed fields. He passed a jumble of blue pipes, part of his $20 million drip irrigation system, which uses a third of the water of his old furrow system. “We paid more for that drip system than we paid for the goddamn ground,” he grumbled. It didn’t seem fair that he’d been cut off from his carefully allotted supply while nearby farmers with grandfathered water claims were still flooding their fields. “We’re trying to be the most efficient as we can, and now we get no water.”

If the water sustainability movement can navigate through the tangle of existing water rights, it might lay the groundwork for an entirely different approach to regulating agriculture. Water could be parceled out to the farmers who use it most efficiently and with the least environmental impact. Much as a cap-and-trade program would make manufacturers compete for the right to spew CO2, farms could compete through efficiency for the right to suck up water.

California’s unending cycles of drought might ultimately compel it to adopt a footprint-based solution. Under such an arrangement, says Jason Morrison, program director for the Pacific Institute, farmers who are the most responsible irrigators could be guaranteed subsidies or interest-free loans by the state—and maybe even water—during drought years. This approach, combined with the launch of a blue ecolabel, would create a profitable incentive for farmers to save water. It could even forge a truce between conventional farmers and the “environmental wackos” who have been their traditional foes. Diedrich, for one, told me he liked the notion of getting a loan during dry years in exchange for reducing his—and, by extension, my and everyone else’s—water footprint. “That would probably be a good deal,” he said. “You wouldn’t have to take a welfare check, either.”

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

President Carter Completely Severs Ties to the Southern Baptist Church Where he's Worshipped for over 60 years due to “Repugnant” Sexism.

(ChattahBox)—Former President and Nobel Prize Winner Jimmy Carter, has decided he can no longer stomach the pervasive discrimination against women that is ingrained in the religious beliefs of the Southern Baptist Church. Carter took the unusual step this past week of issuing a formal statement completely severing all ties to the church where he worshipped for over 60 years.

Jimmy Carter and his wife Roselyn had taken steps to publicly distance themselves from the Southern Baptist Church some years ago, in response to racial insensitivities and other forms of discrimination. However, Carter continued to serve as a Deacon and teach Sunday School at his hometown place of worship, the Maranatha Baptist in Plains, Georgia.

Carter is involved in the group the New Baptist Covenant, which seeks to join all branches of the greater Baptist Church to bring black and white worshipers together under one tent.

In his statement, Carter wages a direct assault on the sexism of the Southern Baptist Church by stating, “Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”

Carter declares that discrimination against women not only violates basic human rights, but goes against “…the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions.”

He places the blame for the worldwide abuse of women directly at the feet of male religious leaders who promote discrimination “…for their own selfish ends,” providing religious “justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.”


“At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime,” wrote Carter.

Carter goes on to describe how sexual discrimination negatively pervades every aspect of our lives, with many countries denying women education, basic health care and the right to choose their own husbands.

Jimmy Carter, now 85-years-old described his decision to leave his lifelong place of worship as “painful,” but he isn’t about to look back.

He described his denouncing of church teachings “…as an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.”

Jimmy Carter’s public position against sexism as a respected male leader, and long-time worshiper of the Southern Baptist Church, should go a long way to change the direction of religious discourse towards women.

Carter’s entire statement can be found here:

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/07/20/jimmy-carter-leaves-southern-baptist-church-for-repugnant-sexism/

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Love is Worth It.

July 1, 2009.

Dear Supporters,

I've got some bad news.

After 10 years of service to our country -- including leading combat patrols, rebuilding schools and translating Arabic in Iraq for 15 months -- the Federal Recognition Board issued its recommendation on Tuesday that I be discharged from the Army for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The board's decision to fire me is not the end. Now that this panel of four officers has recommended my discharge, it still must be approved by senior officials in the Army, a process that could take a few weeks to a year. Unless something unexpected happens, it may be just a matter of time before the Army officially fires me.

I will not give up, no matter the odds. Because I know that the only way we will win this fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is by facing it head on. And I need your help again to keep up the fight.

I've made my case to President Obama -- supported by more than 140,000 of your signatures. I've made my case to the Army -- supported by more than 160,000 of your signatures. And I will continue to make my case until they fire me for good.

Now we need to make our case to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Will you join me in asking Speaker Pelosi to strongly support legislation currently in Congress that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Please sign on to our letter before July 4th and I'll personally deliver your signatures to the Speaker ASAP: http://www.couragecampaign.org/RepealDADT

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught me to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

That's why I can't give up now. I've got to keep fighting. My fellow servicemembers -- and the 70 fellow West Point graduates who have also come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I co-founded to push for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- would expect nothing less.

The only way we can win this fight for the truth is if the political cost of discrimination eventually becomes too great for the system to operate successfully. We need to raise the political cost in Congress so that Speaker Nancy Pelosi understands that, as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said, "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Speaker Pelosi needs to make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a priority now and come out strongly in support of legislative action to repeal this discriminatory law. Will you stand by my side now and sign our letter to the Speaker before July 4th? You have my word that I will deliver your signatures to Speaker Pelosi personally:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/RepealDADT

As I said a few days ago, national security means many things, but the thing that makes us secure in our nation and homes is love. What makes me a better soldier, leader, Christian and human being is love. And I'm not going to hide my love.

Love is worth it.

Thank you for your support.
Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN New York Army National Guard

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Napkin Art by: Marty Coleman. Visit Marty's website here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Minnesota Senate Race Is Over -- Coleman Has Conceded Defeat To Franken.

By: Eric Kleefeld - June 30, 2009, 4:04PM

President Obama has released this statement on Sen.-elect Al Franken's (D-MN) much-litigated and now final victory in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race:

"I look forward to working with Senator-Elect Franken to build a new foundation for growth and prosperity by lowering health care costs and investing in the kind of clean energy jobs and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century."

In a press conference just now, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has conceded defeat to the Democratic comedian Franken in the 2008 Senate race -- nearly eight months after Election Day, and six months after the seat went vacant when Coleman's single term had expired. Coleman said that further litigation would damage the state, and congratulated Sen.-elect Franken on his victory. He said his future plans in politics "are a subject for another day."

Coleman also said he would no longer contest the much-litigated matter of which previously-rejected absentee ballots should and should not be let into the count, for which both campaigns had picked out lists to argue over. "I'm not questioning what's counted and what's not counted. The Supreme Court has decided," he said. "We are a nation of laws and not men and women. Now that the court has spoken, it's time to move on and not look back."

Coleman said his phone call with Franken was civil. "It couldn't have been any closer and he understands, what his family has gone through, and what me and my family have gone through," said Coleman. "It was a very personal discussion. I congratulated him and wished him the best, and he responded in kind."

It's been a long and strange journey from there to here. Coleman had initially been ahead of the long-time Democratic activist and dirty comedian right after the election, seemingly winning by around 700 votes the day after the election. But then the state went through the standard process of having the counties all proofread their spreadsheets -- and it turned out he only led by 215.

Then the recount commenced, with ballots from malfunctioning machines or with markings that were too light to be scanned cutting into the lead. Then after the State Canvassing Board adjudicated the ballots that had been challenged by the campaigns for voter intent or illegal voter signatures (and most of these challenges from both sides were completely frivolous, designed to manipulate the totals), it was now Franken who was ahead by 49 votes. Then after extensive litigation on absentee ballot envelopes that had been rejected due to clerical errors by local officials, Franken was then up by 225 votes.

Then Coleman filed a lawsuit to contest the results, contending that a) ballots were let in for Franken that shouldn't have been, b) ballots for Coleman that should have been allowed were not, and c) damaged absentee ballots that had been duplicated ended up being counted twice, favoring Franken. After months and months of litigation, the three-member trial court rejected all of these claims -- and some more previously-rejected ballots that were put in only expanded Franken's victory to 312 votes.

And keep in mind that Coleman's Senate term expired in early January. This seat has been vacant for six months, due to two things. First, a quirk of Minnesota law prevents the certification of a winner in a contested race until the state litigation is over. Second, Senate Republicans declared that they would block any attempts to seat Franken without the full documentation -- indeed, they leveraged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) attempts to block Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) from being seated, due to having a certificate of appointment that wasn't fully signed.

The national Republican Party pumped a lot of money into support Norm's fight, with a lot of people starting to suspect that this was motivated at least in part by delaying the Democrats from getting a seat. For example, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has said it could take "years" to resolve this.

But now it's over. Really and truly over. Sen.-Elect Franken is expected to be sworn in early next week, taking the seat once held by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone -- a staunch progressive and close personal friend of Al's, whose death in 2002 plane crash clearly had a profound effect on the comedian, and spurred him to get seriously involved in politics, and to travel down the road that led us here.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.