Posted by Jim Hightower
Listen to this Commentary
I haven't heard such enthusiastic, downright raucous applause
since Texas Gov. "Oops" Perry suggested in 2009 that his state just
might withdraw from the union. Unfortunately for him, the applauders
were not Texans, but the people of the other 49 states.
This year, though, Idaho is the recipient of hip-hip-hoorays
from across the country. Why? Because it has been selected as the site
of an extraordinary new town to be named "III Citadel." This will be a
walled, heavily-fortified, one-square-mile settlement of some 7,000
armed & angry, ideologically-pure, anti-government extremists drawn
from cities, towns and gopher holes all across America. Lucky you,
Idaho!
Founder and apocalyptic visionary Christian Allen Kerodin, says
the Roman numeral III in the name of his Citadel scheme represents what
he calls the "3 percenters" – the percentage of Americans who are
superpatriot survivalists capable of withstanding the coming economic
doomsday and social upheaval. He says that, once established, he and his
fellow Citadellians will take it upon themselves to restore America to
Americans: "The Southwest will be purged of Latinos," he explains, and
"Enclaves of Muslims such as in Detroit will be culled… by fed-up
Americans looking for some payback." In Kerodin's barricaded utopia,
everyone older than 13 "must possess an AR-15 assault rifle, five
magazines, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition." In an odd comparison, he
declares that his last bastion of liberty will be like Disneyland – "a
walled, gated private property." Yeah – only Goofyer.
Of course, the III in the Citadel's name could also refer to
Kerodin's three felony convictions.
Nonetheless, he's doing America a
favor if he can actually bring 7,000 like-minded zealots into his
compound. Once they're inside, we can sneak up and lock the gates from
the outside.
"7,000 Gun-Loving "Patriots" Living in an Walled Citadel Built
Around an Arms Factory in Idaho - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" www.alternet.org, August 15, 2013.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Buy Jesse Jackson Jr.'s Mink Capes
By Jozen Cummings
One of the more shocking things revealed in Jesse Jackson Jr.'s scandal, in which the Chicago politician was found guilty of illegally spending campaign funds on superfluous items, was his taste in clothing. Jackson had a penchant for mink capes, as if he were trying to bring back the 1970's.
As Halloween fast approaches, those who are interested in dressing up like the disgraced son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson now have their chance to do so, according to the Associated Press.
The U.S. Marshals Service said it will start selling 13 items in an online auction Tuesday - with proceeds going to help repay $750,000 in campaign funds that the Chicago Democrat illegally spent.
One of the more shocking things revealed in Jesse Jackson Jr.'s scandal, in which the Chicago politician was found guilty of illegally spending campaign funds on superfluous items, was his taste in clothing. Jackson had a penchant for mink capes, as if he were trying to bring back the 1970's.
As Halloween fast approaches, those who are interested in dressing up like the disgraced son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson now have their chance to do so, according to the Associated Press.
The U.S. Marshals Service said it will start selling 13 items in an online auction Tuesday - with proceeds going to help repay $750,000 in campaign funds that the Chicago Democrat illegally spent.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
‘Something is wrong here’: Trauma center doctor pleads for an end to gun violence
By
The head doctor at a trauma center handling victims of the deadly Washington Navy Yard rampage gave an emotional plea to end gun violence in America.
“I may be the chief medical officer of a very large trauma center, but there’s something wrong here when we have these multiple shootings, these multiple injuries, there’s something wrong,” said Chief Medical Officer Dr. Janis Orlowski of MedStar Washington Hospital Center during a press briefing.
“The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it.”
“I’d like you to put my trauma center out of business,” Orlowski added.
MedStar Washington Hospital Center has been treating three gunshot victims–all who are expected to survive—after a heavily-armed gunman opened fire Monday morning Washington, D.C.’s Navy Yard.
While authorities continue to investigate the attack, police have identified the suspected shooter as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old civilian contractor for the Navy. Officials said the 34-year-old civilian contractor for the Navy is now dead, bringing the overall death toll to 13 people. At least 8 others were injured.
Orlowski said she spoke out not only as a doctor, but as a mother and a concerned member of the community.
“I worry about this, I worry about our community,” she told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “Mass murders – people walking through schools, people walking through movie theaters, people walking through work places –unfortunately is common, or more common than what it should be. And I spoke from the heart when I said that we’ve got to work together to stop this.”
President Obama addressed the increasing pattern of shooting sprees across the country, even in the places one might least expect it. “We are confronting yet another mass shooting,” Obama said Monday. “And today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital.”
Following the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school and the Aurora movie theater, the Obama administration has been pushing for tighter gun control measures across the country. But the Senate bill to require background checks ultimately failed, dealing a major blow to gun control advocates.
Just last week, Colorado also recalled two Democratic state lawmakers who voted in favor of tighter gun restrictions.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view
By Bill Snyder | InfoWorld
Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages.
Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web.
That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new - and wholly bad - economic model on the Web.
As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality.
But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical.
ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers - think of your local jazz station that streams audio - couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest.
Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?"
Verizon: the new Standard Oil
Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no.
They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.)
In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously remarked that upstarts like Google would like to "use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
That's bad enough, but Verizon goes even further. It claims that it has a right to free speech and, like a newspaper that may or may not publish a story about something, it can choose which content it chooses to carry. "Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue in a brief (PDF).
That's so crazy I won't bother to address it. But the FCC has done such a poor job of spelling out what it thinks it has the right to regulate and how that should work that the door is wide open for the carriers' bizarre - not to mention anticonsumer -- strategies and arguments.
I don't want to get down in the regulatory weeds, but there is one bit of legalese that's worth knowing: common carrier. Simply put, it means that the company doing the shipping can't mess with the contents. A railroad is a common carrier, and as such it can't decide whose cargo it will carry and whose it won't.
Before railroads were common carriers, they did things like favor products made by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which made him even richer and also led to the creation of a wildly out-of-control monopoly. (Yeshiva's Crawford has an in-depth but readable explanation of these issues in her book "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age."
But the FCC has never ruled that ISP's are common carriers, partly because it's afraid of the power of the lobbyists to influence Congress and partly because its directors lack spine. And now that lack of spine is about to bite the butt of everyone who uses the Web.
According to people who follow this stuff closely, because ISP's are not common carriers the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., are looking askance at the FCC's defense against Verizon's lawsuit, although a verdict isn't likely for months.
Here are the stakes: "If Verizon - or any ISP - can go to a website and demand extra money just to reach Verizon subscribers, the fundamental fairness of competing on the Internet would be disrupted. It would immediately make Verizon the gatekeeper to what would and would not succeed online. ISP's - not users, not the market - would decide which websites and services succeed," writes Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group.
A taste of the Web's future: The Time Warner vs. CBS dust-up
You don't have to wait for the Verizon verdict to get a taste of what the New Web Order would be like. Time Warner Cable and CBS just had a dust-up over how much Time Warner would pay CBS to carry its programming. When the pair couldn't agree, the cable giant stopped carrying CBS programming in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas. CBS then retaliated by stopping Time Warner subscribers from streaming its programming over the Internet.
They settled after about a month. Staying true to form, Time Warner refused to give customers a rebate as compensation for lost programming.
That's not exactly the same issue that we're facing in the fight over Net neutrality, but it should give you a sense of what life is like when the giants fight it out over what you're allowed to access and for how much. Users get caught in the middle, and the rights we've taken for granted simply disappear.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here (Add a comment) so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill@billsnyder.biz. Follow me on Twitter at BSnyderSF.
This article, "Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view," was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.
Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages.
Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web.
That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new - and wholly bad - economic model on the Web.
As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality.
But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical.
ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers - think of your local jazz station that streams audio - couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest.
Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?"
Verizon: the new Standard Oil
Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no.
They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.)
In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously remarked that upstarts like Google would like to "use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
That's bad enough, but Verizon goes even further. It claims that it has a right to free speech and, like a newspaper that may or may not publish a story about something, it can choose which content it chooses to carry. "Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue in a brief (PDF).
That's so crazy I won't bother to address it. But the FCC has done such a poor job of spelling out what it thinks it has the right to regulate and how that should work that the door is wide open for the carriers' bizarre - not to mention anticonsumer -- strategies and arguments.
I don't want to get down in the regulatory weeds, but there is one bit of legalese that's worth knowing: common carrier. Simply put, it means that the company doing the shipping can't mess with the contents. A railroad is a common carrier, and as such it can't decide whose cargo it will carry and whose it won't.
Before railroads were common carriers, they did things like favor products made by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which made him even richer and also led to the creation of a wildly out-of-control monopoly. (Yeshiva's Crawford has an in-depth but readable explanation of these issues in her book "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age."
But the FCC has never ruled that ISP's are common carriers, partly because it's afraid of the power of the lobbyists to influence Congress and partly because its directors lack spine. And now that lack of spine is about to bite the butt of everyone who uses the Web.
According to people who follow this stuff closely, because ISP's are not common carriers the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., are looking askance at the FCC's defense against Verizon's lawsuit, although a verdict isn't likely for months.
Here are the stakes: "If Verizon - or any ISP - can go to a website and demand extra money just to reach Verizon subscribers, the fundamental fairness of competing on the Internet would be disrupted. It would immediately make Verizon the gatekeeper to what would and would not succeed online. ISP's - not users, not the market - would decide which websites and services succeed," writes Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group.
A taste of the Web's future: The Time Warner vs. CBS dust-up
You don't have to wait for the Verizon verdict to get a taste of what the New Web Order would be like. Time Warner Cable and CBS just had a dust-up over how much Time Warner would pay CBS to carry its programming. When the pair couldn't agree, the cable giant stopped carrying CBS programming in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas. CBS then retaliated by stopping Time Warner subscribers from streaming its programming over the Internet.
They settled after about a month. Staying true to form, Time Warner refused to give customers a rebate as compensation for lost programming.
That's not exactly the same issue that we're facing in the fight over Net neutrality, but it should give you a sense of what life is like when the giants fight it out over what you're allowed to access and for how much. Users get caught in the middle, and the rights we've taken for granted simply disappear.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here (Add a comment) so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill@billsnyder.biz. Follow me on Twitter at BSnyderSF.
This article, "Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view," was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Raspberry Pi as an Ad Blocking Access Point
Ads? What Ads?
Advertising is prevalent on the web. It's a necessary evil at times, but can also be greatly overused by companies slowing down your page loads, and bringing your connected devices to a crawl. Learn how to block these ads using your Raspberry Pi.
Learn More
Friday, September 13, 2013
The Day John Boehner Admitted He's Totally at a Loss
The speaker is out of ideas for dealing with his restive right wing.
By
“No. Do you have an idea?” Boehner replied, according to Politico. “They’ll just shoot it down anyway.”
Boehner’s dilemma -- finding a way to satisfy the right wing of his caucus that doesn’t involve shutting down the government -- isn’t new. The debate rages in Washington over whether he has an impossible job or whether he’s just terrible at it, but it doesn't really matter.
Throughout it all, as Congress lurches from crisis to crisis, he has always evinced a survivor’s weary optimism that this, too, shall pass. But now he is finally, totally, out of ideas.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Ring of Fire 9/8/13
Farron Cousins from The Trial Lawyer Magazine will be sitting in for Pap
this week.
American CEO's are being handsomely rewarded for destroying the businesses that they are running, and Zoe Carpenter from The Nation magazine will tell us how these CEOs continuously "fail upwards."
We'll also be discussing the pay-to-play scandals that could finally take down the Keystone XL pipeline.
And we'll be taking a look at a mini-documentary produced by Ring of Fire. The flim features Ring of Fire hosts Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discussing the history of corporate fraud against the government, and the role that whistleblowers play in helping to keep corporations from taking advantage of federal contracts.
American CEO's are being handsomely rewarded for destroying the businesses that they are running, and Zoe Carpenter from The Nation magazine will tell us how these CEOs continuously "fail upwards."
We'll also be discussing the pay-to-play scandals that could finally take down the Keystone XL pipeline.
And we'll be taking a look at a mini-documentary produced by Ring of Fire. The flim features Ring of Fire hosts Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discussing the history of corporate fraud against the government, and the role that whistleblowers play in helping to keep corporations from taking advantage of federal contracts.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Left with nothing
Published on September 8, 2013
This man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were
Left with nothing.
On the day Bennie Coleman lost his house, the day armed U.S. marshals came to his door and ordered him off the property, he slumped in a folding chair across the street and watched the vestiges of his 76 years hauled to the curb.
Movers carted out his easy chair, his clothes, his television. Next came the things that were closest to his heart: his Marine Corps medals and photographs of his dead wife, Martha. The duplex in Northeast Washington that Coleman bought with cash two decades earlier was emptied and shuttered.
By sundown, he had nowhere to go.
All because he didn’t pay a $134 property tax bill.
The retired Marine sergeant lost his house on that summer day two years ago through a tax lien sale — an obscure program run by D.C. government that enlists private investors to help the city recover unpaid taxes.
For decades, the District placed liens on properties when homeowners failed to pay their bills, then sold those liens at public auctions to mom-and-pop investors who drew a profit by charging owners interest on top of the tax debt until the money was repaid.
But under the watch of local leaders, the program has morphed into a predatory system of debt collection for well-financed, out-of-town companies that turned $500 delinquencies into $5,000 debts — then foreclosed on homes when families couldn’t pay, a Washington Post investigation found.
As the housing market soared, the investors scooped up liens in every corner of the city, then started charging homeowners thousands in legal fees and other costs that far exceeded their original tax bills, with rates for attorneys reaching $450 an hour.
Families have been forced to borrow or strike payment plans to save their homes.
Others weren’t as lucky. Tax lien purchasers have foreclosed on nearly 200 houses since 2005 and are now pressing to take 1,200 more, many owned free and clear by families for generations.
Investors also took storefronts, parking lots and vacant land — about 500 properties in all, or an average of one a week. In dozens of cases, the liens were less than $500.
Coleman, struggling with dementia, was among those who lost a home. His debt had snowballed to $4,999 — 37 times the original tax bill. Not only did he lose his $197,000 house, but he also was stripped of the equity because tax lien purchasers are entitled to everything, trumping even mortgage companies.
“This is destroying lives,” said Christopher Leinberger, a distinguished scholar and research professor of urban real estate at George Washington University.
Officials at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue said that without tax sales, property owners wouldn’t feel compelled to pay their bills.
“The tax sale is the last resort. It’s also the first resort — it’s the only way in the statute to collect debt,” said deputy chief financial officer Stephen Cordi.
But the District, a hotbed for the tax lien industry, has done little to shield its most vulnerable homeowners from unscrupulous operators.
Foreclosures have upended families in some of the city’s most distressed neighborhoods. Houses were taken from a housekeeper, a department store clerk, a seamstress and even the estates of dead people. The hardest hit: elderly homeowners, who were often sick or dying when tax lien purchasers seized their houses.
One 65-year-old flower shop owner lost his Northwest Washington home of 40 years after a company from Florida paid his back taxes — $1,025 — and then took the house through foreclosure while he was in hospice, dying of cancer. A 95-year-old church choir leader lost her family home to a Maryland investor over a tax debt of $44.79 while she was struggling with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home.
Other cities and states took steps to curb abuses, such as capping the fees, safeguarding houses owned by the elderly or scrapping tax sales altogether and instead collecting the money themselves.
“Where is the justice? They’re taking people’s lives,” said Beverly Smalls, whose elderly aunt lost her home in Northeast Washington. “It’s just not right.”
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Colbert: Every Time I Watch Eric Bolling, I Want to Kill Myself
By Heather
Stephen Colbert gave Eric Bolling the treatment he deserved this Thursday evening, after Bolling suggested saving taxpayer money by sending a suicide manual to violent inmates earlier this week.
About all I can say is the feeling is mutual after watching too much of anyone on that network and I'm guessing Colbert is not alone when it comes to Bolling.
Here's more from Raw Story: Colbert: Watching Eric Bolling ‘makes me want to kill myself’:
Stephen Colbert gave Eric Bolling the treatment he deserved this Thursday evening, after Bolling suggested saving taxpayer money by sending a suicide manual to violent inmates earlier this week.
About all I can say is the feeling is mutual after watching too much of anyone on that network and I'm guessing Colbert is not alone when it comes to Bolling.
Here's more from Raw Story: Colbert: Watching Eric Bolling ‘makes me want to kill myself’:
On Thursday night’s edition of “The Colbert Report,” host Stephen Colbert praised Eric Bolling of Fox News’ “The Five” and said that Bolling’s ingenious solution to lowering prison costs might be a brilliant way of saving taxpayer money. In fact, Colbert said, why not extend the idea of cash-saving suicides to Social Security recipients and other “freeloaders?” [...]
When he needs a little lift, said Colbert, he turns to “Stephen Colbert’s Smile File” for some happy news. “Tonight’s Smile File,” he said, “Ariel Castro.”
“Now folks, you might be saying, ‘Stephen, Ariel Castro is a vile monster whose suicide this week is just the dark end of a dark life. How can anything associated with that man possibly make me smile?’” he explained. “That’s what I thought.”
“Until I tuned in to Fox News’ ‘The Five,’ starring Eric Bolling, who always sees the glass as half full,” he explained, before rolling video of Bolling announcing Castro’s suicide and crowing delightedly that taxpayers are off the hook for his care and feeding during his imprisonment. Read on...
Friday, September 6, 2013
Liberal Firebrand Alan Grayson Leads The Opposition To Strike On Syria
By Deborah Montesano
The controversy over whether to punish the Syrian government for the
chemical weapons attack that took place there has done the unbelievable.
It split the political parties and forged new alliances, creating
unlikely bonds between Tea Partiers and liberals. Rep. Alan Grayson,
D-FL, has become one of the loudest voices leading the opposition to
military intervention in Syria.
Grayson is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which questioned Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday about the chemical weapons episode. On Thursday, the congressman appeared on the PBS News Hour and Democracy Now to express, first of all, his appreciation that President Obama put the question before Congress — but secondly, to make the case for not doing as the President requested. He sums up his own conclusion, that a ‘limited strike’ would not be a good idea, with four major points:
1. It not only isn’t our responsibility, but it’s especially not our responsibility to act unilaterally. He said:
It’s a novel idea that Congress might actually be listening to the people on this issue and that a new coalition, however temporary, is coming out of the process. The participants in the coalition surely don’t all have the same motivation, but what Grayson wants is to focus on the real concerns of the American people — the 20 million who are still looking for full-time work, the 50 million who don’t have food security, and the 40 million who can’t afford to see a doctor.
And he especially wants them to continue making their voices heard. In order to facilitate the process, he has set up a website, dontattacksyria.com. By signing the site’s petition, the people can send a clear message to Congress: military intervention in Syria is totally unacceptable.
Here’s a video from Grayson’s interview with PBS on why he opposes military intervention in Syria:
Rep.
Grayson (D-FL) on military intervention in Syria: ‘You notice how, with
196 countries in the world, no one else wants to touch this problem.’
Photo from The Blaze.
Grayson is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which questioned Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday about the chemical weapons episode. On Thursday, the congressman appeared on the PBS News Hour and Democracy Now to express, first of all, his appreciation that President Obama put the question before Congress — but secondly, to make the case for not doing as the President requested. He sums up his own conclusion, that a ‘limited strike’ would not be a good idea, with four major points:
You notice how, with 196 countries in the world, no one else wants to touch this problem … The international community has spoken. We are the only ones who are contemplating anything like this.2. There is not a clear result that a strike can accomplish. It won’t end the regime or the civil war or even prevent another use of chemical warfare:
We cannot dictate, much less even influence, what goes on in Syria. It started as a civil war. It’s evolving into a proxy war between Shiite Muslim fundamentalists and Sunni Muslim fundamentalists, both of whom historically are our enemies.3. A strike would be expensive, costing up to a billion dollars:
The best guess at this point is that the attack we’re talking about here, as it’s been described in general terms, will cost a billion dollars. That’s a billion dollars that could be spent, at least in part, on humanitarian aid to help the almost two million refugees who are now in Jordan and Turkey. It’s also a billion dollars that could be used for domestic needs.4. It could spin out of control:
It’s clear that if the Syrian government does anything other than simply taking a pounding and ignoring it and brushing it off, and it retaliates in virtually any way, then there will be a war between Syria and the United States, and it will involve boots on the ground.Grayson then puts the matter in perspective by talking about the enormous problems that the U.S. faces, that must be dealt with by Congress, and soon. Yet, valuable time is consumed by the debate over Syria at what is an extremely crucial moment:
… three weeks from now, there’s going to be a government shutdown, and five weeks from now, the government runs out of money when we reach the debt limit.
It’s appalling to me, appalling to me, that we spend two or three or four weeks debating whether to create a whole new category of war called humanitarian war, rather than dealing with our own problems and trying to solve them.Americans largely agree. The Congressman told interviewer Jeffrey Brown that he and his colleagues in the House are hearing opposition to the president’s proposed strike by a ratio of 100 to 1. Furthermore, at the time the News Hour aired, only 20 members of Congress were supportive of the idea and 183 opposed.
It’s a novel idea that Congress might actually be listening to the people on this issue and that a new coalition, however temporary, is coming out of the process. The participants in the coalition surely don’t all have the same motivation, but what Grayson wants is to focus on the real concerns of the American people — the 20 million who are still looking for full-time work, the 50 million who don’t have food security, and the 40 million who can’t afford to see a doctor.
And he especially wants them to continue making their voices heard. In order to facilitate the process, he has set up a website, dontattacksyria.com. By signing the site’s petition, the people can send a clear message to Congress: military intervention in Syria is totally unacceptable.
Here’s a video from Grayson’s interview with PBS on why he opposes military intervention in Syria:
Muted labor protests amid fears of Walmart retaliation
By Ned Resnikoff
Two fired Walmart workers and one current employee were arrested Thursday during a national wave of demonstrations against the company.
The protesters, members of the labor group OUR Walmart, were demonstrating outside the Manhattan office of investment banker Christopher Williams, a member of the Walmart board of directors. The protesters hoped to deliver Williams a petition demanding that Walmart pay all employees a minimum wage of $25,000 annually and stop its alleged retaliation against strikers. Two weeks ago, OUR Walmart promised an escalation in the ongoing dispute with the company if those demands were not met by Labor Day.
OUR Walmart organizers promise similar events and rallies across 15 cities nationwide over the course of the day. The rolling series of actions, which organizers say will include hundreds of Walmart employees and thousands more community supporters, is expected to be the largest anti-Walmart event since last year’s Black Friday strike.
But this time, nobody is going to be striking; and even though organizers are not asking Walmart employees to walk off the job, fewer are expected to show up than during Black Friday. If Walmart did lay off some 20 organized workers to send a message, as OUR Walmart claims and Walmart denies, then it appears to be working.
“People are scared because they see how Walmart retaliates,” said Colby Harris, an OUR Walmart member and Walmart employee based in Dallas, Texas. He claimed that OUR Walmart has more members than ever, but “not everyone has spoken out because of the reality of losing their jobs.”
In late May and early June, roughly 100 Walmart employees affiliated with OUR Walmart engaged in what they said was an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike against the company. Strikers are protected from termination by the National Labor Relations Act, but Walmart has argued that the category doesn’t apply to workers who engage in what Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg has called “hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”
“We actually have a very strict policy against retaliation at Walmart,” said Walmart spokesperson Brooke Buchanan. “And the associates who were terminated were terminated for other reasons, violating our policies, and it did not have anything to do with their association with this group or any other group. If a Walmart associate alleges retaliation has occurred, we will look into the situation, investigate, and take appropriate action.”
Dominic Ware, an OUR Walmart member and former Walmart employee based in the Bay Area, said he was fired in early July and that management told him specifically it was because of his participation in the May-June strike.
“They said the strike was not recognized as a ULP strike,” he said. Though Ware has tried to discuss the firing with his former manager, “to this day, he will not have an open door with me.”
In addition to the 20 workers which OUR Walmart claims have been wrongfully fired, they say another 50 or so have been disciplined for organizing. Harris, though he is still employed at Walmart, told MSNBC he had been written up three times already.
Buchanan shrugged off the latest protests, describing them as “a handful of union-orchestrated media stunts” and saying that OUR Walmart grossly exaggerated the number of Walmart employees involved.
“This is not an associate-based demonstration,” said Buchanan. “This has been sponsored and put on by the unions, something they’ve attempted and failed to be successful at over the last couple of years.” She also claimed that many demonstrators were paid to appear at protests, an allegation which OUR Walmart said is untrue.
PICO RIVERA, CA – MAY 30: Walmart cashier Martha
Sellers (C) walks a picket line with supporters to protest Walmart’s retaliation
against workers who speak out on May 30, 2013 in Pico Rivera, California.
Sellers and several other striking Walmart employees and their supporters borded
a bus to start a 1,500-mile bus journey titled “Ride for Respect,”‘ ending at
the company’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas.
(Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)
Two fired Walmart workers and one current employee were arrested Thursday during a national wave of demonstrations against the company.
The protesters, members of the labor group OUR Walmart, were demonstrating outside the Manhattan office of investment banker Christopher Williams, a member of the Walmart board of directors. The protesters hoped to deliver Williams a petition demanding that Walmart pay all employees a minimum wage of $25,000 annually and stop its alleged retaliation against strikers. Two weeks ago, OUR Walmart promised an escalation in the ongoing dispute with the company if those demands were not met by Labor Day.
OUR Walmart organizers promise similar events and rallies across 15 cities nationwide over the course of the day. The rolling series of actions, which organizers say will include hundreds of Walmart employees and thousands more community supporters, is expected to be the largest anti-Walmart event since last year’s Black Friday strike.
But this time, nobody is going to be striking; and even though organizers are not asking Walmart employees to walk off the job, fewer are expected to show up than during Black Friday. If Walmart did lay off some 20 organized workers to send a message, as OUR Walmart claims and Walmart denies, then it appears to be working.
“People are scared because they see how Walmart retaliates,” said Colby Harris, an OUR Walmart member and Walmart employee based in Dallas, Texas. He claimed that OUR Walmart has more members than ever, but “not everyone has spoken out because of the reality of losing their jobs.”
In late May and early June, roughly 100 Walmart employees affiliated with OUR Walmart engaged in what they said was an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike against the company. Strikers are protected from termination by the National Labor Relations Act, but Walmart has argued that the category doesn’t apply to workers who engage in what Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg has called “hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”
“We actually have a very strict policy against retaliation at Walmart,” said Walmart spokesperson Brooke Buchanan. “And the associates who were terminated were terminated for other reasons, violating our policies, and it did not have anything to do with their association with this group or any other group. If a Walmart associate alleges retaliation has occurred, we will look into the situation, investigate, and take appropriate action.”
Dominic Ware, an OUR Walmart member and former Walmart employee based in the Bay Area, said he was fired in early July and that management told him specifically it was because of his participation in the May-June strike.
“They said the strike was not recognized as a ULP strike,” he said. Though Ware has tried to discuss the firing with his former manager, “to this day, he will not have an open door with me.”
In addition to the 20 workers which OUR Walmart claims have been wrongfully fired, they say another 50 or so have been disciplined for organizing. Harris, though he is still employed at Walmart, told MSNBC he had been written up three times already.
Buchanan shrugged off the latest protests, describing them as “a handful of union-orchestrated media stunts” and saying that OUR Walmart grossly exaggerated the number of Walmart employees involved.
“This is not an associate-based demonstration,” said Buchanan. “This has been sponsored and put on by the unions, something they’ve attempted and failed to be successful at over the last couple of years.” She also claimed that many demonstrators were paid to appear at protests, an allegation which OUR Walmart said is untrue.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
This Summer’s Parasites and Viruses Continue to Make People Sick
This summer’s two prolonged outbreaks, one caused by a parasite and the other by a rare Hepatitis A virus, are continuing to add confirmed cases. Neither the parasite nor the viruses are common to North America, but both have moved in for an extended stay.
As of Sept. 3, the Hepatitis A virus has sickened 161 people in 10 states, including Arizona (23), California (78), Colorado (28), Hawaii (8), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (11), Nevada (6), Utah (3) and Wisconsin (2).
The common source for the rare virus strain was a frozen berry mix called “Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend” sold by Costco stores.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the four cases attributed to Wisconsin, New Jersey and New Hampshire involved consumption of the virus-contaminated berries in Western states. Six other cases are thought to be due to secondary exposure to other confirmed cases.
The illnesses are winding down as the onset dates for the illnesses range from March 31 to July 26.
Almost half of those sickened (70) required hospitalization, but no deaths have been reported.
The majority of victims, or 55 percent, are women. Ages range from one to 84 years of age. Eleven children younger than 18 years were ill, and none were vaccinated for Hep A. The bulk of those sickened, or 57 percent, fell between 40 and 64 years of age.
Summer’s other lingering outbreak involving the Cyclospora parasite has reached 659 cases in 24 states. Texas, where the outbreak has hit hard in the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area, has seen its case count exceed 300 for the first time, coming in at 305.
After Texas comes Iowa (156), Nebraska (86), Florida (32), Wisconsin (16), Illinois (11), Arkansas (10), Georgia (5), New York, (7) Missouri (5), Kansas (4), New Jersey (4) Louisiana (3), Virginia, (3) Connecticut (2), Ohio (2), Minnesota (2), and one each for Michigan, California, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.
Like the other outbreak, in a handful of cases the parasites were likely acquired outside of the state where the case was reported.
The Iowa-Nebraska cases were sourced to a mixed salad from Taylor Farms de Mexico, which were served by Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, among other outlets.
Taylor suspended product shipments to the U.S. from Aug. 12-25, 2013. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the other states continue work to source the illnesses in those states.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Ohio kidnapper Ariel Castro dead, suicide suspected
By Traci G. Lee, @traciglee
1:37 AM on 09/04/2013
Convicted Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro was found dead Tuesday night, a prison spokesperson confirmed. Castro, the 53-year-old man arrested and found guilty of kidnapping and raping three women for a decade, was reportedly found hanged in his prison cell in an apparent suicide.
According to a statement from the Ohio Department of Corrections, Castro was discovered in his cell at 9:20 p.m., and transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead 90 minutes later. ”He was housed in protective custody, which means he was in a cell by himself and rounds are required every 30 minutes at staggered intervals,” the department’s statement read.
Castro was arrested in May after Amanda Berry, one of the three women he held in captivity for a decade, escaped and called for help. The three— Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight—were abducted separately by Castro between 2002 and 2004, and assaulted and raped for years. Castro pleaded guilty in August to 937 counts including kidnapping and rape, and agreed to a life sentence plus 1,000 years without parole.
A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Corrections says an investigation into Castro’s death is under way.
1:37 AM on 09/04/2013
Convicted Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro was found dead Tuesday night, a prison spokesperson confirmed. Castro, the 53-year-old man arrested and found guilty of kidnapping and raping three women for a decade, was reportedly found hanged in his prison cell in an apparent suicide.
According to a statement from the Ohio Department of Corrections, Castro was discovered in his cell at 9:20 p.m., and transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead 90 minutes later. ”He was housed in protective custody, which means he was in a cell by himself and rounds are required every 30 minutes at staggered intervals,” the department’s statement read.
Castro was arrested in May after Amanda Berry, one of the three women he held in captivity for a decade, escaped and called for help. The three— Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight—were abducted separately by Castro between 2002 and 2004, and assaulted and raped for years. Castro pleaded guilty in August to 937 counts including kidnapping and rape, and agreed to a life sentence plus 1,000 years without parole.
A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Corrections says an investigation into Castro’s death is under way.
Will Holder Really Get Tough on Voting Rights?
By Brad Friedman
Note 1: Pardon the herky-jerky Skype web cam video.
Note 2: The BRAD BLOG article about Eric Holder that I believe my friend Mike Papantonio cited during our conversation, was actually written by our legal analyst Ernest Canning. But, of course, I'm proud to stand behind it 100%! Just wanted to give credit where due.
Note 2a: There are several different issues currently in court between TX and the DoJ, and they get a bit conflated during my conversation with Pap. One issue is the filing by the DoJ asking the court to order that the state of Texas be added, or "bailed in", to the list of jurisdictions requiring federal preclearance for all new voting-related laws, given their history of purposeful discrimination with such laws. The current list of jurisdictions is now empty, since the U.S. Supreme Court killed the Voting Rights Act formula used to determine who should be on that list. The other TX/DoJ case we discuss is the DoJ's suit to block the TX GOP's disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restriction.
That law, though it was found discriminatory in 2012 by both the DoJ and a federal court, was re-enacted by TX immediately after SCOTUS gutted the VRA. The DoJ, and other parties, are now suing to block it under the still-existing Section 2 of the VRA, as well as on Constitutional grounds. (We hope to have more details on the lawsuits against the TX GOP's polling place Photo ID restriction law soon. And, I'll add, our coverage should offer some pretty encouraging news for voting rights advocates who, unlike Ernest Canning, may not have dug into all the legal details and already-established facts of the case.)
Note 3: Enjoy!
Note 1: Pardon the herky-jerky Skype web cam video.
Note 2: The BRAD BLOG article about Eric Holder that I believe my friend Mike Papantonio cited during our conversation, was actually written by our legal analyst Ernest Canning. But, of course, I'm proud to stand behind it 100%! Just wanted to give credit where due.
Note 2a: There are several different issues currently in court between TX and the DoJ, and they get a bit conflated during my conversation with Pap. One issue is the filing by the DoJ asking the court to order that the state of Texas be added, or "bailed in", to the list of jurisdictions requiring federal preclearance for all new voting-related laws, given their history of purposeful discrimination with such laws. The current list of jurisdictions is now empty, since the U.S. Supreme Court killed the Voting Rights Act formula used to determine who should be on that list. The other TX/DoJ case we discuss is the DoJ's suit to block the TX GOP's disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restriction.
That law, though it was found discriminatory in 2012 by both the DoJ and a federal court, was re-enacted by TX immediately after SCOTUS gutted the VRA. The DoJ, and other parties, are now suing to block it under the still-existing Section 2 of the VRA, as well as on Constitutional grounds. (We hope to have more details on the lawsuits against the TX GOP's polling place Photo ID restriction law soon. And, I'll add, our coverage should offer some pretty encouraging news for voting rights advocates who, unlike Ernest Canning, may not have dug into all the legal details and already-established facts of the case.)
Note 3: Enjoy!
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Saturday, August 31, 2013
WTF is wrong with Dave Chappelle?
Rumors of Dave Chappelle 'Meltdown' Go Viral
Did he or did he not have a tantrum while walking offstage? Twitter investigates.
(The Root) - Late last night, tweets began to fly from audience members of a Dave Chappelle show in Hartford, Conn.
Though all tweets confirm that Chappelle did, in fact, walk
offstage - there is video of him walking off as Kanye's "New Slaves"
plays -- details vary among those who claim they were in attendance.
Some say that Chappelle had a full meltdown onstage; others say he just
sat down and read a book.
Many angrily blamed Chappelle for the show's end, referencing his record of walking off stages and off his own hit show. But others, like audience member Mike Wellman,
point the finger at the crowd, who they say was loud and unruly and
became rude once it was clear that Chappelle was not simply going to
regurgitate famed lines from his popular television show.
So Dave Chapelle just went on stage, told jokes for around 3 minutes, and the audience wouldnt stop yelling things at him so he stopped
— Mike Wellman (@mikewellman88) August 30, 2013
Everybody hates Dave Chapelle now. I dont. People were not heckling the other comedians
— Mike Wellman (@mikewellman88) August 30, 2013
At one point Chapelle told the crowd “If someone sitting next you is yelling, punch them in the kidney”
— Mike Wellman (@mikewellman88) August 30, 2013
I did want to hear Chapelles jokes but people were literally yelling and yelling
— Mike Wellman (@mikewellman88) August 30, 2013
Based on this account -- and this one by Lesli-Ann Lewis,
who wrote about her experience at the show for Ebony -- it sounds as if
Chappelle walked offstage for the same reason he walked away from his
show: The crowd was only interested in catchphrases and superficial
snips. They came to laugh at him, not with him. This is especially easy
to believe when you happen upon those in attendance referring to him as a
"scum nigger."
There appears to be a pretty clear racial divide in the opinions surrounding the show, generally speaking. Most white commentators seem to view Chappelle's actions as those of a diva throwing a tantrum, while most black observers say he was standing up for himself and protecting his art.
For the ppl who heckled Dave Chappelle tonight, let this be a lesson: you don't disrespect a person & then expect them to perform for you.
— Brian Fleurantin (@BrFleurantin) August 30, 2013
Money has folks feeling super entitled. I paid for this show so I can act a fool. Actually, no you can't. You can act a fool at your house.
— Ashykins (@ASmith86) August 30, 2013
Dave Chappelle reminds me of Lauryn Hill. Everyone wants him to be the guy from the show. He's not that guy anymore, guys.
— Carolyn Edgar (@carolynedgar) August 30, 2013
#TeamChapelleRead more at Colorlines.
— Tyrion's Ladyfriend (@larimah) August 30, 2013
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Ilford Opens Up a Photo Lab in California, Will Process Your Film by Mail
By D.L. Cade
Good news isn’t always easy to come by in the world of film; more often than not, the stories we run have to do with film being discontinued. But that’s not always the case, and the most recent news out of Ilford should give film lovers something to smile about.
According to Imaging Resource, Harman Technology — the folks behind Ilford — have decided to open up an Ilford lab in California. This means that high-quality black-and-white processing and printing services are now available by mail to all of North America via the Ilford US website.
“It has become more and more difficult for black and white film users to have their films processed and printed to a high quality on real black and white paper,” explains Harman Director of Marketing and North American Sales Steven Brierley. And since their successful UK lab has seen a consistent increase in interest from overseas, Harman is “excited to announce that … we can now offer the same service from a base in California.”
The lab is able to work with black-and-white, C-41 color negative and E-6 transparency films in both the 35mm and 120 formats. Prints will be delivered on Ilford photo paper, and turnaround time is only 2-3 days.
Prices start at $16 per roll, with upgrades, enlargements and digital scans costing extra. To learn more or go ahead and place your first order by mail, check out the full press release or head over to the Ilford US website by clicking here.
Image credit: Black & White by DaveBleasdale
Good news isn’t always easy to come by in the world of film; more often than not, the stories we run have to do with film being discontinued. But that’s not always the case, and the most recent news out of Ilford should give film lovers something to smile about.
According to Imaging Resource, Harman Technology — the folks behind Ilford — have decided to open up an Ilford lab in California. This means that high-quality black-and-white processing and printing services are now available by mail to all of North America via the Ilford US website.
“It has become more and more difficult for black and white film users to have their films processed and printed to a high quality on real black and white paper,” explains Harman Director of Marketing and North American Sales Steven Brierley. And since their successful UK lab has seen a consistent increase in interest from overseas, Harman is “excited to announce that … we can now offer the same service from a base in California.”
The lab is able to work with black-and-white, C-41 color negative and E-6 transparency films in both the 35mm and 120 formats. Prints will be delivered on Ilford photo paper, and turnaround time is only 2-3 days.
Prices start at $16 per roll, with upgrades, enlargements and digital scans costing extra. To learn more or go ahead and place your first order by mail, check out the full press release or head over to the Ilford US website by clicking here.
Image credit: Black & White by DaveBleasdale
GOP leader chose oil industry over MLK marchers
The March on Washington anniversary celebration. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
There are 233 Republicans in the House of Representatives, 46 in the Senate and 30 in governor’s mansions across the country. Guess how many made the effort to appear at Wednesday’s giant rally commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington. Zero. Ed O’Keefe reports:
Not a single Republican elected official stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday with activists, actors, lawmakers and former presidents invited to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington — a notable absence for a party seeking to attract the support of minority voters.
Event organizers said Wednesday that they invited top Republicans, all of whom declined to attend because of scheduling conflicts or ill health.Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, weren’t there either, having attended a July commemoration of the march especially for lawmakers — which also included Republican leaders House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia — but the Democratic party was well represented Wednesday by three presidents and a smattering of lawmakers, including civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.
It seems pretty obvious, but if you want to change the fact that your party is viewed skeptically by minorities, and you want to claim Martin Luther King Jr.’s mantel — I’m looking at you Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) – then blowing off the highest profile civil rights event of the year is probably not a smart move, if for no other reason than “optics.” After their losses in the 2012 election, Republicans vowed to make a better effort to reach out to minorities, and just two weeks ago at its summer meeting, the GOP launched a program to attract minority voters by highlighting young “rising stars” in the party.
So what gives? According to O’Keefe, the lawmakers said they “received formal invitations only in recent weeks, making it too late to alter their summer recess schedules.” Republicans had no problem appearing in droves at a hastily organized tea party rally in June, where “[GOP] lawmakers sweltered in a long line waiting to take the stage,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Some weren’t even invited but just showed up hoping to get a chance to speak to the party faithful.
To be fair, Congress was in session then so it was easy for them to merely step outside and into line, but in today’s age, how hard is it to book a plane ticket and reschedule a few meetings? Lawmakers make last-minute changes to their schedules all the time — there is someone in every congressional office whose job is to manage their schedules — so “weeks” seems like enough time to find at least one or two Republicans willing to attend.
So what was did they do instead? Well, Boehner was in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and had no public events scheduled, but he has been headlining GOP fundraisers all this month, so it’s a fairly safe to assume that he was raising cash at the time. Cantor, meanwhile was touring an oil field in North Dakota. The Grand Forks Herald reports:
Cantor, hosted by Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., met with energy industry and community leaders at a crew camp in Williston, toured a drilling site and other oilfield locations in the Bakken and met with North Dakota Petroleum Council members in Watford City.The North Dakota Petroleum Council, by the way, is a lobby group that represents the state’s oil and gas industry. That’s what Cantor was doing on the day of the march.
Cantor praised North Dakota’s approach to energy development and said the country needs to follow the state’s example and adopt a national energy policy.
“I hope to be able to tell the president that there’s a lot for him to learn here as far as energy production here in America,” Cantor said. “North Dakota seems to have gotten it right.”
“They asked a long list of Republicans to come,” civl rights leader Julian Bond told MSNBC yesterday, “and to a man and woman they said ‘no.’ And that they would turn their backs on this event was telling of them, and the fact that they seem to want to get black votes, they’re not gonna get ‘em this way.” (Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina and the only black member of the Senate, said he was not invited to the march, though leaders say they invited every member of Congress.)
Bond did credit Cantor for trying hard to find a replacement speaker, but, ultimately, the leader was unable to find a single Republican to attend the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)