H2O Man
H2O Man's JournalIntruder in the Dust
“The past’s never dead. It’s not even past.”
--William Faulkner; Intruder in the Dust
No matter how one feels about recent news reports on domestic “spying,” it is worthwhile to consider past events from our nation’s not-to-distant past. These issues should be of concern to everyone, from President Obama’s strongest supporters, to his most vocal critics on the Democratic Left. For this is an issue that reaches far beyond this President and his administration. Indeed, it involves forces in government and industry that are, at best, only partially under the control of Barack Obama or Congressional oversight. And it is an issue that will certainly help define America after President Obama leaves office -- and that is equally true, no matter if the next US President is a Democrat or republican.
The president most closely associated with legal and illegal spying on citizens is, of course, Richard M. Nixon. Thus, I would like to remind older forum members of some of hell that Nixon put this nation through. More, it is my hope that this may provide younger forum members with food for thought …..and while space does not allow for in-depth detail here, any interested person can “google,” go to their local library, or both, to learn more about this series of most important chapters in US history.
Again, my goal is NOT to take sides in the current debate -- not in this essay/thread -- nor is it to in any way pretend that Barack Obama is similar to Richard Nixon. For President Obama is a good and decent man, while Nixon was a severely flawed character; the only two things they had in common would be the obvious (being President) and both were highly intelligent.
I am also hoping that forum members will post related information on America’s “spying” history, including memories of the Nixon era. Also, in fairness, I should share two points of information: (1) my property was owned, at the close of the Revolutionary War, by one of two merchant brothers, who had served as “spies” for General/President Washington; and (2) in the 1990s, a “private” corporation, that employed retired county, state, and federal police, kept “intelligence” files on Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, myself, and others advocating for Native American rights. We had one of our spies copy these files, and I was entertained and disappointed in their quality. If they had simply asked Paul and I, we would have provided more accurate information.
Anyhow. Our national mythology pretends that domestic spying was limited to J. Edgar Hoover’s obsession with Rev. King’s sex life, until Richard Nixon began a strange domestic spy program that ended with Watergate. This, of course, is bullshit. Domestic spying had been conducted at least since the end of WW2. Much of it was done by the private investigators who were hired by corporations, usually after “retiring” from a career with a police agency, or the military. Indeed, the WW2 agency that morphed into the CIA was, in fact, primarily made up of “private” intelligent agents employed by the oil industry. I’ve documented that with uncanny accuracy on this forum in the past.
In the 1960s -- even before Nixon took office -- the military was spying on civilians who were doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional rights. It was done, of course, in the name of “national security.” This was first documented, beyond debate, by Christopher Pyle; he told congressional investigators that the US Army intelligence had 1,500 “undercover agents” who kept track of any anti-war protest that had 20 or more citizens participating.
Pyle’s testimony would play a significant role in several of the congressional investigations into the abuses of power associated with Nixon. He would work as an investigator for Senator Sam Irvin’s subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. (Pyle became a professor at Mt.Holyoke College; he has authored several articles and books of interest, including on the dangers that domestic spying pose to the Constitution since the “war on terror” began.)
It was later documented that Army Intelligence was “spying” on Martin Luther King, Jr., when he was in Memphis in April, 1968. Again, this pre-dates Nixon’s presidency. Yet Nixon was no stranger to the ways of Washington, and he soon would have a plan drawn up to coordinate local, state, and federal police agencies with domestic spying programs -- all in the name of “national security,” of course. Under Nixon, the potential threats to the nation were no longer limited to the Civil Rights and Anti-war movements. Any journalist who disagreed with Nixon, and any Democrat who might oppose him in 1972, would be included on Tricky Dick’s infamous “enemies list.”
It was documented in the Senate Watergate hearings that President Nixon would become aware that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also spying on him. One could speculate that this may have played some role in the exposure of “Watergate” -- which is incorrectly remembered as a limited criminal event, involving the break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters. In fact, it was a large series of felonies, that took place from the west coast to the east coast. And every part of it fell under the Huston Plan.
The Senate held the famous Watergate Hearings, led by Senator Irvin. Several congressional committees would follow with investigations of illegal and unconstitutional activities conducted by intelligence agencies. These included crimes committed both domestically and in foreign lands. Perhaps the best-known was the Senate’s Church Committee. The House of Representatives followed with a committee, which is best known as the Pike Committee, (Formerly the Nedzi Committee), named for NY Rep. Otis Pike. This committee’s final report was never officially released, due to conflicts among House members. Versions were released, and journalist Daniel Schorr was called before Congress to reveal his source; Schorr refused.
President Ford would attempt to derail attention from these two committee, by having VP Nelson Rockefeller head a “presidential investigation” into intelligence agency abuses of power. While the Rockefeller Commission’s report was of some value, it should not be confused as the most important of that era’s investigations.
Perhaps the most valuable lesson to come out of that era is that domestic spying programs take on a life of their own, even if a good and sincere President is in office. Likewise, these same programs take on an even more sinister character under a thug like Nixon.
Finally, I’d like to note that about a week ago, I posted an essay on fracking here. I wrote that the gas companies have deemed environmental advocates who oppose fracking as “potential eco-terrorists.” Further, I showed that the gas industry now has use of military intelligence experts in psychological warfare, to help prepare communities in the United States for exploitation by the gas industry.
Peace,
H2O Man
Great Society
“No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy -- even when it blows heavy.
“But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asked you to, or because someone else does. Please know why you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try, when you disagree, to offer a choice to the course that you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order.”
-- President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966.
My father often said but for the war in Vietnam, that LBJ would have been America’s greatest president. I remember saying to him that this, my favorite LBJ quote, must have been written for him by Bill Moyers, as Johnson was notoriously thin-skinned. My father said no, that this was “pure Johnson,” and simply evidence of the complexity of a very intelligent person who felt inferior to DC society. Johnson, he said, knew that disagreement was a necessary part of the political process; it was just that he never forgot or forgave any slight, public or private, real or imagined.
Dad had a limitless supply of stories he could tell about how LBJ sought “revenge” on those who dared to disagree with him. Some were downright hilarious; others indicated a cruelty that made it difficult for some loyal aides to work for this curious President. I try to remember those when I find myself thinking that it’s too bad President Obama wasn’t more like LBJ, at least in getting things through Congress.
When President Obama took office, I remember him saying that he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire on important issues. I believed him then -- not only did he have no reason to lie, but it strikes me as something he believes people have the responsibility to do. More, when a lady from Code Pink recently challenged President Obama on the death of innocent human beings by drone attacks, I was convinced that he appreciated her courage, her sincerity, and the harsh message she delivered.
President Obama said that he didn’t agree with many of the things this lady said. Yet, there is an inescapable logic to what she was saying: if President Obama gets credit for killing an Usama bin Laden, then he has to accept responsibility for killing innocent people, as well.
War is a terrible thing. President Obama didn’t start the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, just as LBJ didn’t start the war in Vietnam. But, as the President of the United States, he is responsible for his administration’s war policies. And that goes well beyond viewing this in the context of foreign policy. Wars transform presidencies, and they transform the country. LBJ took office with a plan to transform our nation into a Great Society; 1968, his last year in office, stands out as posing the greatest challenges to our Constitutional Democracy in the 20th century.
When Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008, he had a vision of where he wanted to bring the nation to. The Bush-Cheney years had done much to damage this nation, domestically and abroad. He knew it would be difficult, and that the dysfunctional Congress posed many of the greatest stumbling blocks that would prevent any real healing in America. Indeed, the problems we face are so enormous that even a united effort would be incapable of resolving all of the crises we have created for ourselves and future generations.
If we take an objective look at these many problems, several things stand out: both the House and Senate have degenerated into disgraceful institutions; the Supreme Court is a partisan corporate outhouse; and the unholy blend of the corporate and military power has made a mockery of the Constitution. These are real, and literally every decision that President Obama makes -- especially involving “war powers” -- must be viewed within the context of those dynamics.
Thus, the question: if President Obama’s actions appear to be flowing in the current of the corporate-military-war energy force, and against the values of the US Constitution (and especially against that Bill of Rights), what should one do? Place all responsibility for the current situation directly on the President? Excuse Obama, and focus all blame on the Congress? Or perhaps some combination of holding President Obama responsible for his choices -- which must include credit for the good, and blame for the bad -- while also working to change the makeup and nature of Congress?
The most realistic option for Democrats is, in my opinion, to invest our energies in two areas: letting President Obama know which of his policies we like and which ones we dislike; and at the same time, preparing now for the 2014 elections. By “preparing,” I mean putting voter education and registration programs into action, and looking at what candidates may be or are definitely running for office. And that means communicating to those either in Congress (the House and Senate), or preparing to run, and letting them know exactly where we stand on important issues.
If, for example, you were opposed to the Bush-Cheney attack on the Bill of Rights, and continue to be concerned by recent news about President Obama’s policies, it makes no sense to grant the administration a pass, and expect Congress to deal with the problems. (If you favor the illusion of “safety” over the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a Constitutional Democracy, however, simply carry on -- because this military-corporate government is moving in the direction you desire it to.) Making a phone call or sending a letter to the White House does not imply that you hate Obama, or support the republicans. It doesn’t weaken the Democratic Party. And anyone who says that exercising the rights defined in Amendment 1 will “harm” this president, or our chances in the next elections, is either uninformed, misinformed, or a republican at heart ( thus, grossly uninformed and pathetically misinformed).
President Obama was not lying when he said he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire. He wasn’t joking. He was serious. It’s our responsibility, our duty, to speak up on important issues. For we cannot hold his feet to the fire on insignificant issues -- there’s no flame to be found there. And if we fail to do so, we have betrayed our obligations to the very Constitutional Democracy that we seek to re-establish.
Peace,
H2O Man
Boxing: June 7 & 8
June 7
At Shelton, Wash. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes): John Molina vs. Andrey Klimov, 10 rounds, lightweights; Farah Ennis vs. Anthony Hanshaw, 10 rounds, light heavyweights; Maurice Lee vs. Jeff Hatton, 4 rounds, lightweights; Ray Lampkin Jr. vs. Joaquin Chavez, 5 rounds, junior welterweights; Andres Ramos vs. Sammy Perez, 4 rounds, junior lightweights; Ik Yang vs. Roger Rosa, 6 rounds, lightweights; Said Harrak vs. Paul Mpendo, 6 rounds, junior middleweights
At Verona, N.Y. (Showtime): Jorge Melendez vs. Nick Brinson, 10 rounds, junior middleweights; Jonathan Vidal vs. Mario Munoz, 8 rounds, bantamweights; Jeffrey Fontanez vs. Alejandro Rodriguez, 6 rounds, junior lightweights; Samuel Kotey vs. Guillermo Sanchez, 8 rounds, lightweights; John Franklin vs. Yieta Johnson, 6 rounds, junior featherweights; Jose Saenz vs. Edgardo Torres, 4 rounds, lightweights
June 8
At Montreal (HBO): Chad Dawson vs. Adonis Stevenson, 12 rounds, for Dawson's lineal/WBC light heavyweight title; Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Darley Perez, 12 rounds, for vacant WBA interim lightweight title; David Lemieux vs. Robert Swierzbinski, 8 rounds, middleweights; Jose Pedraza vs. Sergio Villanueva, 10 rounds, junior lightweights; Artur Belerbie vs. Christian Cruz, 4 rounds, cruiserweights; Eleider Alvarez vs. Allan Green, 10 rounds, light heavyweights; Didier Bence vs. Eric Barrak, 8 rounds, heavyweights; Sebastien Bouchard vs. Francesco Cotroni, 4 rounds, welterweights
At Carson, Calif. (Showtime): Marcos Maidana vs. Josesito Lopez, 12 rounds, welterweights; Erislandy Lara vs. Alfredo Angulo, 12 rounds, for vacant WBA interim junior middleweight title; Jermell Charlo vs. Demetrius Hopkins, 12 rounds, junior middleweights; Yoshihiro Kamegai vs. Johan Perez, 10 rounds, welterweights; Gerald Washington vs. Sherman Williams, 8 rounds, heavyweights; Joseph Diaz Jr. vs. Rigoberto Casillas, 4 or 6 rounds, junior featherweights; Ronny Rios vs. Leonilo Miranda, 10 rounds, junior lightweights; Jamie Kavanagh vs. Adolfo Landeros, 8 rounds, lightweights; Manuel Avila vs. Jamal Parram, 8 rounds, junior featherweights; Edgar Valero.vs. David Reyes, 4 rounds, bantamweights
I really do not like to miss ESPN’s Friday Night Fights, but my son is taking me to the card that will be on Showtime tonight. (If you get Showtime, watch their “ShoBox” card at 10-12 pm/est. We will be at ringside.)
There are two very good cards on tomorrow night. It’s a shame that HBO and Showtime compete for the boxing audience, when good cards play opposite one another. However, that competition is also fueling each of them to feature good fighters in more competitive bouts. HBO in particular has featured more one-sided fights in the past decade. It’s one thing to bring a young contender up that way, but by going with a single promoter most of the time, they’ve had top fighters in mismatches too frequently.
Both the main events and co-features on Saturday are very good fights. In fact, the co-features would make solid main events. Again, competition for the viewing audience has led to a higher quality promotion.
I’ll post more tomorrow on Saturday’s cards. Enjoy tonight’s fights!
Gasland 2 Review
(also posted in DU:GD)
Last night, my oldest daughter and I went to see “Gasland 2” in Binghamton, N.Y. The movie, which will be broadcast on HBO in August, is outstanding. In fact, we both felt that it was, if anything, better than the 2010 “Gasland.” More, we agreed that a person should watch the original, in order to fully understand and appreciate the more unsettling sequel.
I’ll start by saying that I think highly of Josh Fox. We first met in January of 2012, at the Capital Building in Albany, N.Y. There was a huge pro-environment, anti-hydro racking rally that day, and I was one of the speakers. It was also what proved to be the last day of my hunger strike; state senator Tom Libous finally met with me, after his aides told him about my speech. (I noted that a growing number of high school students were writing letters-to-the-editors of area newspapers, and were planning demonstrations outside of three of his satellite offices. This upset Libous. No politician wants high school students saying that he is doing what they are learning elected representatives are supposed to be doing -- especially not in the media.)
I’ve also had the opportunity to speak with Josh by way of the computer since then. I’m highly impressed with a young man who is a genius in communicating the truth about what I believe is the most important environmental crisis of this time. Neither the positive nor negative aspects of “fame” have gone to his head. Now, that is hard to prevent: it requires that a person be extremely well-grounded. I found myself thinking of a passage from Erich Fromm:
“Faith in the being mode of existence means to consider the whole process of life as a process of birth, and not to take any stage of life as a final stage. Most people die before they are fully born. Creativeness means to be born before one dies.
“The willingness to be born requires courage and faith. Courage to let go of certainties; courage to be different and to stand alone; courage, as the Bible puts it in the story of Abraham, to leave one’s own land and family and to go to a land yet unknown. Courage to be concerned with nothing but the truth, the truth not only in thought but in one’s feelings as well.
“This courage is possible only on the basis of faith. Faith not in the sense in which the word is often used today, as a belief in some idea that cannot be proved scientifically or rationally, but faith in the meaning that it has in the Old Testament, where the word faith (Emunah) means certainty; to be certain of the reality of one’s own experience in thought and feeling, to be able to trust it, to rely on it, this is faith.”
-- Erich Fromm; The Creative Attitude; pages 53-54.
I do not want to “spoil” the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen it. I think that I can discuss some aspects of it here, without ruining it.
The film opens with a scene from over the Gulf of Mexico. It’s July 4, 2010, and Josh is able to film close to the BP oil “spill.” It immediately brought back all of the terrible images from that time …..but it was worse, in that it showed what BP had been able to keep off of the corporate news at that time. Josh notes that “no matter how huge the catastrophe, what matters is who tells the story.”
That is true in the case of fracking, as well. Because the mainstream media is owned by large corporations that are invested in things such as “energy” and the “military-industrial complex,” the public is presented with a highly inaccurate picture of fracking. This goes beyond the commercials on television, or the panel discussions on news programs. And I’ll address that in a moment.
The energy corporations are aware that 5% of all wells will leak upon the completion of being drilled. That is, of course, because the casing of one in twenty wells leaks. So when the gas industry tells the public about all of the benefits of 100,000 wells in Pennsylvania, they avoid mentioning that 5,000 will leak on Day One. Or that according to their internal reports, 50% of the wells will fail and leak extremely toxic wastes into the water supply. Nor will they discuss the truth about the more immediate dangers that the millions of gallons of toxic waste-water from “good” wells produces.
The planet Earth is living; it provides a natural filtration system that protects living things, including human beings. But the Earth does not “clean” the poisons used in fracking. Hence, those toxins spread through the water supply, and are absorbed by living things, including human beings. The “master plan” of the energy corporations not only threatens the living environment (parts of which are already seriously damaged), but our living Constitutional Democracy (parts of which are already severely damaged). Let’s take a look at how this man-made disease is being spread.
Some members of this forum would not like much of what I’m about to say. Few of those folks will read this, though …..which is really too bad, because if they really took an objective look at the points I’m going to make, they would find that I’m right (though not because I’m saying it), and would then have to decide between opposing a dangerous threat to our country, or to admit that sheer greed trumps the health and well-being of their community.
The energy corporations are viewing the populations that live upon regions rich in underground gas in the exact same way they view any Third World people who have some natural resources they seek to plunder and exploit. I do not say that lightly, or for shock value. It is the truth. And it goes far, far beyond the gas industry’s hiring the same public relations firm that the tobacco industry employed 60 years ago, to promote “risk free” smoking products.
Indeed, it goes beyond the gas industry’s hiring private intelligence groups, such as the Institute of Terrorism, Research, and Response” to outline -- and execute -- plans to discredit, disrupt, and destroy local grassroots opposition groups. (If that reminds readers of the movie “Promised Land,” or of FBI director Hoover’s infamous March 4, 1968 memorandum, it should.)
The gas industry also makes use of paid puppets to go on the news programs and say, “There is no conclusive scientific evidence that connects fracking to the contamination of even a single water well.” And where is the greatest number of paid liars found, ready and eager to prostitute their fame for money? Why, in the world of politics -- primarily in the “retired” politicians who would walk a mile for a camera.
So it is no surprise that republican Tom Ridge works for the gas pimps. Ridge was the governor of Pennsylvania, before becoming the head of the Office of Homeland Security. It was during his time at OHS that the Pennsylvania grassroots environmental advocates were labeled as “potential eco-terrorists” by that agency. This led to the energy corporations being provided assistance by the U.S. military -- you know, to prevent the terrible threat of eco-terrorism that environmentalists pose.
What services do the energy corporations get from the military? As “Gasland 2” documents, they are the operations known as “psyops” (psychological operations), long part of the military’s “psywar” (psychological warfare) in Third World countries that U.S. corporations seek to exploit.
The film also provides documentation on how democratic politicians are serving as advocates for the gas industry. An ugly example of this is another former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell. (It’s interesting to note that Rendell included Tom Ridge on the list of retired US officials who lobby for the Iranian group MEK, which is on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Groups.) Rendell spoke along with George W. Bush at a gas industry conference, in which grassroots environmentalists were called “eco-terrorists.”
Rendell promoted the gas industry as governor. The amount of damage done to the land, air, and water during his time as governor is obscene. Three of his top aides are now employed by the gas industry. And Rendell is invested in the industry, but does not reveal this financial interest when he lobbies for the industry. (NYS senator Tom Libous was recently exposed for lying about his gas investments; if it’s wrong for a republican slime to do so, it is -- at very least -- equally wrong for a democrat to do so.)
But Rendell is not alone among high-profile democrats in promoting the gas industry. This movie shows that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton strongly advocated for “American” gas corporations to have access to resources in Asia and Europe. Indeed, this is but part of the master plan for gas to be the fuel of the next century, and for corporations like Shell to control that gas supply.
The movie documents many other very important issues. Among them is the utter frustration of the mid-level US EPA workers: they are sincerely motivated to help protect the environment, and people, but are handcuffed by bureaucrats at higher levels. (National security, don’t you know?)
In my opinion, the only way to combat this threat -- and hold the actual environmental terrorists of the Dick Cheney ilk responsible for their crimes against nature -- is found in the grass roots activism that can breath new life into the now decaying Constitutional Democracy that we call the United States of America. We need to become that filtration system that can protect life on Earth. And, by no coincidence, to do so, we need to think and act in the manner described in the Erich Fromm quote.
Keep on fighting the Good Fight!
H2O Man
Gasland 2 Review
Last night, my oldest daughter and I went to see “Gasland 2” in Binghamton, N.Y. The movie, which will be broadcast on HBO in August, is outstanding. In fact, we both felt that it was, if anything, better than the 2010 “Gasland.” More, we agreed that a person should watch the original, in order to fully understand and appreciate the more unsettling sequel.
I’ll start by saying that I think highly of Josh Fox. We first met in January of 2012, at the Capital Building in Albany, N.Y. There was a huge pro-environment, anti-hydro racking rally that day, and I was one of the speakers. It was also what proved to be the last day of my hunger strike; state senator Tom Libous finally met with me, after his aides told him about my speech. (I noted that a growing number of high school students were writing letters-to-the-editors of area newspapers, and were planning demonstrations outside of three of his satellite offices. This upset Libous. No politician wants high school students saying that he is doing what they are learning elected representatives are supposed to be doing -- especially not in the media.)
I’ve also had the opportunity to speak with Josh by way of the computer since then. I’m highly impressed with a young man who is a genius in communicating the truth about what I believe is the most important environmental crisis of this time. Neither the positive nor negative aspects of “fame” have gone to his head. Now, that is hard to prevent: it requires that a person be extremely well-grounded. I found myself thinking of a passage from Erich Fromm:
“Faith in the being mode of existence means to consider the whole process of life as a process of birth, and not to take any stage of life as a final stage. Most people die before they are fully born. Creativeness means to be born before one dies.
“The willingness to be born requires courage and faith. Courage to let go of certainties; courage to be different and to stand alone; courage, as the Bible puts it in the story of Abraham, to leave one’s own land and family and to go to a land yet unknown. Courage to be concerned with nothing but the truth, the truth not only in thought but in one’s feelings as well.
“This courage is possible only on the basis of faith. Faith not in the sense in which the word is often used today, as a belief in some idea that cannot be proved scientifically or rationally, but faith in the meaning that it has in the Old Testament, where the word faith (Emunah) means certainty; to be certain of the reality of one’s own experience in thought and feeling, to be able to trust it, to rely on it, this is faith.”
-- Erich Fromm; The Creative Attitude; pages 53-54.
I do not want to “spoil” the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen it. I think that I can discuss some aspects of it here, without ruining it.
The film opens with a scene from over the Gulf of Mexico. It’s July 4, 2010, and Josh is able to film close to the BP oil “spill.” It immediately brought back all of the terrible images from that time …..but it was worse, in that it showed what BP had been able to keep off of the corporate news at that time. Josh notes that “no matter how huge the catastrophe, what matters is who tells the story.”
That is true in the case of fracking, as well. Because the mainstream media is owned by large corporations that are invested in things such as “energy” and the “military-industrial complex,” the public is presented with a highly inaccurate picture of fracking. This goes beyond the commercials on television, or the panel discussions on news programs. And I’ll address that in a moment.
The energy corporations are aware that 5% of all wells will leak upon the completion of being drilled. That is, of course, because the casing of one in twenty wells leaks. So when the gas industry tells the public about all of the benefits of 100,000 wells in Pennsylvania, they avoid mentioning that 5,000 will leak on Day One. Or that according to their internal reports, 50% of the wells will fail and leak extremely toxic wastes into the water supply. Nor will they discuss the truth about the more immediate dangers that the millions of gallons of toxic waste-water from “good” wells produces.
The planet Earth is living; it provides a natural filtration system that protects living things, including human beings. But the Earth does not “clean” the poisons used in fracking. Hence, those toxins spread through the water supply, and are absorbed by living things, including human beings. The “master plan” of the energy corporations not only threatens the living environment (parts of which are already seriously damaged), but our living Constitutional Democracy (parts of which are already severely damaged). Let’s take a look at how this man-made disease is being spread.
Some members of this forum would not like much of what I’m about to say. Few of those folks will read this, though …..which is really too bad, because if they really took an objective look at the points I’m going to make, they would find that I’m right (though not because I’m saying it), and would then have to decide between opposing a dangerous threat to our country, or to admit that sheer greed trumps the health and well-being of their community.
The energy corporations are viewing the populations that live upon regions rich in underground gas in the exact same way they view any Third World people who have some natural resources they seek to plunder and exploit. I do not say that lightly, or for shock value. It is the truth. And it goes far, far beyond the gas industry’s hiring the same public relations firm that the tobacco industry employed 60 years ago, to promote “risk free” smoking products.
Indeed, it goes beyond the gas industry’s hiring private intelligence groups, such as the Institute of Terrorism, Research, and Response” to outline -- and execute -- plans to discredit, disrupt, and destroy local grassroots opposition groups. (If that reminds readers of the movie “Promised Land,” or of FBI director Hoover’s infamous March 4, 1968 memorandum, it should.)
The gas industry also makes use of paid puppets to go on the news programs and say, “There is no conclusive scientific evidence that connects fracking to the contamination of even a single water well.” And where is the greatest number of paid liars found, ready and eager to prostitute their fame for money? Why, in the world of politics -- primarily in the “retired” politicians who would walk a mile for a camera.
So it is no surprise that republican Tom Ridge works for the gas pimps. Ridge was the governor of Pennsylvania, before becoming the head of the Office of Homeland Security. It was during his time at OHS that the Pennsylvania grassroots environmental advocates were labeled as “potential eco-terrorists” by that agency. This led to the energy corporations being provided assistance by the U.S. military -- you know, to prevent the terrible threat of eco-terrorism that environmentalists pose.
What services do the energy corporations get from the military? As “Gasland 2” documents, they are the operations known as “psyops” (psychological operations), long part of the military’s “psywar” (psychological warfare) in Third World countries that U.S. corporations seek to exploit.
The film also provides documentation on how democratic politicians are serving as advocates for the gas industry. An ugly example of this is another former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell. (It’s interesting to note that Rendell included Tom Ridge on the list of retired US officials who lobby for the Iranian group MEK, which is on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Groups.) Rendell spoke along with George W. Bush at a gas industry conference, in which grassroots environmentalists were called “eco-terrorists.”
Rendell promoted the gas industry as governor. The amount of damage done to the land, air, and water during his time as governor is obscene. Three of his top aides are now employed by the gas industry. And Rendell is invested in the industry, but does not reveal this financial interest when he lobbies for the industry. (NYS senator Tom Libous was recently exposed for lying about his gas investments; if it’s wrong for a republican slime to do so, it is -- at very least -- equally wrong for a democrat to do so.)
But Rendell is not alone among high-profile democrats in promoting the gas industry. This movie shows that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton strongly advocated for “American” gas corporations to have access to resources in Asia and Europe. Indeed, this is but part of the master plan for gas to be the fuel of the next century, and for corporations like Shell to control that gas supply.
The movie documents many other very important issues. Among them is the utter frustration of the mid-level US EPA workers: they are sincerely motivated to help protect the environment, and people, but are handcuffed by bureaucrats at higher levels. (National security, don’t you know?)
In my opinion, the only way to combat this threat -- and hold the actual environmental terrorists of the Dick Cheney ilk responsible for their crimes against nature -- is found in the grass roots activism that can breath new life into the now decaying Constitutional Democracy that we call the United States of America. We need to become that filtration system that can protect life on Earth. And, by no coincidence, to do so, we need to think and act in the manner described in the Erich Fromm quote.
Keep on fighting the Good Fight!
H2O Man
Gasland 2
The movie Gasland 2 will be playing tonight at Binghamton, NY's West Middle School. The doors open at 6 pm, with the film starting at 6:30. Josh Fox will be there, and will hold a "Q&A" session after the movie.
Two D.U. reporters will be there. It would be nice to see other area DUers there!
Robinson vs Mayweather
ESPN’s internet boxing site has an interesting article on it today, about a “dream fight” between two of the Great Sport’s all-time best welterweight champions. In it, several of ESPN’s boxing experts discuss a “super fight” between Sugar Ray Robinson and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Such fantasy fights are, of course, about what would likely have happened if two men, from different generations, had fought when each were at their peak?
For the article, see:
http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/9330198/floyd-mayweather-jr-vs-sugar-ray-robinson
I think it might be fun to discuss this “dream fight” here on my favorite sports forum. I’ll start, by writing my thoughts, in hopes that others here will contribute, as well. In past years, participants on the Democratic Underground’s sports forum have discussed similar topics, such as history’s best heavyweight champions, and a dream fight between the great Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.
In general, I am probably best described as rigid in my way of thinking about such things. I usually only think about fights that are actually going to, or are likely to happen. (Also, I only read factual books by habit, not having read any work of fiction since 1975.) But the ESPN article sparked my imagination, in large part because in discussions with my son on how someone might possibly defeat Mayweather, I’ve used the example of Sugar Ray.
It has been over 60 years since anyone has seen Robinson fight as a welterweight. His later careeer was in the middleweight division. And, while there is film of Ray in the middleweight division, none exists of his at welterweight. Now, that’s a damn shame, and for many reasons. First, Ray was definitely at his best at welterweight. Though he had numerous great fights at middleweight, and the films of those is awe-inspiring, he was past his prime.
Ray held the welterweight title once (1946-51), and the middleweight crown five times between 1951-60. The reason he held the middleweight title five times was because he lost it four times in the ring, and was then stripped of it for inactivity the last time. Robinson fought at a time when boxing had eight weight divisions (there are 17 today), and one champion in each division (there are four commission’s “titles” in each today). Thus, Ray’s beating 14 opponents who held world titles is distinct from Mayweather’s beating 18 opponents who have held titles. Likewise, Robinson’s six titles is distinct from Floyd’s eight.
Mayweather is undefeated in 44 pro fights, with 26 knockouts; he was 84-6 in the amateurs. Ray retired in 1965 with a record of 173-19-6 (108 knockout wins, 1 lose); he had been 85-0 as an amateur. (As an amateur, Ray scored 69 knockouts, with 40 coming in the first round.) However, it is worth noting that Ray had first retired in 1952, with a 131-3-2 record, before making a comeback three years later. Boxers fought much more frequently then, and for far less money. Ray returned to the ring, because he was broke.
At 5’ 11’ tall, Ray had a 3-inch advantage over Floyd. That is important -- or would have been, had they fought -- because Ray knew how to use his height. However, Floyd’s 72” reach was just a half-inch less than Ray’s, and Mayweather is a master at exploiting distances in the ring.
I believe that Ray hit harder. He was a combination-puncher, who had a superb body-attack. Floyd’s hands are faster. Both had/have very good footwork, and were/are capable of fighting coming forward, going side-to-side, or moving backwards.
Both men have defeated almost everyone in the welterweight division. Ray refused to fight Charlie Burley, and Floyd did not fight Manny Pacquiao. However, Ray never fought a welterweight as good as Floyd, and Mayweather has never fought a welterweight as good as Robinson.
In a very real sense, both Ray and Floyd were not only the very best welterweights of their era, but one would have to search the history of the sport to find anyone besides Sugar Ray Leonard that might have beaten them in their primes.
Robinson competed in the era of 15-round title fights, with weigh-ins the morning of the bout. Floyd fights in the era of 12-round title fights, with weigh-ins the day before the bout. Still, both were highly-trained athletes, who tended to be at their peak at their fight weights, and not known for having trouble cutting weight, or gaining weight between the weigh-in and fight.
I would favor Ray to win by decision. He tended to throw more punches per round than Floyd, and that provides an advantage on the scorecards. However, Floyd hasn’t been pushed to where he has needed to throw more punches than he does; hence, one could argue that he would respond to Ray’s activity by increasing his own. Also, Robinson was not nearly as talented defensively as Mayweather. And if there was ever a welterweight smart enough to exploit Robinson’s weaknesses, it would surely be Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
What do you think?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 08:49 PMNumber of posts: 73,536
