Cerridwen
Cerridwen's JournalEarth Day: "Once upon a time in the US..."
"Once upon a time in the US..." or, how far our priorities have shifted.
Wiki has a pretty good write-up on this as it's not too controversial.
<snip>
NEPA came into existence following increased appreciation for the environment, and growing concerns about ecological and wildlife well-being; indeed, the public outcry after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill was perhaps the leading catalyst. An Eisenhower-era Outdoor Recreation report, a Wilderness Act, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, along with Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, all reflect the growing concerns, public interest group efforts, and legislative discussion involved.[4] Another major driver for enacting NEPA were the freeway revolts that occurred in response to the bulldozing of many communities and ecosystems around the country as the Interstate Highway System was being built during the 1960s. The law has since been applied to any project, federal, state or local, that involves federal funding, work performed by the federal government, or permits issued by a federal agency. Court decisions throughout the law's history have expanded the requirement for NEPA-related environmental studies to include actions where permits from a federal agency are required, regardless of whether or not federal funds are spent implementing the action. Although enacted on January 1, 1970, its "short title" is "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969."
<snip>
The preamble reads:
"To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation..." (emphasis added)
Imagine my surprise when I read the:
- Introduced in the Senate as S. 1075 by Henry M. Jackson on February 18, 1969
- Committee consideration by: Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
- Passed the Senate on July 10, 1969 (Unanimous)
- Passed the House of Representatives on September 23, 1969 (372-15)
- Reported by the joint conference committee on December 17, 1969; agreed to by the Senate on December 20, 1969 () and by the House of Representatives on December 23, 1969 ()
- Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970 (emphasis added)
Or when I read that Nixon "expanded" the mandate of the CEQ and placed it "within the executive office":
The CEQ was modeled after the Council of Economic Advisers created by the employment act of 1946. Shortly after the act was signed into law, President Nixon expanded the CEQ's mandate by Executive Order directing it to issue guidelines to federal agencies for the proper preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and to assemble and coordinate federal programs related to environmental quality. The Council was placed within the executive office of the President and is composed of three members. These members must be appointed by the president and subsequently confirmed by the Senate. The CEQ has some fundamental roles which include assisting and advising the President in the preparation of the annual environmental quality report on the present progress of federal agencies in implementing the act, on national policies to nurture and promote the improvement of environmental quality and on the current state of the environment. (emphasis added)
Nixon was hardly an environmentalist. He was however, president during a time the US population appeared unified in its concern about the human impact on the environment. He was also president during a time in which the president was considered to be the president of the US; not just the president of the "red" or "blue" parts of the US.
Then I went on to read about the Freeway Revolts that contributed to the passage of NEPA and helps to show the sentiment of the people of the US and around the world during that time.
I have less faith in the freeway revolts wiki as it seems to have some opinion wandering around as fact. I include it, however, as you can follow the link and scroll to your state and read about how it impacted the freeway system there.
How far we've moved from those ideals in a short 43 years. How polarized we've become in that same short time frame.
ann rmoney is not trying to make herself "like us" or "mainstream".
she is trying to make herself *exceptional*.
You see, she was able to stay at home and bear and rear 5 boys and that is why it is "so despicable" that those "lazy welfare queens" and those "career women" are an "abomination".
Some are missing the dog-whistle.
Much like shlafley jetted around the US telling women to 'stay home and take care of their children' and few noticed the hypocrisy; annie is making the same point; and some will be so caught up in the manufactured "mommy wars(tm)" they won't notice her trust fund, her various homes, her gargantuan privilege, and so on.
brewer's AZ bill and "menopause babies".
This is what happens when legislation isn't based on science.
As I understand the new law, the gestational age of the fetus is counting back to the last menstrual cycle of the woman. Is that correct?
Now, read and think about this:
During the time when the female body is not having a menstrual cycle, the body may still be releasing those last few eggs. If the egg is released and there is a viable sperm waiting to fertilize the egg, the female can, and will, get pregnant.
Thanks to the lack of a normal menstrual cycle, the female may not notice they are pregnant until they are months into the pregnancy. There have even been cases where mothers of climbing age have gone to the hospital with stomach and back pains only to leave the hospital a few days later with a baby in their arms.
From this link: http://www.babymed.com/gettting-pregnant-during-menopause
"A year between having one period and the next"
Based on an exceptional case, it is conceivable (pun intended) that the gestational age of the fetus - based on the AZ law - would make what would normally be a 16-week pregnancy (~4 months) into a 16 month pregnancy? I wonder how many 21-month-old babies will be born in AZ in the coming months and years? *sigh*
Why would neo-cons be anti-HIPAA?
This question is part rhetorical and part WTF?
Several weeks ago I took note of an article in my local neo-con, online, rag in which a neo-con pundit attacks HIPAA as 'anti sunshine'.
I won't provide a link as it's from a source known to go after DU for 'intellectual property rights.'
It is posted at the Las Vegas review journal site and is entitled " HIPAA an affront to sunshine" by glenn cook; our 'resident' neo-con pundit. It was posted March 11, 2012.
I took note of it because it didn't make any sense to conflate a criminal investigation into ethical standards of politicians (seriously?!) with HIPAA. It was too weird.
I have a long history of tracking the media's reporting of events and their spin on said events. My BS meter went ballistic.
Trial balloon? Foreshadowing? Whatever.
My best guess - somewhat informed - is that ALEC, neo-cons, the republican party, are going after HIPAA next.
I've found some vague dots to connect; but not yet anything substantial.
If you're in the medical industry, especially medical coding, please keep an eye out for a "Obamacare"=HIPAA="bad for business"="we want to invade your privacy while pretending PRIVACY is sacrosanct" theme.
There is something called ICD-10 compliance which adds to this puzzle.
Something is up. Stay vigilant. There will start to be many anti-HIPAA stories.
"Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
"Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." providing you have a permit, for a protest zone, and you don't stop traffic or disrupt the business of business (profit!), that you don't "peaceably assemble" on the commons owned by the government which is no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but of the businesses and other non-human 'persons'...
It can't happen here
Unless, of course, it can.
Thank you for the picture, pepperbear
1990-ish gopac(newt's pac) mentions book, "tax payer's tea party"
newt's ethics violation investigation is posted: http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich
I think it's the 3rd link down; they all open .pdfs.
Also remember to check out, ”Language, a Key Mechanism of Control” also from newt's gopac.
If you ever have time, click and read at each of the 4 links available at the link above. You'll see 'republicans for a change' and other fun and entertaining (that was sarcasm) ideas catapulted by gopac and very apparent today.
Though newt wasn't the first to come up with many of the strategies listed, I'm pretty sure he's the only one, so far, who has put the right-wing ideology in handbook form. I could be wrong about that, of course.
Any similarity to language and tactics being used today, in 2012, is purely intentional.
1993: When the repubs & rush forced rush on the troops' airwaves
The Pentagon did a survey about Armed Forces Radio programming. The results of the 50,000 troops surveyed included .02% who wanted limbaugh's spew on their radio and only 3.9% wanted any talk radio. The troops wanted more music and sports; not more talk radio.
In the usual republican way of 'supporting' the troops, 70 republicans, led by Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), made a PR nightmare for the Pentagon with the aid of limbaugh and his dittoheads, of course, squealing about rush's First Amendment right to have a stage, a megaphone, a captive audience, and to make millions from his 'free' speech.
Ignoring 99.08% of the troops, rush and the republicans forced rush into the AFR programming line-up.
The following year, the repubs in congress would make rush an honorary member.
Here are two links to a couple of the stories from that time. I was there. It was ugly.
There are a few more details in the articles linked below.
Pentagon Accused of Giving Bum's Rush to Limbaugh
Pentagon Retreats, Says It Is Considering Airing Limbaugh
Filtered, bottled, or tap water?
Hi all.
I followed a link from GD. No, I won't talk politics here.
I notice many have concerns about our pet's food but I don't see a lot about the water they drink. As I was reading the threads about food and pets' problems with digestion and elimination I got to thinking about the water we provide and wondering if others had noticed a difference in your pets' health by changing water sources.
As I thought of this I realized that our tap water here; Las Vegas, NV; has a long and ugly history with the quality our tap water. We have elevated levels of perchlorate in our aquifers. We were a big manufacturer of WWII ammunitions and such and the industry was 'kind' enough to leak into our very limited water sources here in the desert.
If your pet experiences food issues or presents with digestive problems, do you also change their source(s) of water?
"archaeolog[ists]...uncovered 10,000 year old bones....believed to be the first politician"-updated
"An archeological (sic) team has uncovered 10,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first politician."
eta: fix link
Could I get a realty/mortgage/forclosure expert to check my work, please?
If you would look at the property records linked to below and just let me know if I've read them correctly.
It looks to me that it was a purchase, then a refi, then an auction then a transfer from one mortgage servicer to another mortgage servicer. As I said, please check my work. Thanks.
The records in question are here: (broken link removed on edit) Result Starting with the purchase date 12/13/2007 to current.
Please let me know what I've missed.
Search criteria:
Borough: BROOKLYN / KINGS
Block: 04300
Lot: 0115
Date Range: To Current Date
Document Class:
(edit) Fixing link issues:
First doc: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041001
Next: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041002
http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041003
Final: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2008102700199001
Oof! That looks like too much clicking. Oh well. I'll leave the OP in case someone has time.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Las Vegas, Nevada
Home country: United Corporate States of the US
Current location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Member since: Thu Jun 24, 2004, 11:32 AM
Number of posts: 13,262