Archive for October, 2008

Time to bury the ‘clean coal’ myth

Courtesy The Guardian (UK)

 

Who came up with the term “clean coal”? It is the most toxic phrase in the greenwash lexicon. George W Bush, by promising to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the pursuit of advanced “clean” coal technologies, certainly popularised it. But I’d love to know where it came from. Any thoughts out there?

It is, of course, oxymoronic. Coal is about acid rain and peasouper smogs, asthma and mercury contamination, radioactive waste emissions and ripping apart mountains, killing trees, lung cancer and, of course, global warming.

Coal emits more carbon dioxide for every unit of energy generated than any other fuel. Sure you can clean it up a bit – though the toxins you’ve taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.

But the phrase rolls on. Google offers more than a million web pages. We will hear a lot more of it as the UK government wrestles with whether to approve a new billion-pound “cleaner coal” power station – Britain’s first coal plant for three decades – at Kingsnorth in Kent.

E.ON, the company that wants to build the station, says Kingsnorth will be “ready” to capture carbon dioxide emissions before they go up the stack. Great, except there is no such technology right now.

This phrase “clean coal” has developed a life of its own thanks to remorseless commercial propagandising. This year a coalition of US coal mining companies and electricity utilities called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (and recently renamed the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) is paying the advertising agency R&R Partners $35m (£22m) to promote “clean coal” through advertising and other promotional activity.

This is up there with the safe cigarette and “atoms for peace”. The industry is fighting back against growing scientific calls to outlaw coal burning, and the rejection of dozens of coal power plants proposals by communities across the US, with several states effectively banning them.

You may have noticed the campaign’s effect. Both John McCain and Barack Obama support clean coal. It’s neat. Who could be against clean coal? It allows them to oppose dirty coal without antagonising anyone. You may not have spotted that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices sponsored two early presidential debates, during which – guess what – no questions were asked about global warming.

And here in Britain you can see the impact of the new mantra. In Putney, in southwest London, there is a branch of the International Energy Agency that used to be called the Coal Research Centre. It’s changed its name – to the Clean Coal Centre. Thanks to its “industrial sponsors” it is able to “provide unbiased information on the sustainable use of coal worldwide.” Right. Like the fact there isn’t any?

Is clean coal possible in future? Well, if you mean could we capture carbon dioxide emissions and bury them somewhere out of harm’s way – in old coal seams or oilfields or salt mines – yes, it is possible. The former British chief scientist Sir David King called it “the only hope for mankind”.

But the most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn’t come on stream until 2030 at the earliest.

Last year too, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most US power generators, admitted to a House Select Committee in Washington DC that commercial deployment will require 25 years research costing at least $20bn.

And that was before the US administration last December canned the biggest R&D project on the technology anywhere in the world. It said it was too costly and hinted that, for all their green talk, industry wasn’t prepared to back it.

Oh, and if the technology did one day work – and could demonstrate that it could keep liquefied carbon dioxide buried for the thousands of years necessary – it would take decades to build the vast infrastructure needed to deploy on a large scale. Infrastructure that could only be paid for by maintaining a vast dirty coal-burning industry for the duration.

Article Continued @ Sourced Site.

Paper Ballot Has Md.’s, Va.’s Vote

Courtesy The Washington Post:

Goodbye, electronic voting. Farewell, fancy touch screen. Maryland and Virginia are going old school after Tuesday’s election.

Maryland will scrap its $65 million electronic system and go back to paper ballots in time for the 2010 midterm elections — and will still be paying for the abandoned system until 2014. In Virginia, localities are moving to paper after the General Assembly voted last year to phase out electronic voting machines as they wear out.

It was just a few years ago that electronic voting machines were heralded as a computerized panacea to the hanging chad, a state-of-the-art system immune to the kinds of hijinks and confusion that some say make paper ballots vulnerable. But now, after concern that the electronic voting machines could crash or be hacked, the two states are swinging away from the systems, saying paper ballots filled out by hand are more reliable, especially in a recount.

The trend reflects a national movement away from electronic voting machines. About a third of all voters will use them Tuesday, down from a peak of almost 40 percent in 2006, according to Election Data Services, a Manassas-based consulting firm specializing in election administration. Every jurisdiction that has changed election systems since 2006 has gone to paper ballots read by optical scan machines, said Kimball Brace, the firm’s president. And for the first time in the country’s history, fewer jurisdictions will be using electronic machines than in the previous election, he said.

“The battle for the hearts and minds of voters on whether electronic systems are good or bad has been lost,” Brace said. The academics and computer scientists who said they were unreliable “have won that battle.”

The District has one electronic machine in every precinct. But most people vote on paper ballots, said Dan Murphy, a spokesman for the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.

In Virginia, the law passed last year prohibits localities from purchasing more electronic machines, also known as direct-recording election machines. It could take years to completely switch to paper.

“I think there’s a concern that . . . the votes may not be counted correctly,” said state Del. Timothy D. Hugo (R-Fairfax). “And with the [machine] there is no backup, and I think that’s the greatest concern.”

But the move has perplexed some experts who say that after using the electronic touch screens for several elections now, voters have gotten used to them. People use touch-screen machines for many things, such as ordering at McDonald’s and taking money out of the bank, and should, advocates say, be able to vote on them.

“We’re going to discard tens of millions of dollars to go to a system that is less accurate and secure,” said John Willis, an elections expert who was secretary of state under former Maryland governor Parris N. Glendening (D). “The proper question is security and safeguards. It’s not to go backwards into the 19th century with paper.”

Others, such as Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey W. Suleman II, say there are pluses and minuses with both systems. The touch screens, he said, are easy to use and clearly mark voters’ intent. By contrast, voters don’t always make their mark definitive on a paper ballot.

But in Virginia and Maryland, the electronic machines don’t print a piece of paper that voters can check to make sure their vote was recorded correctly. And that, critics say, means there can’t be a reliable recount. Another problem with the electronic machines is that only one person at a time can vote on them. That can make voting take longer, a concern when officials are predicting record turnout Nov. 4.

Paper ballots, which are fed into an optical scan machine that reads them, can help lines move much more quickly because many voters can fill them out at once, officials say. Fairfax has already purchased optical scan machines to back up its touch screens. And on Election Day, elections officers will urge people to vote with paper ballots, Suleman said.

“If voters want to go off in a corner with a clipboard, they can,” he said. Otherwise, they’d have to wait for an electronic machine to open up.

Article Continued @ Sourced Site.

Sequoia Admits to not Printing 11,000 ballots for Denver Co Voters

From After Downing Street:

In a stunning admission Sequoia Voting Systems has admitted to not
printing and mailing over 11,000 absentee ballots to Denver, Colorado
voters. Their spokeswoman claimed they “made an unfortunate mistake”.
In fact, the company had failed to notify the city of this “mistake”
and when originally asked they lied and told the city they had
delivered all 21,450 ballots they were supposed to print and deliver
to the post office on Oct. 16. Sequoia claims they will have ballots
printed and delivered to the post office by tomorrow, Monday. Voters
have until election day to get those ballots marked and either back
in the mail or delivered to any early polling site. Not mentioned by
anyone is if any overseas voters or military are affected by this
failure.

In Jefferson Co Arkansas voters will vote on ballots that don’t have
some alderman races on them. The county discovered their error too
late and they have now fixed it but all early voting has been done
without those races being voted on by the voters. The county will
just forget all of those voters and hope that none of the races are
close which would open them up for potential lawsuits.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Republicans fear long exile in the wilderness

Courtesy The Guardian (UK)

Voting for a Republican president runs in the blood of places like Gainesville. The pretty little town of 15,000 sits in north Texas ranch country and it is safe to say that Barack Obama has few fans here. Certainly Jim Farquhar, who works in the justice system, has taken to heart warnings that Obama has links with dangerous radicals, such as former 1960s militant Bill Ayers.

‘Obama scares me. He has all these friendships. You just don’t know how that might effect him once he gets into office,’ Farquhar said as he stood outside Gainsville’s sturdy old courthouse. ‘I’m voting for John McCain.’

Such worries are increasingly not shared by many other Americans. Weeks of relentless attacks on Obama by McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have not succeeded in denting Obama’s lead. Instead it has strengthened. Across America, battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are falling into Obama’s column and southern states such as Virginia and North Carolina are going from red to blue. Some Democratic insiders are even whispering about the prospect of a landslide.

The flipside of that is a potentially devastating Republican loss. If current polling holds true, the party may be reduced to its core support in the solid red heartland that runs through Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia and other southern and western states. That would trigger a profound crisis for a party that just three years ago was basking in the afterglow of a convincing presidential win and dreaming of creating a ‘permanent majority’.

Now that same Republican party could face a prolonged period in the political wilderness, working out how to appeal to an American public that seems prepared to send a pro-life, black senator from Chicago to the White House and reject a conservative Republican war hero.

‘The Republican party is going to have to work out what sort of party it actually wants to be. It’s a changing world for them,’ said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. It might not be easy. A powerful Democratic win could wipe out Republican moderates. It could leave the party in the grip of its conservative and evangelical base who remain critical of figures such as McCain but who are wildly enthusiastic about politicians such as Palin. The Republican party could end up in a bitter civil war for its political future.’

One of the key battlegrounds in that conflict will be the role of religion in Republican politics. The evangelical base has been a key part of the political coalition that has brought the party such success in recent years. Political guru Karl Rove cemented evangelical ideas into President George W Bush’s brand of conservatism and used them to inspire a very effective ‘get out the vote’ team in elections.

Rove focused on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion as a way of ensuring fanatical evangelical support. Nothing came to symbolise the power of the evangelical movement more than the rise of mega-churches, especially in staunchly Republican areas. These enormous edifices now dot the landscape of many states and Texas is no exception.

In the northern Dallas suburb of Prosper, a new mega-church has just opened. It is called Prestonwood North and is a branch of its mother church a few miles south in Plano, a fast-growing city of some 260,000 people. At first glance the church looks like a sparkling new office development, identical to many other buildings popping up on farmland as these ‘exurbs’ of Dallas succumb to development. But the large cross on its front reveals the truth. Taken as a whole, Prestonwood now has almost 30,000 members, making it one of the largest churches in America. It was recently named as one of America’s 50 most influential churches.

It certainly fits in in Prosper. Once a hamlet, it is gradually being swallowed by the suburbs, but its politics remain God and guns. ‘People around here all voted for Bush. That has not really changed. It’s a churchgoing kind of place,’ said Michelle Williams, 32, a dental nurse.

In Texas, church and politics have been mixing. In recent weeks, leading evangelical leaders in the state have endorsed McCain from their pulpits. They include Pastor Gary Simons, who heads a church near Dallas. He compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical child killer, because of his support for abortion. ‘How many of you would want to go to the polls and vote for Herod?’ Simons asked his congregation.

But increasingly such nakedly political preaching is looking out of step with many religious voters. Obama, who is a regular churchgoer and looks at ease in religious surroundings, has made huge strides in appealing to evangelical voters. His campaign has aggressively courted the religious vote, holding regular meetings with evangelical leaders.

That is in marked contrast to the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry. It has worked too. A recent survey showed Obama and McCain in a virtual dead heat among born-again Christians, with support for McCain running at 45 per cent and Obama on 43 per cent. In 2004, Bush won 62 per cent of that vote. ‘If Obama goes on to win, one of the significant stories will be the profile of the faith vote … the Democrats are poised to make up significant ground among born again and evangelical voters,’ said David Kinnaman, president of the evangelical research group that carried out the poll.

The trend is also likely to reflect growing differences in the evangelical movement itself; changes that are leaving the Republican party behind. Far from being a monolithic bloc, evangelicals have increasingly embraced a wider variety of causes. Some are just as likely to campaign on fighting Aids and issues in the developing world as to crusade against abortion and gay marriage. One of the hottest topics in conservative Christianity at the moment is environmental conservation and global warming, neither of which is a Republican strong suit.

-Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Colo Amendment 48 Goes Too Far

Courtesy Common Dream:

My very first job after graduating from Harvard Law School was as a part-time lawyer for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver. I was working on cases related to expanding access to birth control to all couples regardless of their marital status. At the time the birth control pill was recently approved as safe, but it was not yet legal in all states for all women. The Supreme Court in 1965 established basic privacy rights to birth control, but only for women who could produce a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2008, 40 years later. In my worst nightmare, it never crossed my mind that voters in Colorado would be considering a constitutional amendment that could outlaw birth control pills. Emergency contraceptives could also be illegal under Proposition 48, a form of birth control that if taken up to 72 hours after intercourse can prevent an unwanted pregnancy, especially used by rape and incest victims.

If you need more reasons to Vote No on 48, chances are you or your own family will be affected if this crazy proposal passes. Like thousands of living women in Colorado in the 1970’s, I struggled with difficult pregnancies. I lost twins during my second pregnancy and almost died during childbirth. It was a painful time for my family, as it is for all families. I can only imagine how devastating it would have been if government officials had shown up on my doorstep, asking questions about what had happened, was it really a miscarriage? Yet, couples could face that kind of unthinkable government investigation if Colorado voters allow Amendment 48 to pass.

If you don’t believe it could happen, just take a look at the plain language of the Amendment. It would amend the Colorado constitution to grant, for the first time, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law to fertilized eggs. Even the proponents of the Amendment admit they don’t know all the possible ramifications.

Would couples struggling to get pregnant be allowed to use in vitro fertilization, which depends on fertilizing more eggs than a woman can carry to term? Would common birth control methods, such as the Pill, IUDs, the Patch, and the Ring, be outlawed because they operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus?

Could child welfare agencies be called to investigate abuse of a fertilized egg? Would a fertilized egg have standing to sue a woman for getting chemotherapy for cancer because it might be harmed? Amendment 48 would open more than 20,000 statutes and regulations to re-interpretation by the courts and lawyers. Almost every area of the law would be affected, including criminal law, family law, trusts and estates, elder law, tort law, juvenile law, health law, and business law.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

ACLU Assails 100-Mile Border Zone as ‘Constitution-Free’

Ed Note: Hey folks, if you heard Brother Mike the other night you heard about the 100 mile Constitution free zone. Well here you go. -Shinai.

Courtesy Wired:


YouTube Download

Government agents should not have the right to stop and question Americans anywhere without suspicion within 100 miles of the border, the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday, pointing attention to the little known power of the federal government to set up immigration checkpoints far from the nation’s border lines.
The government has long been able to search people entering and exiting the country without need to say why, which is known as the border search exception of the Fourth Amendment.
After 9/11, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the right to use some of its powers deeper within the country, and now DHS has set up at least 33 internal checkpoints where they stop people, question them and ask them to prove citizenship, according to the ACLU.
“It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” said Caroline Fredrickson, who heads the ACLU’s Washington, D.C., Legislative Office.
The ACLU says it has scores of complaints from citizens and wants Congress to investigate and roll back the buffer zone. According to a map the rights group released Wednesday, some 190 million citizens live within what the ACLU dubs the “Constitution-free Zone.”
DHS spokesman Jason Ciliberti says the ACLU’s description of the zone as “Constitution-Free” couldn’t be further from the truth and that the check points follow rules set by Supreme Court rulings.
“We don’t have the abilitty to just set up checkpoints willy-nilly,” Ciliberti said. “The Supreme Court has determined that brief investigative encontuers do not constitute a serach or seizure.”
When citizens or visa holders encounter a checkpoint, most are waived on after showing identification, but if an agent suspects the person is not lawfully in the country, the agent can detain the person until the agent’s investigation is satisfied.
The government has long had the power to set up such check points, but has recently expanded the number of permanent and ‘tactical’ check points and deployed them in areas they hadn’t before — such as near the Canadian border.

Article Continues with map @ Sourced Site.

Ruling on [Washington DC] Gun [Case] Elicits Rebuke From the Right

Courtesy The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Four months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns, its decision is under assault — from the right.

Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

The judges used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” one of the two appeals court judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote in an article to be published in the spring in The Virginia Law Review.

Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”

Sharp criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision by federal appeals court judges is quite unusual, though these two judges — both Reagan appointees — are more outspoken than most.

Judge Wilkinson, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was recently considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, is perhaps the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court.

Not all conservatives agree with the critics, of course. Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the Heller case, rejected the comparison to Roe.

The two sides in the Heller case claimed to rely on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, based on analysis of its text in light of historical materials. The amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The more liberal justices said the amendment protected only a collective right tied to state militias, thus allowing most gun control laws. The more conservative justices found an individual right and struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

In Judge Wilkinson’s view, the upshot of the court’s extensive historical analysis was that “both sides fought into overtime to a draw.”

Others said the quality of the combat was low. “Neither of the two main opinions in Heller would pass muster as serious historical writing,” Jack Rakove, a historian at Stanford, wrote on the blog Balkinization soon after the decision was issued.

The strong reaction from the right after Heller was preceded, with a sort of symmetry, by liberal support for an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment. For much of the 20th century, the conventional view of the amendment had been that it only protects a collective right. (Warren E. Burger, after retiring as chief justice in 1986, called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen.”)

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Happy 3rd Birthday

to the Head On Radio Network.

Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights: What it means for you

From The Dough Roller:

While the $700 billion bailout and presidential election have dominated the news, the U.S. House passed a major piece of credit card reform legislation. The Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008 passed the House on Sept. 23 by a vote of 312-112 (with nine members not voting).

The bill, which still needs to pass the Senate before heading to the White House, would have a major impact on everything from how credit card issuers apply cardholder payments to outstanding debt to limits on interest rate increases.

Here are some of the more significant provisions of the act:

Retroactive interest rate increases and universal default limits. One of the biggest complaints leveled against the credit card industry is the practice of raising interest rates significantly due to a late payment or other default, or sometimes for no reason at all. The Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights would limit a card issuer’s ability to raise interest rates. Specifically, a credit card company could not (with some exceptions) raise interest rates on existing balances. Furthermore, if the interest rate on future balances was raised, the credit card issuer would be limited in how quickly it could insist that the old balance subject to the lower interest rate is paid off.

Here are some other interest rate-hike protections the act would provide:

If a cardholder loses the benefit of an introductory rate, the new rate could not exceed what the interest rate would have been at the expiration of the introductory period.

A consumer must be given a 45-day written notice before higher interest rates take effect.

Article Continues with Links @ sourced Site.

Blackwater sends warship to Gulf of Aden

Courtesy Lloyd’s List (UK)

BLACKWATER Worldwide — the US private military contractor embroiled in controversy over its actions in Iraq — has sent a private sector warship equipped with helicopters to the Gulf of Aden, and is offering its services to shipowners concerned with Somali piracy.

The vessel, McArthur, is described as a multipurpose unit designed to support military and law-enforcement training, peace-keeping and stability operations.

The ship and its helicopters have the ability to patrol a commercial vessel’s route, thereby avoiding the need to hire security contractors to ride on board.

Blackwater’s move came just hours before the Indian government confirmed that it intends to deploy a warship in the Gulf of Aden to guard its merchant ships from Somali pirates. The Indian ship will join assets from Russia, Malaysia and a multinational western-dominated coalition in the troubled waters.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.




  • Support The H.O.R.N.

    Monthly Subscriptions
    Rock ($10 USD)
    Paper ($25 USD)
    Scissors ($50 USD)
    Hammer! ($100 USD)
  • To donate by mail

Streaming and Archives made possible by
The White Rose Society

Chatroom


  • One Billion Bulbs The Head On Radio Network Bulbs Change Statistics

  • H.O.R.N. Widgets




  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to my RSS Feeds

    Categories