Posts tagged health
ESA: So much accomplished, so much to do
Nov 13th
BC1 news editor
The federal Endangered Species turns 40 years old this year. It was signed into law by Richard (“I am not a crook”) Nixon, in 1973, likely as a desperation move to garner public support for his collapsing presidency. The significance of this law is that, for the first time in history federal law recognized there are limits to economic development —i.e. when a species would be driven to extinction as a result of the activities. That, my friends, is a Line in the Sand.
The ESA has been incredibly effective, thanks almost entirely to the Center for Biological Diversity, which was instrumental in protecting more than 1,400 species and 200 million acres of critical habitat in the U.S. alone. Ninety nine percent of species protected by the ESA have been saved from extinction. The CBD uses law and science to make its case, bucking the trend of most major environmental groups, which rarely sue any longer for any reason. This happened because BIG OIL has undue influence in the environmental community by having representatives on the environmental groups’ board of directors and by funding these groups with the tacit understanding that the groups won’t oppose projects beneficial to oil and gas profits. Nevertheless, current trends are threatening to reverse the situation. Global climate change could be the most damaging threat in history, with profound implications for both animals and human beings. There are others.
To honor the ESA, Boulder Channel 1 will run a series of articles about the most serious of these threats.
By the Center for Biological Diversity
FRACKING THREATENS AMERICA’S AIR, WATER AND CLIMATE It poisons our water, contaminates our air and emits massive greenhouse gas pollution. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves blasting huge volumes of water mixed with toxic chemicals and sand deep into the earth to fracture rock formations and release oil and natural gas. This extreme form of energy production endangers our health and wildlands.
A fracking boom can transform an area almost overnight, creating massive new environmental and social problems. Fracking development is intensifying in Pennsylvania, Texas and North Dakota and moving into new areas, like California and Nevada. Will your state be fracked next? But as fracking spreads across America, communities are fighting back — and the Center for Biological Diversity is working to ban this growing threat. POLLUTING AIR AND WATER, KILLING WILDLIFE
About 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, scientists say. Others harm the skin or reproductive system. Evidence is mounting throughout the country that these chemicals — as well as methane released by fracking — are making their way into aquifers and drinking water. Fracking can release dangerous petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene and xylene. It also increases ground-level ozone levels, raising people’s risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Wildlife is also in danger. Fish die when fracking fluid contaminates streams and rivers. Birds are poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds. And the intense industrial development accompanying fracking pushes imperiled animals out of wild areas they need to survive. In California, for example, more than 100 endangered and threatened species live in the counties where fracking is set to expand. DISRUPTING
OUR CLIMATE Fracking releases large amounts of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. Fracked shale gas wells, for example, may have methane leakage rates as high as 7.9 percent, which would make such natural gas worse for the climate than coal. But fracking also threatens our climate in another way. To prevent catastrophic climate change, we must leave about 80 percent of proven fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Fracking takes us in the opposite direction, opening up vast new deposits of fossil fuels. If the fracking boom continues, oil and gas companies will light the fuse on a carbon bomb that will shatter efforts to avert climate chaos. BAN FRACKING NOW To protect our environment from fracking, we must prohibit this inherently dangerous technique. That’s why the Center supports fracking bans and moratoriums at the local, state and national levels. Learn about fracking and please take action against it today.
Indictments: Parents aided in JonBenet’s death
Oct 25th
Grand Jury and Boulder Police say John and Patsy Ramsey murdered their kid. Straight Up
Court documents released Friday show that a Colorado grand jury voted in 1999 to indict the parents of murdered 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death and being accessories to a crime.
The district attorney decided that year, however, not to file charges against John and Patricia Ramsey, saying there was insufficient evidence. In 2008, a new district attorney said new DNA evidence cleared the parents and their son in the death.
The court documents, which were previously sealed, show how the grand jury sought to charge each parent with two identical counts.
“The grand jury had alleged that Patsy Ramsey and husband John Ramsey “did … permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.”
The grand jury also had alleged that each parent “did … render assistance to a person” who “has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”
The documents provide no further details on who that “person” was. The grand jury had accused the couple of committing the offenses “on or between December 25 and December 26, 1996.” JonBenet was found murdered in the basement of the family’s Boulder home the day after Christmas 1996.
The Boulder District Attorney claimed in 2008 that new DNA evidence ruled out the Ramsey’s as JonBenet’s murderer. But new DA Stan Garnet gave the case back to police in 2011. He told Boulder Channel 1s Jann Scott in May that the Ramsey’s were not exonerated by him and that the case was fully in Boulder Police departments hands.
Boulder Police believe that John and Patsy Ramsey were involved with their childs murder and that there was no intruder. The new DA Stan Garnet seems to believe that too.
by Ron Baird
Jann Scott contributed to this story
some information was gathered from CNN
OPED: Koch brothers poisonous tentacles
Oct 9th
From the Huffington Post
by Eric Zuesse
Investigative Historian
Posted by Ron Baird
Boulder Channel 1 News editor
On October 7th, I reported in a two-part story, how the Koch brothers and their friends started in 2002 a plan to get control of the Republican Party so as to become enabled ultimately to shut down the Federal Government and maybe even drive it into default, so as to cause the American public to despise “government,” but actually to despise democracy itself; i.e., to despise this country’s democratic government, specifically.
Today, I report on the crucial role that the tobacco industry played in helping the Kochs to finance this operation, all of which was done with a profound contempt for the public, and with a deep pride for these aristocrats to rule the U.S. instead of the despised public controlling public policy through an honest and transparent Congress and Presidency.
Whereas that previous news report focused upon the Kochs’ expansion of their orbit of control to include the Heritage Foundation, from 2002 onwards, which is an operation that has not previously been covered, today’s report concerns instead the three major foundations that the Kochs themselves started and operated during this period: Americans For Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy.
The scholars, Amanda Fallin, Rachel Grana, and Stanton A. Glantz, published on 8 February 2013 in the online edition of the journal Tobacco Control, their blockbuster study,“‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party,” and they laid out there the history of the key alliance between the tobacco companies and the Koch brothers.
This enormous study, through thousands of pages of archives, was funded by the National Cancer Institute; and it reported that, “Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. … Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP [Americans For Prosperity] and FreedomWorks,” all of which were/are Koch operations.
These researchers reported that, “In 2002, … CSE started its US Tea Party (http://www.usteaparty.com) project, the website of which stated ‘our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated.'” (Amazingly, that damning webpage can still be accessed, via the web’s archive authority.)
Already, “Between 1991 and 2002 the tobacco companies, mainly Philip Morris, provided CSE with at least US$5.3 million,” and Philip Morris’s V.P. for Government Affairs justified these expenditures in a memo by saying: “They are adding this level of value. They have provided significant grassroots assistance, in the nature of several thousand calls to the Hill,” and are “very active on our behalf in the field in key states with key Members” of Congress. So: when the “spontaneous” “Tea Party” organization rose up in February 2009, to protest Obamacare, it was actually neither spontaneous, nor at all new.
America’s greatest living investigative journalist is perhaps Pam Martens, who provided a good summary of that study, and she supplemented it with an investigation of her own. In her 20 May 2013 article at her muckraking site “Wall Street on Parade,” she headlined “The Criminal Case Against the Tea Party Cabal,” and she reported also an additional Philip Morris memo (not mentioned by those three researchers), which described the role of CSE as follows: “We are funding a major (400K) grassroots initiative in the districts of House Energy & Commerce members to educate and mobilize consumers, through town hall meetings, radio and print ads, direct mail, patch-through calls to the Capitol switchboard, editorial board visits, polling data, meetings with Members and staff, and the release of studies and other educational pieces.”
They had already done this during 1994, with the Clinton Administration’s proposed healthcare reform, and they claimed there that it was “to show the Clinton plan as a government-run health care system replete with higher taxes and government spending, massive job losses, less choice, rationing of care and extensive bureaucracies. CSE is taking aim at the heart of the plan – employer mandates, new entitlements, price controls, mandatory health alliances, heavy load of new taxes and global budgets – and, with the program well underway, [it] is by all accounts getting rave reviews in the respective districts.”
Another wing of this operation to gut democratic government has been operated by Grover Norquist, who, on 25 May 2001, said on NPR’s “Morning Edition”: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” He was referring only to taxes, not really to spending (which many naïves interpreted him to mean).
Virtually every Republican congressional candidate thus signed Norquist’s “No New Taxes Pledge,” in order for them to be able to qualify for Norquist’s massive campaign-funding commitments from mega-corporate America. Norquist had been set up by Ronald Reagan to run Americans for Tax Reform, in order to do this, but the idea wasn’t actually new with Reagan. The far-right economist Milton Friedman had first introduced this idea, in 1978; candidate Ronald Reagan then adopted and defended it in 1980. Here’s how Reagan himself put it, during a Presidential debate, on 21 September 1980: “John tells us that, first, we’ve got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.”
The idea of the plan is basically to strangle democracy. This is done by privatizing everything, so that the aristocracy, who already own most of the private wealth in this country, will be able to farm the public – farm the serfs with debt, as the public used to be known during the feudal era. Now, however, the aristocracy are no longer based upon their passing on to their heirs vast landed estates with serfs, but passing on to them vast international corporations with employees and consumers; so, instead of acres, they pass on shares of stock. So, instead of feudalism, it’s fascism. It is the modernized form of feudalism; it is conservative dictatorship for the world of today.
Their plan is working, brilliantly. They call it “libertarian,” but the liberty is to be only for aristocrats. For everyone else, it’s serfdom, if not outright slavery. Conservatives love hierarchy; it is morality, in their vision of things.
[includeme src=”http://c1n.tv/boulder/media/bouldersponsors.html” frameborder=”0″ width=”670″ height=”300″]