Friday, September 28, 2012


Shut up, Ann Romney.








by  · in Original Postings


Dear Ann Romney,

As a woman who dearly loves her man like you do, but will on many occasions make jokes at his expense, I get why you want to come to the defense when your husband is being mocked. I get that it is hard to stand there and watch the vitriol fly at someone you love. But you know what’s even harder? Watching someone so self-righteous, so self-centered, and so selfish and out-of-touch with the world around them telling people, “Stop it. This is hard.” Frankly Ann, shut the fuck up.

First Lady Michelle Obama was at a NASCAR event and she got booed. BOOED! Did she say, “Stop it! This is hard!” No, she did not.

First Lady Michelle Obama is often being ragged on about her arms by the right wing and told she is fat. Does she say, “Stop it! This is hard!” No, she does not.

First Lady Michelle Obama is constantly called “Moochelle” by the right wing claiming she is fat and looks like a cow. Does she say, “Stop it! This is hard!” No, she does not.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s husband President Barack Obama is constantly having racial epithets thrown his way. Does she say, “Stop it! This is hard!” No, she fucking does not.

Ann, being a woman is hard. Being a woman in love is hard because it takes everything in her to love someone so stupid unconditionally. What is hard is being a minority woman in this country. What is hard is having to work two or three jobs to put food on the table at home. What is hard is trying to study and do homework while in college with children and a husband at home who need to eat, need a clean home, need help with their homework (if they are of school age), or need sex. What is hard is trying to fathom the things your husband says.

Oh, and this is especially even harder: watching you on TV claim and boast about how much you love your husband and your man, and that if we just get to know him we’ll like him too, but not telling us WHY. Why do you love your husband? Because he makes you laugh? That’s great. He makes me laugh too. I think it’s laughable that he thinks he knows best about what I should do with my uterus. I think it’s funny that he’s obviously so blindly racist, he felt a self-tanner would appeal to Latino voters (like myself) to make them like him better. 150 years ago YOU PEOPLE might have thought that black people or other persons of color were stupid, but do you think that’s changed? Do your husband or anyone working on his campaign think that we are so far gone and stupid that we don’t know what he did? Again, shut the fuck up.

You know what is hard, Ann? Having to constantly listen and watch the Republican Party boast about how great you are and how Michelle is not. What makes you and everyone else think you’re much better than the rest of the women in America? Is it because your husband borrowed money from his father to start his own business; because you’re able to afford to raise your 5 sons into douchebags from 5 different homes; because you managed to get your horse to England for the London Olympics without opening the windows on the plane or tying it to the roof; because your husband’s worth is a quarter of a billion dollars and it’s still not enough to buy you any class?

What is hard, Ann, is growing up in poverty. What is hard is wanting so bad to be out of poverty, but the party you support fights so hard to keep those of us in said poverty in it. What is hard is watching the likes of you and your party succeed in instilling fear in the population and making them root for the rich guys who could give two shits about them. What is hard is watching your party wanting to create a monarchy and fighting for aristocracy over the people, which is exactly the opposite of what our Fathers fought for. They fought for the common people; fought for freedom; fought for the right to prosper; and fought for the right to think freely.

What is hard, Ann, is seeing a man who was born at a time when there was still racial inequality and oppression, and overcoming all of that to become the first black president of the United States. What is hard is seeing a man who cares about the country he was born and raised in; its people; its land; its heart; and constantly hearing racial epithets against him from people of the party you support. What is hard is hearing people calling President Obama’s mother a whore and then attacking single mothers. What is hard is hearing people calling President Obama and his beautiful wife and daughters monkeys and niggers, and then claiming they are not racist by embracing Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, and Herman Cain.

What is hard, Ann, is what Michelle Obama has to live with day by day. She constantly has to hear these comments made about her, her daughters, and her husband. She’s constantly being ostracized by the right because she wants our children to eat better. Michelle is always instilling into her daughters that hard work, dedication, and their studies are what are going to make them successful. Michelle is always hearing the vitriol and hate the right wing is constantly spewing to her husband. Michelle is 100 million times the strong woman than you will ever be.

Things are hard, Ann. But you know what is so easy? Dishing out exactly what is given to us. What is hard is taking it. So, here’s my advice: shut the fuck up. If it’s so hard having to stand by and hear the things people are criticizing your husband for, perhaps you should tell your husband to stop being a stupid, pompous, racist, bigoted, ambitious idiotic douchebag, and things just might, MIGHT get easier for you, and for the sake of the population.

Sincerely,
A Pissed Off Latina Voter

Wednesday, September 26, 2012


5 Looming Budget Cuts We Can Blame on Congress.





Sequestration is a mouthful of a word, but — if you’re a student, teacher or parent — it is one we’ll be talking a lot about soon unless Congress acts fast.

The massive automatic budget cuts, the result of a political deal between Republicans and Democrats to raise the federal debt ceiling, are scheduled to go into effect starting January 2. The cuts were intended as a carrot to get Congress to compromise on deficit reduction but no compromise has been reached. Enacted into law under the Budget Control Act last year, sequestration is looming over us as part of the “fiscal cliff.”

$1.2 trillion in cuts must be made over the next decade starting with $109 billion in overall cuts come the start of 2013. The White House Office of Management and Budget released a394 page report with precise details last week while emphasizing that the Obama administration is not behind the “deeply destructive” cuts, which it was obliged by law to publish.

Here are five ways that sequestration will affect us.

Funding For Public Schools Could Be Cut to 2003 Levels
Everyone wrings their hands over the state of America’s schools. But sequestration will turn back the clock for U.S. students to 2003, as it would decrease eduction funding to the levels of a decade ago.

That’s a real problem because, in the past ten years, U.S. schools added 5.4 million students at a time when tax cuts for the wealthy have reduced school district’s budgets, says Dennis Van Roekel, President of the National Education Association (NEA) in Education Week. U.S. public schools could lose a total of $4.8 billion, an analysis by the NEA reveals.

Funding For Students with Disabilities Could Be Cut to 2001 Levels
Kids with disabilities like my son are covered under the federal Individuals with Education Act (IDEA) but, under sequestration, more than a billion dollars could be lost from federal funding for special education. The reduced funding would mean that school districts would have to rely on state and local governments to provide students with the appropriate services mandated under IDEA.

Since 2006, costs for special education have risen 25 percent, according to the NEA’s analysis (pdf). Sequestration would turn back the clock, with funding reduced to near-2001 levels.

College Students Face Higher Fees For Certain Loans
Fees for unsubsidized Stafford student loans will rise by 7.6 percent to about 1.1 percent of a total loan. PLUS-loan and unsubsidized-loan fees would rise slightly, from about 4 percent to about 4.3 percent of a total loan. These are small differences but, as I know from a recent conversation with a very stressed-out student (whose sibling just started college and who has a brother who will soon), any increase in college fees has the potential to create financial havoc.

Fortunately, Pell Grants for students from lower-income backgrounds would not be affected.

Billions and Millions Could Be Cut From Life-Saving Medical Research Funding
Basic research is crucial to developing new medicines and treatments that can save lives. The National Institutes of Health face a cut of 8.2 percent of their $30 billion appropriation, a loss of funds amounting to more than $2.5 billion. The National Science Foundation faces losses of as much as $586 million; the Department of Energy Office of Science, cuts of as much as $400 million.

Your Job Could Be Cut
These cuts don’t mean that scientists would have to cut back on lab supplies, but on jobs such as those for laboratory technicians and researchers. Via Raw Story, Judith S. Bond, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), says that “the loss of funds due to sequestration will curtail vital research projects at universities and institutions in all 50 states and result in layoffs of thousands of Americans.”

The NEA’s analysis (pdf) also predicts that 80,000 Americans employed in public education could lose their jobs.

Sequestration is the ugly legacy of the “crisis” over the debt ceiling that the GOP, “egged on by Tea Party extremists in Congress,” used to hold “the nation hostage,” as Roekel writes in Education Week. All the cuts detailed above could have, should have, been avoided.





Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: Let the Global Movement of Moderates Rise.



Those behind the anti-Islam video and those protesting violently against it are both extremists working to ignite a clash of religions. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero Mosque plan, offers a call to action for all moderates to push back.


The people in the United States who made the obscene video that enflamed the Muslim world and the people in Egypt who found it, translated it, and publicized it as the latest Western affront to Islam think they are mortal enemies.

They are not. They are allies in extremism.

The world is divided between those working hard to forge harmony among people of different religions and the extremists working hard to ignite a “clash of religions.”

It is up to the majority—who are coming together as the Global Movement of Moderates—to push back against the extremists of all faiths. We must counter those who erroneously believe that smearing another religion is the best way to defend their own.

And we certainly must condemn those who believe that taking innocent lives—whether it is suicide bombers exploding in marketplaces or killers of American diplomats in Libya—is somehow endorsed by Islam.

 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaks to reporters March 6, 2011, in Times Square. (Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images)

As an imam who has spent a lifetime studying the Quran and Islamic law, I know that Islam prohibits taking any innocent life. The Quran states: “No soul shall be held responsible for the crimes of another.” The Quran equates killing an innocent with killing all of humankind.

In the Quran, God tells us not to insult the beliefs of others, lest they take revenge by insulting God. God’s plan in creating and testing humankind requires Muslims to respect every human being’s right to accept or reject God. That means accepting religious freedom and all other religious communities.

By taking the bait offered by extremist Islamophobes, we Muslims embarrass ourselves, reinforce stereotypes held by those who hate us, and sin against God.

In the Quran, God explicitly criticized believers, even the Prophet, for prohibiting that which God has permitted. We must bring that openness to protect religious diversity. We have clear instructions in the Quran that tell us, “to you your religion, to me mine.”

Threatening to wipe out Jews, or Christians, or members of any faith; or Sunnis killing Shia and Shia killing Sunnis, or terrorist attacks against the United States—none of this can be supported by the Quran or any holy book.

The first step is to recognize the enemy. It’s not Islam. It’s not Christianity. It’s not Judaism. It is anyone in any faith who would destroy and kill in the name of religion.

As we have seen, it takes only one extremist action to ignite a counter-reaction from extremists on the other side that lights the world on fire and undermines security and economic prosperity.

Opposition groups then use extremist reaction to their own ends, undermining government and pushing political agendas, some of which are hardline.

Just as Republican challenger Mitt Romney—to advance his own political campaign—used the turmoil caused by the video protests to castigate President Obama’s policies of positively engaging the Muslim world, political opposition parties in Muslim majority nations are castigating their governments for positively engaging with the United States—to advance their domestic political agendas.

That’s why Malaysian Prime Minister Mohammad Najib Abdul Razak launched the Global Movement of Moderates to galvanize the opposition to extremist ideology in all faith traditions.

“It is time for us, the majority who are peace-loving and moderate, to reclaim our rightful place,” he said.
Western leaders have embraced his movement. British Prime Minister David Cameron told Najib in Malaysia in April, “I’ve been keen to share a platform with you on the Global Movement of Moderates.” Said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “We are eager to support [Najib] and other leaders to take up this call.”

This is a call to action for all moderates. The first step is to recognize the enemy. It’s not Islam. It’s not Christianity. It’s not Judaism. It is anyone in any faith who would destroy and kill in the name of religion. It is anyone who would deny a person’s right to the free practice of religion.

People of good faith in all religions need to turn their backs on the extremists who wish to divide us and not let them dictate events and seize control of the dialogue. It’s not an easy thing to do. But it’s our best hope for a safe, just, and thriving world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are the Water Wars Coming?





Photo Credit: udra/ Shutterstock.com


Al Jazeera / By Chris Arsenault

Almost half of humanity will face water scarcity by 2030 and strategists from Israel to Central Asia prepare for strife.

The author Mark Twain once remarked that "whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over" and a series of reports from intelligence agencies and research groups indicate the prospect of a water war is becoming increasingly likely.

In March, a report from the office of the US Director of National Intelligence said the risk of conflict would grow as water demand is set to outstrip sustainable current supplies by 40 per cent by 2030.
"These threats are real and they do raise serious national security concerns," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said after the report's release.

Internationally, 780 million people lack access to safe drinking water, according to the United Nations. By 2030, 47 percent of the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Environmental Outlook to 2030 report.
Some analysts worry that wars of the future will be fought over blue gold, as thirsty people, opportunistic politicians and powerful corporations battle for dwindling resources.

Dangerous warnings
Governments and military planners around the world are aware of the impending problem; with the US senate issuing reports with names like Avoiding Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia’s growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Water scarcity is an issue exacerbated by demographic pressures, climate change and pollution," said Ignacio Saiz, director of Centre for Economic and Social Rights, a social justice group. "The world's water supplies should guarantee every member of the population to cover their personal and domestic needs."With rapid population growth, and increased industrial demand, water withdrawls have tripled over the last 50 years, according to UN figures.

"Fundamentally, these are issues of poverty and inequality, man-made problems," he told Al Jazeera.
Of all the water on earth, 97 per cent is salt water and the remaining three per cent is fresh, with less than one per cent of the planet's drinkable water readily accessible for direct human uses. Scarcity is defined as each person in an area having access to less than 1,000 cubic meters of water a year.

The areas where water scarcity is the biggest problem are some of the same places where political conflicts are rife, leading to potentially explosive situations.

Some experts believe the only documented case of a "water war" happened about 4,500 years ago, when the city-states of Lagash and Umma went to war in the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

But Adel Darwish, a journalist and co-author of Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East, says modern history has already seen at least two water wars.

"I have [former Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon speaking on record saying the reason for going to war [against Arab armies] in 1967 was for water," Darwish told Al Jazeera.

Some analysts believe Israel continues to occupy the Golan heights, seized from Syria in 1967, due to issues of water control, while others think the occupation is about maintaining high ground in case of future conflicts.
Senegal and Mauritania also fought a war starting in 1989 over grazing rights on the River Senegal. And Syria and Iraq have fought minor skirmishes over the Euphrates River.

Middle East hit hard
UN studies project that 30 nations will be water scarce in 2025, up from 20 in 1990. Eighteen of them are in the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt, Israel, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

Water shortages could cost the unstable country 750,000 jobs, slashing incomes in the poorest Arab country by as much as 25 per cent over the next decade, according to a report from the consulting firm McKinsey and Company produced for the Yemeni government in 2010. Darwish bets that a battle between south and north Yemen will probably be the scene of the next water conflict, with other countries in the region following suit if the situation is not improved.

Commentators frequently blame Yemen's problems on tribal differences, but environmental scarcity may be underpinning secessionist struggles in the country's south and some general communal violence.

"My experience in the first gulf war [when Iraq invaded Kuwait] is that natural resources are always at the heart of tribal conflicts," Darwish told Al Jazeera.

The Nile is another potential flash point. In 1989, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak threatened to send demolition squads to a dam project in Ethiopia.

"The Egyptian army still has jungle warfare brigades, even though they have no jungle," Darwish said.
On the Nile, cooperation would benefit all countries involved, as they could jointly construct dams and lower the amount of water lost to evaporation, says Anton Earle, director of the Stockholm International Water Institute think-tank.

"If you had an agreement between the parties, there would be more water in the system," he told Al Jazeera. The likelihood of outright war is low, he says, but there is still "a lot of conflict" which "prevents joint infrastructure projects from going ahead".

Differing views
Water scarcity, and potential conflicts arising from it, is linked to larger issues of population growth, increasing food prices and global warming.

There are two general views about how these problems could unfold. The first dates back to the work of Thomas Malthus, an eighteenth century British clergyman and author who believed that: "The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."

In other words, more people and scant resources will invariably lead to discord and violence.
"Unequal power relations within states and conflicts between ethnic groups and social classes will be the greatest source of social tensions rising from deprivation," said Ignacio Saiz from the social justice group. "Water too often is treated as a commodity, as an instrument with which one population group can suppress another."Recent scholars, including Thomas Homer-Dixon, have analysed various case studies on environmental degradation to conclude that there is not a direct link between scarcity and violence. Instead, he believes inequality, social inclusion and other factors determine the nature and ferocity of strife.

Bolivia, South Africa, India, Botswana, Mexico and even parts of the US have seen vigorous water related protests, says Maude Barlow, author of 16 books and a former senior adviser to the UN on water issues.
"The fight over water privatisation in Cochobamba, Bolivia did turn into a bit of a water war and the army was called in," Barlow told Al Jazeera. "In Botswana, the government smashed bore holes as part of a terrible move to remove [indigenous bushmen] from the Kalahari desert. Mexico City has been forcibly taking water from the countryside, confiscating water sources from other areas and building fotresses around it, like it's a gold mine. In India, Coke will get contracts and then build fortresses around the water sources," taking drinking and irrigation water away from local people. "In Detroit 45,000, officially, have already had their water cut off."

Human rights
Strife over water, like conflicts more generally, will increasingly happen within states, rather than between them, Barlow says, with large scale agribusiness, mining and energy production taking control over resources at the expense of other users.

The IPPC, the UN panel which analyses climate science, concluded that: "Water and its availability and quality will be the main pressures on and issues for, societies and the environment under climate change."
Dealing with these pressures will require improved technologies, political will and new ideas about how humans view their relationship with the substance that sustains life.

"People have the right to expect access to a basic life resource like water by virtue of being human, regardless of the social situation they are born into," Saiz said. "Alongside the worrying development of water scarcity, I am hopeful that we will see increasing struggles to see access to water as a right, and not a priviledge."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Chris Arsenault is an Al Jazeera web producer based in Doha.

Republican Suggested "Sprinkling" Radioactive Waste on America.








Posted by Bruce Wilson



Dump radioactive waste, from airplanes, on our heads? Mix it in our drinking water? If Muslims had proposed this, it would be terrorism, and probably a fast-track to a waterboarding station in Guatanamo. But fortunately, it's not terrorism - it's science, which would conveniently help big business dispose of its garbage by dumping it on our heads or putting it in our water, but scientifically.

If Mitt Romney exemplifies the depth of elite contempt for average Americans, we can see the logical extension of this in the Koch brothers-backed candidacy of Arthur B. Robinson, running to represent Oregon's Fourth District in Congress.

"All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean - or even over America after hor-mesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases." -- Arthur B. Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 24, Number 8. April 1, 1997

"It is unfortunate that this [radioactive, Tritium-contaminated water] under San Onofre [a CA nuclear power plant] is being wasted. If we could use it to enhance our own drinking water here in Oregon, where background radiation is low, it would hormetically enhance our resistance to degenerative diseases. Alas, this would be against the law." -- Arthur Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 33, Number 9. April, 2006

Arthur Robinson has proposed, over and over again* (see footnote) in his "scientific" newsletter, getting rid of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors by putting it in the foundations of people's houses or in their home insulation, dumping it at sea, or just "sprinkling" it over America, on our heads that is.

He even had a scientific rationale for this too: "hormesis", which works in theory but was considered back in 1997 to be dubious in practice. It still is. As with global warming denialism, Robinson (who I should mention also calls the theory of evolution a "pornographic", "pseudo-scientific discipline") seemed to be laying the public relations groundwork for a big science experiment, on us.

Carbon dioxide emissions have no effect on climate! Low level radiation is perfectly safe, even beneficial! -- Mass medical experiments on unwitting Americans have been done before, to the offspring of former slaves who presumably, because of the color of their skin, were considered to be ideal human lab rats (back to the slavery theme in a moment.)

To complete the picture, Robinson's run for Congress is now backed by the billionaire fossil fuel and logging baron billionaire Koch brothers - the cockles of their hearts duly warmed, I imagine, by Art Robinson's leading role in the global warming denial business, his claims that low-level radioactivity is a health benefit, his belief that DDT is 100% safe and that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was a hoax ( sorry, Bald Eagles, it's just the price of progress ), and his apparent attitude that small amounts of whatever industrial waste gook the factories of people such as the Koch brothers spew out is in fact good for us and can be scientifically titrated out in the proper doses and added to our breakfast cereal and drinking water. It's all so very scientific .

This has not wholly escaped media notice: Back in 2010, Art Robinson made a surrealistic appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, during which Maddow homed in on Robinson's radioactive waste "sprinkling" idea and his 1994 HIV/AIDS-is-a-government-conspiracy claim (see footnote), but Maddow and other media missed the extent of the racism in Robinson's homeschooling curriculum, including content that romanticizes slavery, as well as Art Robinson's astonishingly close ties to the Christian Reconstructionism movement.

The slavery issue:
If, per Mitt Romney (and Ayn Rand), almost half of Americans are moochers and all of society's wealth and creativity indeed stems from the heroic efforts of a tiny minority of titans such as Mitt Romney, heroically creating wealth by downsizing businesses and shipping American jobs to China, then it's easy to see that some large percentage of Americans are truly lesser beings, who might be better off on a paternalistic plantation system that cared for their needs in exchange for their servitude, as slaves.

Slavery is also a beneficial thing in some of the 19th Century George Alfred Henty boys novels that Art Robinson has exhumed, from their moldy grave of British colonialist racism, to print and sell to his Christian homeschooling curriculum customers.

Back in 2010, when Arthur Robinson was first running for Congress, I put out a little story which highlighted a racist passage from one of Robinson's Henty novels, By Sheer Pluck: A Tale of the Ashanti War, in which a major figure in the novel, a naturalist named Goodenough with extensive experience traveling in Africa, informs the book's protagonist, the young Frank Hargate, that Africans have the mental capacity of children:

" "They are just like children," Mr. Goodenough said. "They are always either laughing or quarreling. They are good natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery." "

The issue came up during the 2010 election , in a debate between Art Robinson and Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio - whom Robinson was running against for Oregon's Fourth District. DeFazio also found a more recent statement from Robinson, that suggested racism.

The suggestion of racism, it seems, troubled Arthur Robinson enough that he included a rebuttal in his 2012 book Common Sense, that, in advance of the 2012 election, Robinson has mailed to "158,0000 voting households" in the Fourth District according to Art Robinson's website.

I was flattered, of course, that Robinson took it so seriously. In turn, to repay the favor, I've just put out a 22-page report that documents an extensive pattern of racism in the G.A. Henty books that Arthur Robinson prints, sells, and promotes to his clients (the Henty books glorify slavery, and they present Africans as savage and childlike), as well as an apparent pattern of racism inherent to the Robinson Curriculum itself.

The Robinson Curriculum features 1) a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, 2) a 1913 Oxford English dictionary, a King James Bible, and a collection of "great books", mainly from 16th-19th Century white European and North American authors, plus a smattering of 20th Century anti-environmentalist and pro-nuclear tracts, and (for an additional $75) all 99 novels of G.A. Henty, in digitized format.

Students raised on the Robinson Curriculum won't learn of the 20th Century American struggles for women's rights, including women's struggle to gain the right to vote, or of the Civil Rights movement, or of developing world movements that threw off European and British colonial rule.

They'll miss the Holocaust, too, but they will learn that environmentalism is a fraud, a scheme to impose tyrannical socialism, and they'll read, in their 1911 Britannica's, that Phrenology and Eugenics are legitimate, modern sciences. These are projects that Mitt Romney has far too little imagination to conceive of, and far too little courage to attempt -- the eradication of the 20th Century, the rehabilitation of slavery, and the repositioning of toxic waste, as America's newest health panacea.

And GOP Senator Todd Akin? Please. Ranged against Akin's espousal of a Medieval medical notion that raped women can't get pregnant (unless they want to or they enjoyed being raped), we have Arthur Robinson's extensive and intimate ties to the theocratic Christian Reconstructionism movement, whose leaders want to abolish public education (Robinson himself has advocated this numerous times ) and also propose the following:

Leading Christian Reconstructionists (one of them a good friend of Art Robinson's) propose mandating capital punishment, by stoning, for a range of alleged crimes including female unchastity (intercourse before marriage), homosexuality, blasphemy, witchcraft, and teenage rebellion. Because time is short, and I've written it already, here is an excerpt, below, from my new report, detailing some of Arthur Robinson's ties to Christian Reconstructionism.

"At the heart of the Christian Reconstructionism project is the Christian homeschooling movement. Not surprisingly, Christian Reconstructionists typically want to abolish public education and on this count, and many others, Arthur B. Robinson's stated policy positions coincide quite neatly with those of Christian Reconstructionists as well as with the positions of a political party closely affiliated with the CR movement, the Constitution Party - which has in the past endorsed Arthur Robinson as a candidate.

Robinson has extensive links to the Christian Reconstructionism movement, which advocates radically libertarian laissez-faire capitalism and the imposition of decentralized Christian theocratic government structures that would impose Biblical law -- including capital punishment, by "Biblical" methods such as stoning or burning at the stake, for a range of alleged crimes including witchcraft, blasphemy, adultery, female un-chastity (intercourse before marriage), homosexuality, and incorrigible teenage rebellion.

Christian Reconstructionism aims to literally reconstruct society, to create a new cultural and political order based on Biblically-derived legal principles as determined by founder R.J. Rushdoony and his fellow Reconstructionist theorists, among them Art Robinson's friend Gary North. In a 1998 article in the libertarian magazine Reason titled "Invitation To A Stoning" author Arnold Murray described Gary North's view on, well, stoning,

"[Christian] Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.

The late theologian R.J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism, claimed that African-American slaves who had been converted to Christianity enjoyed a better lot than their African ancestors, suggested reimposing slavery, was a Holocaust denier and a creationist, and maintained that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

The Robinson Curriculum website features an instructional essay on writing composition by Rushdoony (who was without a doubt a gifted writer). The curriculum website also features an extended interview, on homeschooling, of Arthur Robinson by Gary North, and an interview of R.J, Rushdoony, by Christian Reconstructionist Sam Blumenfeld with Rousas Jonas Rushdoony.

During the hour-long interview with Gary North, Arthur Robinson advocates his own Robinson Curriculum as the best Christian homeschooling curriculum but suggests that parents could get good results by using the Bob Jones University and A Beka Book curricula as well.

Both A Beka Book and Bob Jones University curricula are riddled with racism and attacks on non-Protestant fundamentalist traditions, including Catholicism, and Mormonism. One of Bob Jones University press' recent (2007) science textbooks contains the claim that only several thousand years ago humans may have lived alongside fire-breathing dragons.

In 1986, Arthur Robinson coauthored, with leading Christian Reconstructionist thinker Gary North (son-in-law of the movement's founder R.J. Rushndoony), a book on how to survive nuclear war titled, Fighting Chance: Ten Feet To Survival.

The book advocated bringing back the sort of aggressive nuclear war civil defense program that led to the US government's civil defense film "Duck and Cover" shown in US schools to schoolchildren in the 1950's and 1960's.

The Robinson Curriculum features, as one of its few books that addresses the 20th Century, a 1961 paean to great American industrialists, inventors, and financiers by John Chamberlain, The Enterprising Americans: A Business History of the United States, reprinted in 1991 by The Institute For Christian Economics, Dr. Gary North's personal publishing house."

*footnote Art Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 25, Number 4, December 1997 :

"Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc., has compiled a substantial number of such studies, which all lead to the same conclusion that low-level radiation decreases cancer, lengthens life, and enhances health. The most sensible use of low-level radioactive waste is as a concrete and insulation additive in residential homes - especially in areas where there is insufficient natural radiation for optimum health."

Art Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 22, Number 9, May 1995 :
"They should have just pulverized or solublized it and then dispersed it in the deep ocean where it would be so diluted as to be completely harmless and almost undetectable, but our government is determined that all radioactive waste will be stored in one large pile where it can remain dangerous for as long as possible."

Art Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 22, Number 6, February 1995 :

"If radioactive waste were dissolved as water soluble compounds and then widely dispersed in the oceans, no health or other environmental risks would ever occur. "

Along different lines, in 1994 Arthur Robinson alleged a massive government conspiracy to inflate reported cases of HIV/AIDS, in order to justify "social engineering" : Art Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol. 22, Number 3, November 1994 :

"U.S. government AIDS programs are now receiving $6 billion per year and are based entirely upon the hypothesis that HIV virus causes AIDS. Yet, the articles referenced above and numerous additional publications by scientists who have become involved in this controversy state that: attempts to cause AIDS experimentally with HIV have completely failed; thousands of AIDS victims are HIV-free; and HIV shows none of the classical characteristics of a disease-producing organism... ...it is increasingly improbable that the ongoing expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to chase one infectious disease could be failing so miserably if something fundamental is not wrong with the effort. ...the "epidemic'' is not growing as predicted. Only government reclassification of more and more disease types as AIDS cases has kept the numbers of victims at politically necessary levels. ...AIDS is conveniently serving as an excuse for all sorts of social engineering, especially in the public schools, that could not be sustained without a "crisis.'' "  

5 Ways A Romney Supreme Court Could Crush Us.



5 Ways A Romney Supreme Court Could Crush Us



With the Supreme Court term starting in a few weeks, and a presidential election shortly after that, the Center for American Progress has this look at how the nation’s high court could change under the next presidential administration. The differences are not just stunning, they are a reminder of just how much is on the line this election. With four sitting Supreme Court justices over the age of 70, and with the court so closely divided, one or two judicial appointments could significantly shift the American legal landscape. Consider the difference between the kinds of justices President Obama would nominate versus Mitt Romney on the following issues:

1. Anti-Discrimination
In Boy Scouts v. Dale a 5-4 court ruled that organizations can freely ignore state anti-discrimination laws to exclude LGBT members. Since the decision conservative groups have tried to broaden the kinds of activities that would be given similar constitutional protections, including refusal to provide equal employment benefits to employees regardless of gender. Current objections to the contraception mandate in Obamacare bring up similar issues and will likely come before the court in the next year or two.

2. Campaign Finance Reform
The Supreme Court passed on an opportunity to review the horrendous Citizens United decision this term despite the fact that at least two of the justices have spoken publicly about their feeling the case was wrongly decided. And with the importance the ultra-rich and corporate interests place on unregulated political spending they’ve been actively challenging state campaign disclosure requirements which means we can expect the court to revisit the issue at some point soon.

3. Reproductive Rights
If there’s one case conservatives want to see undone it is Roe v. Wade, and with the litany of abortion restrictions on the state level it is a guarantee we will see a direct challenge to Roe. As it stands, the decision is one vote away from being over-turned.

4. Corporate Accountability
In Cuomo v. Clearinghouse, the conservative wing of the court voted to uphold states’ fair lending laws that excluded the banking industry from their scope. Not surprisingly, the challenged regulations were heavily lobbied for by the banking industry. How do you think Mitt Romney stands on an issue like this?
5. Workers’ Rights

In a slew of closely divided decisions the Supreme Court held in Circuit City v. Adams that workers can be forced to relinquish the right to sue their employer in favor of a corporate-run arbitration system. And in Gross v. FBL Services the court stripped many older workers of their ability to ensure they are not fired or demoted because of their age.



5 Marijuana Compounds That Could Help Combat Cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons (If Only They Were Legal).






They don't even get you high, so why are these natural, non-toxic substances illegal? Because they're derived from cannabis.

Imagine there existed a natural, non-toxic substance that halted diabetes, fought cancer, and reduced psychotic tendencies in patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders. You don’t have to imagine; such a substance is already here. It’s called cannabidiol (CBD). The only problem with it is that it’s illegal.


Cannabidiol is one of dozens of unique, organic compounds in the cannabis plant known as cannabinoids, many of which possess documented, and in some cases, prolific therapeutic properties. Other cannabinoids include cannabinol (CBN), cannabichromene (CBC), cannabigerol (CBG), and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV). Unlike delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive cannabinoid in marijuana, consuming these plant compounds will not get you high. Nonetheless, under federal law, each and every one of these cannabinoids is defined as schedule I illicit substances because they naturally occur in the marijuana plant.


That’s right. In the eyes of the US government, these non-psychotropic cannabinoids are as dangerous to consume as heroin and they possess absolutely no therapeutic utility. In the eyes of many scientists, however, these cannabinoids may offer a safe and effective way to combat some of the world’s most severe and hard-to-treat medical conditions. Here’s a closer look at some of these promising, yet illegal, plant compounds.


Cannabidiol

After THC, CBD is by far the most studied plant cannabinoid. First identified in 1940 (though its specific chemical structure was not identified until 1963), many researchers now describe CBD as quite possibly the most single important cannabinoid in the marijuana plant. That is because CBD is the cannabinoid that arguably possesses the greatest therapeutic potential.


A key word search on the search engine PubMed Central, the U.S. government repository for peer-reviewed scientific research, reveals over 1,000 papers pertaining to CBD – with scientists’ interest in the plant compound increasing exponentially in recent years. It’s easy to understand why. A cursory review of the literature indicates that CBD holds the potential to treat dozens of serious and life-threatening conditions.


“Studies have suggested a wide range of possible therapeutic effects of cannabidiol on several conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral ischemia, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, other inflammatory diseases, nausea and cancer.” That was the conclusion of researcher Antonio Zuardi, writing about CBD in the Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry in 2008. A 2009 literature review published by a team of Italian and Israeli investigators indicates that the substance likely holds even broader clinical potential. They acknowledged that CBD possesses anxiolytic, antipsychotic, antiepileptic, neuroprotective, vasorelaxant, antispasmodic, anti-ischemic, anticancer, antiemetic, antibacterial, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, and bone stimulating properties. Martin Lee, cofounder and director of the non-profit group Project CBD – which identifies and promotes CBD-rich strains of cannabis – agrees. Cannabidiol is “the Cinderella molecule,” writes Lee in his new book, Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational, and Scientific (Scribner, 2012). “[It’s] the little substance that could. [It’s] nontoxic, nonpsychoactive, and multicapable.”


It’s also exceptionally safe for human consumption. According to a just published clinical trial in the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design, the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD in 16 subjects was associated with no acute behavioral and physiological effects, such as increased heart rate or sedation. “In healthy volunteers, … CBD has proven to be safe and well tolerated,” authors affirmed. A 2011 literature review published in Current Drug Safety similarly concluded that CBD administration, even in doses of up to 1,450 milligrams per day, is non-toxic, well tolerated, and safe for human consumption.


Yet despite calls from various researchers to allow for clinical trials to assess the use of CBD in the treatment of various ailments, including breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and schizophrenia, a review of the website – the online registry for federally supported federal trials worldwide – identifies only four US-based clinical assessments of CBD. Two of these are safety studies; the other two are evaluations of CBD’s potential to mitigate cravings for heroin and opiates. Sativex, a pharmaceutically produced, patented oromucosal spray containing extracts of THC and CBD, is also undergoing testing in North America for use as a cancer pain reliever under the name Nabiximols. The drug is already available by prescription in Canada, the United Kingdom, and throughout much of Europe for the treatment of various indications, including multiple sclerosis.


Presently, however, options for US patients wishing to utilize CBD are extremely limited. Most domestically grown strains of cannabis contain relatively little CBD and many smaller-sized cannabis dispensaries do not consistently carry such boutique varieties. A handful of prominent cannabis dispensaries, mostly in California and Colorado, do carry CBD-rich strains of cannabis or CBD-infused products. However, in recent months, several of these providers, such as Harborside Health Center in Oakland and El Camino Wellness in Sacramento, have been targeted for closure by the federal Justice Department, which continues to deny evidence of CBD’s extensive safety and efficacy.


Cannabinol

Cannabinol (CBN) is largely a product of THC degradation. It is typically available in cannabis in minute quantities and it binds relatively weakly with the body’s endogenous cannabinoid receptors. Scientists have an exceptionally long history with CBN, having first isolated the compound in 1896. Yet, a keyword search on PubMed reveals fewer than 500 published papers in the scientific literature specific to cannabinol. Of these, several document the compound’s therapeutic potential – including its ability to induce sleep, ease pain and spasticity, delay ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) symptoms, increase appetite, and halt the spread of certain drug resistant pathogens, like MRSA (aka ‘the Superbug’). In a 2008 study, CBN was one of a handful of cannabinoids found to be “exceptional” in its ability to reduce the spread MRSA, a skin bacteria that is resistant to standard antibiotic treatment and is responsible for nearly 20,000 hospital-stay related deaths annually in the United States.


Cannabichromene

Cannabichromene (CBC) was first discovered in 1966. It is typically found in significant quantities in freshly harvested, dry cannabis. To date, the compound has not been subject to rigorous study; fewer than 75 published papers available on PubMed make specific reference to CBC. According to a 2009 review of cannabichromine and other non-psychotropic cannabinoids, “CBC exerts anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and modest analgesic activity.” CBC has also been shown to promote anti-cancer activity in malignant cell lines and to possess bone-stimulating properties. More recently, a 2011 preclinical trial reported that CBC influences nerve endings above the spine to modify sensations of pain. “[This] compound might represent [a] useful therapeutic agent with multiple mechanisms of action,” the study concluded.


Cannabigerol

Similar to CBC, cannabigerol (CBG) also has been subject to relatively few scientific trials since its discovery in 1964. To date, there exist only limited number of papers available referencing the substance – a keyword search on PubMed yields fewer than 55 citations – which has been documented to possess anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-bacterial properties. According to a 2011 review published in the British Journal of Pharmacology, “[A] whole plant extract of a CBG-chemotype … would seem to offer an excellent, safe new antiseptic agent” for the treatment of multi-drug resistant bacteria. A more recent review published this year in the journal Pharmacology & Therapeutics further acknowledges that CBG and similar non-psychotropic cannabinoids “act at a wide range of pharmacological targets” and could potentially be utilized in the treatment of a wide range of central nervous system disorders, including epilepsy.


Tetrahydrocannabivarin

Discovered in 1970, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) is most typically identified in Pakistani hashish and cannabis strains of southern African origin. Depending on the dose, THCV may either antagonize some of the therapeutic effects of THC (e.g., at low doses THCV may repress appetite) or promote them. (Higher doses of THCV exerting beneficial effects on bone formation and fracture healing in preclinical models, for example.) Unlike, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, high doses of THCV may also be mildly psychoactive (but far less so than THC).


To date, fewer than 30 papers available on PubMed specifically reference THCV. Over half of these were published within the past three years. Some of these more recent studies highlight tetrahydrocannabivarin’s anti-epileptic and anticonvulsant properties, as well as its ability to mitigate inflammation and pain – in particular, difficult-to-treat neuropathy.


Like CBD, THCV is on the radar of British biotech GW Pharmaceuticals (makers of Sativex). According to its website, the company has expressed interest in the potential use of tetrahydrocannabivarin in the treatment of obesity, diabetes and other related metabolic disorders. Though the compound has been subject to Phase I clinical testing, a keyword search on clinicaltrials.gov yields no specific references to any ongoing studies at this time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and is the co-author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (2009, Chelsea Green).  

Does Mitt Romney Even Want to be President?





The following article first appeared on the Web site of The Nation
That’s not just a rhetorical question: In Mitt Romney’s heart of hearts, maybe all he really wanted was the Republican nomination.


That’s not just a rhetorical question: In Mitt Romney’s heart of hearts, maybe all he really wanted was the Republican nomination.

Every time Romney gets an opportunity to reset the narrative of the election, he makes some psychologically revealing mistake. Giving Clint Eastwood his spotlight, rattling a rubber saber over a tweet from the US embassy in Cairo while it was under attack, writing off half of all American voters as moochers—you only have to tilt your head to see each of these “gaffes” as a cry for help. And Republicans themselves are grumbling about Romney’s skimpy schedule of public events, where real voters might take his measure and enthusiasm for a ground campaign could be generated.

“There’s not really a campaign here,” one Republican close to GOP fundraisers complained to Real Clear Politics. “He’s getting ready for the debates, and he’s out fundraising. You’ve got enough money!” Lindsey Graham and Peggy Noonan have also bemoaned his semi-AWOL schedule.

I can think of three good reasons Mitt might be psychologically satisfied with attaining the GOP nomination alone: avenging his father, legitimizing his religion and, well, winning the Republican nomination is generally very good for business.

When Mitt was 20 years old, he watched as his father, Michigan governor George Romney, blew his chance at the nomination in 1968 by saying he had been “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam war; that gave the far right all they needed to demolish Richard Nixon’s only progressive rival. For Mitt to win the nomination this year—despite his term as governor of Taxachussetts and his creation of the pilot version of Obamacare—is a remarkable accomplishment. During the primaries, the Tea Party crowd couldn’t stand him of course; they repeatedly elevated “anybody but Romney”—Trump, Gingrich, Perry, Cain, Gingrich again, Santorum—above him in the polls. But wielding his money and his “electability” Mitt eventually beat back just the sort of “muttonheads,” as he called the rabid right in ’68, who had humiliated his dad.

So even if he’s sputtering out now, Mitt nevertheless has the best of both worlds: he has vindicated his father before the people who count, and he wouldn’t have to actually govern. He can avoid the years of “gaffes” and words “not elegantly stated” and “you people” prying into his finances that his presidency would surely entail. And as Michelle Obama said: the office doesn’t change who you are, it reveals who you are.

Anyway, Romney’s nomination has already done something very real for one of the few American institutions he truly seems to care about: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He helped to finally establish Mormonism as a legitimate part of the Republican Party hierarchy, not to mention American political history. Maybe he won’t be invited to speak at the 2016 GOP convention, but he did get Christians to at least nominally accept his once-persecuted faith.

And maybe, after all we’ve seen this past week, we should take Romney at his word when he says he’s not really in this as a politician. In the January 8 debate in New Hampshire, he gave us a big fat hint of his reluctance to actually be president. He claimed he was not a career politician but something more honorable—a smart businessman, a Cincinnatus from the first-class section, who made the wealth these politicians merely spend. When Santorum asked Romney why, if he’d been such a great governor, he didn’t run for re-election, Mitt answered:

I went to Massachusetts to make a difference. I didn’t go there to begin a political career, running time and time again…. Run again? That would be about me. I was trying to help get the state into the best shape as I possibly could, left the world of politics, went back into business.”

“Can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?” Newt famously replied. “The fact is, you ran in ‘94 [against Ted Kennedy] and lost…. The fact is, you had a very bad re-election rating, you dropped out of office, you had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president.”

That’s true: he’s always seemed more interested in running for office than in governing. And maybe now that he’s headed the conservative ticket and spent millions of his own money on Republican causes and auditioned before the billionaires who make up his finance committee, he’ll go on to join their ranks, too.
It’s like that clip Rachel Maddow has been using to tell school kids who Thurston Howell III is, where he says, “Lovey…I’ll appeal. I’ll take it to the Supreme Court! I’ll go even higher—the rules committee of the Newport Country Club!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leslie Savan blogs for The Nation about media and politics. A three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for her Village Voice column about advertising, Savan is the author of Slam Dunks and No Brainers: Pop Language in Your Life, the Media, and, Like...Whatever and The Sponsored Life: Ads, TV, and American Culture.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012


The Climate Clock Is Ticking: In 42 Days, You Can Elect a U.S. President Who Makes Difference.


2012-09-24-crea_tn.php.jpg



President Obama told the Democratic Convention on September 6th 2012: '...climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They're a threat to our children's future. And in this election, you can do something about it.'

With 42 days to go until the US presidential elections, now is the time to put climate change at the top of the political agenda. We are at a critical moment in history. This year we have witnessed record levels of carbon in the atmosphere, unprecedented melting of ice in the arctic, alarming spikes in global temperature and extreme weather conditions.

Climate change is affecting everyone, everywhere, in every nation and from every socio-economic group. It affects cities, rural areas, economies, food security and health, touches every aspect of our lives throughout the developing and the developed world. The crisis we face is global. We will only solve it through global, collective action. For all our sakes we need a US President who is willing to assume a leadership role and make the tough decisions necessary to curb emissions and avert climate change.

In November 2008 newly President elect Barack Obama was unequivocal about his goals: "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change,' he said, 'that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process." He pledged to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, and invest $150 billion in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.

The President's message was clear. And some progress has been made. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, President Obama's $787 billion stimulus, paved the way for a major shift in US green energy policy. TIME called it 'the most ambitious energy legislation in history.' But not enough has been done to address the threat of climate change.

As far back as 1977 President Jimmy Carter said, 'Americans long thought that nature could take care of itself--or that if it did not, the consequences were someone else's problem. As we know now, that assumption was wrong... Intelligent stewardship of the environment on behalf of all Americans is a prime responsibility of government.' The next US President cannot ignore the impending climate crisis without risking our lives and the lives of future generations. To abdicate this responsibility and disregard the overwhelming evidence of climate change, is to put the planet in peril.

I am not being alarmist. The situation is alarming.

CLIMATE CHANGE
If you had told me twenty years ago that by 2012 global carbon emissions would have increased by around 50%, that 1 billion people in the world would be hungry, that fossil fuel subsidies would amount to $1 trillion a year, I would have been horrified.

The science cannot be ignored. Climate change is accelerating. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen by 31% since 1750 and is now at the highest concentration seen in the last 420,000 years. August 2012 was the fourth warmest such month on record worldwide. July 2012 was the hottest month on record for the continental US.

In June 2012 monitoring stations in the Arctic showed the highest ever recorded concentrations of carbon dioxide, of over 400 ppm (parts per million). The rest of the world will soon follow suit.

Between the 8th and the 12th of July 2012 the melted ice area in Greenland increased from the usual 40% to 97%: a 57% increase over the course of just four days.

On 4 September, sea ice extent fell below four million sq km, a record low in the 33-year satellite record.
In his open letter published on September 17th 2012 in the Guardian newspaper, Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls the imminent collapse of ice in the Arctic a 'global disaster.' He predicts an ice free Arctic summer by 2015-16, with 'terrible' implications. 'As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming.'

Dr Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) spoke to the BBC from aboard a Greenpeace ship in Svalbard, Norway on September 19th, 2012. The Arctic, Dr Stroeve said, 'may have entered a new climate era.... The loss of summer sea ice has led to unusual warming of the Arctic atmosphere, that in turn impacts weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, that can result in persistent extreme weather such as droughts, heat waves and flooding."

There is no longer any room for doubt. We are moving ever closer to the 'tipping point,' or point of no return.

Professor James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has long been unequivocal that we must reduce carbon emissions to 350 ppm, or suffer the consequences of an increase in global temperatures which will jeopardise the future of life on earth. In 2011 Hansen stated, "Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient. It would be a prescription for disaster." In his latest June 2012 report Professor Hansen writes:

The climate dice are now loaded to a degree that a perceptive person old enough to remember the climate of 1951-1980 should recognize the existence of climate change...''

Not all is lost. There are things we can do to lower carbon emissions and avert climate change. We can embark upon a renewable energy revolution. We can transform our cities and make them energy efficient. We can embark on a global program of restoration and reforestation. But the climate clock is ticking. We must start now.

Climate change will impose a huge human and economic cost on both the developed and developing world. We urgently need adaptation and mitigation strategies, or we will all pay the price.

Two significant climate events are underway in New York City, aimed at improving global resilience to the effects of climate change.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) was established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton. Each year CGI convenes a community of global leaders to devise solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. CGI Annual Meetings have brought together more than 150 heads of state, 20 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and the media. This year's meeting, 'Designing for Impact,' aims to promote opportunity and equality, to design lives, environments and global systems to address climate change, to develop financial and risk management tools that can spur economic development.

Climate Week begins today in New York City. Organised by the Climate Group the summit will launch their report, 'the American Clean Revolution.' Their goal is to reduce emissions, promote renewable energy, and find solutions to the threat of climate change through clean and accessible energy, sustainable mobility, smart buildings, and a thriving economy. It is a vision of a smarter, better, more prosperous world for all, and a vision I share. The Climate Group is raising awareness of the '$3 trillion message:' by 2030, clean tech innovation could add $155 billion a year to the economy- if investments are made today. With the right government policies, this figure could grow to $244 billion a year, delivering a boost to the economy of over $3 trillion between 2030 and 2050 from new clean technology alone.

THE RENEWABLE ENERGY REVOLUTION
The latest 2012 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states: 'severe impacts [of climate change] may still be avoided if efforts are made to transform current energy systems.'
The conversion to renewable energy will lower carbon emissions, mitigate climate change, alleviate the imminent energy crisis and contribute to social and economic development. It will have measurable and immediate effects on energy and food security. Food prices and the cost of production have soared over the past few years. The food crisis of 2008 is recurring, and will continue to recur until food production is no longer directly dependent on biofuels.

Promoting renewable energy must now become a global and universal priority. In my role as Founder and Chair of The Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, I am calling for a renewable energy revolution.
The global trends of investment and growth in renewable energy are promising. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), over the past five years, solar or photovoltaic has 'averaged an annual growth rate of over 50%.' Renewables comprised more than 25% of total global power-generating capacity, supplied an estimated 20.3% of global electricity, and 16.7 % of global energy consumption. The share of renewables in global primary consumption during 2011 was around 13%. Total investment in renewable power and fuels last year increased by 17% to a record $257 billion, a six-fold increase on the 2004 figure and 94% higher than the total in 2007, the year before the world financial crisis.

Until last year, China was the highest investor in renewable energy in the world. The country plans to supply 15% of its energy from alternative and renewable sources by 2020. As the highest emitter in the world, China is also making slow but steady progress towards its goal.

In 2011 the US surpassed China to become the largest investor in renewable energy technologies, with $51 billion being invested; a 57% increase from 2010. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup all have announced plans to increase their investments in 'clean' energy, promising a combined total of at least $170 billion. However, this growth was driven in part by three government support programs which have expired or will expire in 2012. The next administration will have to ensure the continuance, and expansion of such programs.

According to a report by Google.org US innovation in the renewable energy sector could stimulate the economy by $155-244 billion per year. It could create 1.1-1.9 million net new jobs and save consumers more than $900 per household each year. In total $2.3-3.2 trillion of GDP is at stake post-2020 if the required investment in clean energy innovation is delayed by even five years.

The Climate Group's report, 'American Clean Revolution,' which will be released today at the opening of Climate Week, NYC, makes several key policy recommendations for incentivising renewable energy in the US.

1. Place clean growth at the heart of energy policy
Regardless of which party wins the 2012 election, policymakers must finally place clean growth at the heart of America's energy and economic strategy.
2. Maintain the US lead in the clean energy investment
Level the playing field for clean energy by removing market distortions.
One way of doing this is by ensuring that clean energy companies have access to the same kind of government incentives used by the fossil fuel industry. The other key lever is to ensure that the full costs and benefits of each energy technology - so-called 'externalities' - including climate and public health impacts are properly reflected in the cost of energy production and consumption.
Place a price on carbon while lowering personal and/or corporate rates as part of a wider overhaul of the tax system, or develop other incentives and standards that encourage lower carbon economic activity.
3. Retain and strengthen the US lead on low carbon innovation
Triple annual federal energy research and development funding to $16 billon.
4. Foster leadership in the private sector
Government cannot act alone. Leadership in the private sector is a critical catalyst for an American Clean Revolution.

Encourage corporate (and government) leadership for successful low carbon businesses in the US and overseas, by: fostering innovation; early adoption of low carbon technologies; reducing carbon emissions; focusing on clean strategies that are aligned with other key business drivers; and opening up to collaboration and communication around key challenges.


The next US President should take note of these recommendations. No government, including the US, can afford to fall behind if they wish compete in a world economy that is moving inexorably towards the renewable energy revolution. Governor Romney's plans to continue subsidies for the oil and gas industries would be a huge step backwards, while the American Wind Energy Association suggests that 37,000 US jobs could be lost if the tax credit is not renewed.

Renewable energy technologies are developing at a great pace. The Gemasolar plant in Andalucia, Spain, is the first solar power station to produce electricity day and night, a ground-breaking development.

Germany has made significant achievements in the field of renewable energy. Germany's 'Energiewende,' or conversion to renewable energy is visionary. In 2011 the renewable energy industry employed 340,000 people and replaced €5 billion worth of energy imports. Solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy are expected to increase by 35% by 2020. Feed-in tariff legislation, introduced in 2000 by the renewable energy pioneer, the late Hermann Scheer, provides financial incentive for generating and exporting electricity from renewable sources. The scheme has enabled millions of people to benefit from renewable technologies. In 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Germany would phase out nuclear power by 2022, with eight reactors shut down so far.

On May 25th and 26th 2012 solar power plants in Germany produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity. This record breaking solar output refutes the arguments of sceptics who claim that solar and wind power cannot generate enough capacity to power major industrial nations.

The advances being made in Spain and Germany are encouraging. The UK is seeing growth in domestic and community power through the Feed-in Tariff, as is Ontario, Canada. But we cannot stop there. Development and growth in renewable energy is currently highly concentrated in just a few countries. In some ways renewable energy is still being treated as a new market, a plaything of Wall Street - instead of the real revolution that is needed. Renewable energy will need continued support and investment from governments and businesses in order to achieve its potential and mitigate climate change. We must broaden our thinking to provide financial incentives that empower households and businesses to invest in renewable energy. All governments should give this precedence.

Here are some practical examples of how leaders could move forward on the Climate Group's recommendations.

CITIES
The twentieth century marked a departure in architectural history. When supplies of oil, gas and construction material were easy to obtain, buildings soon lost their climatic and regional variations. With the inevitable premium that is now placed on mobility, huge, polluting traffic corridors define the limits of our cities, and the boroughs within them. Phenomenal levels of energy are wasted in these sprawling conurbations. Images of the earth from space at night reveal the light pollution and energy being expended on powering urban areas, especially in the USA.

However, the technologies do exist to transform these cities: to make them safer, more efficient, and cheaper to power.

The New Economics Foundation proposal a 'Green New Deal' advocates investment in a massive building programme of green, low carbon energy and transport infrastructure, while making existing buildings energy efficient. These measures will dramatically lower emissions while generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The Deal includes key reforms of the banking system to direct investment and capital towards public priorities and sustainability.

According to a new report by Electric Power Research Institute, The implementation of nationwide smart grids could provide $2 trillion in energy savings in the USA over a two decade period and provide the means to fully integrate renewable energy sources and new clean technologies such as electric vehicles.

An LED lighting trial conducted by The Climate Group in 2012 in twelve major cities across the world showed an 85% energy saving, while residents reported improved visibility. The upgrade of the famous 82 year-old Empire State building will result in a 38% energy saving, illustrating the huge potential for improvement in existing buildings. When the final work is completed in 2013 the Empire State building will be one of the most energy efficient commercial buildings in the USA.

We have the opportunity, with the advent of a renewable energy revolution to transform our cities and the way we build, and to make older structures energy efficient.

PLANT A PLEDGE
I was recently appointed Ambassador to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Plant a Pledge Campaign. The aim of Plant a Pledge is to support the Bonn Challenge target, to restore 370 million acres of degraded and deforested land by 2020. This is the largest restoration initiative the world has ever seen.

The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) has mapped five billion acres of deforested and degraded land across the globe - an area the size of South America - with potential for restoration.

Restoring 370 million acres of forest landscapes could sequester approximately 1 gigatonne of carbon dioxide per year. In short, achieving the Bonn Challenge would make the same contribution, in a single year, as the total of the efforts so far under the Kyoto Protocol.

Restoration of degraded and deforested lands is not simply about planting trees. Restoration will repair the damage not only to ecosystems, but, crucially, to human lives. We will put people and communities first, transforming barren or degraded areas of land into healthy, fertile working landscapes. Restored land can be put to a mosaic of uses such as agriculture, protected wildlife reserves, ecological corridors, regenerated forests, managed plantations, agroforestry systems and river or lakeside plantings to protect waterways.
At the recent Rio +20 summit I held a press conference with the GPFLR, the IUCN where we announced landmark restoration commitments totalling 44.5 million acres. The United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service showed exceptional leadership by pledging 38 million acres. This pledge is backed by the landmark United States Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which in its first year has supported communities, local landowners and enterprises in creating 1,500 local jobs, $59 million of labour income, and a sustainable supply of wood products, while reducing wildfire risk and delivering a range of environmental benefits. Other pledges were made by the government of Rwanda - 5 million acres, and the Mata Atlantica Forest Restoration Pact of Brazil, a coalition of government agencies, NGOs and private sector partners, pledged 2.5 million acres.

We also welcomed the commitment to the Bonn Challenge of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests, a forum of indigenous peoples and forest communities who together have legal rights over more than 40 million acres of territorial forest in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.
This is a good start. But we urgently need to put public pressure on governments and others who own or manage land to contribute to the Bonn Challenge target.

The Plant a Pledge campaign, devised by the IUCN aims to do just that. Each pledge at www.plantapledge.com supports a global petition directed at world leaders, which I will personally deliver, in my capacity as IUCN Plant a Pledge Campaign Ambassador at a major international event in the coming year.

Restoration can help lift millions of people out of poverty and inject more than US$80 billion per annum into local and global economies while reducing the gap between the carbon emissions reductions governments have promised and what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change by 11 to 17 per cent. And we will see the benefits not only in our lifetime, but in years to come.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change recognises that "curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Deforestation constitutes nearly 20% of the overall emissions, and is accelerating climate change. The world's forests store 289 gigatonnes of carbon in their biomass alone, and can be used as a tool to mitigate climate change.

We could make the world a more sustainable place - for everyone.
We cannot afford to remain locked into our current inefficient fossil fuel driven economy. We cannot continue to lose approximately 32 million acres of forest each year, equivalent to the land area of England. We cannot continue to allow degraded and deforested land to stand fallow.

The outcome of the next US election could decide the fate of the planet. All eyes will be on climate and energy policy in the USA. We all hope the next President will not let us down: that he will take concrete steps to curb emissions; give his full support to renewable energy; invest in sustainable transport, smart buildings and LED lighting to transform our cities; take note of the policy recommendations made by the Clinton Global Initiative, the Climate Group, the New Economics Foundation and others, and commit to restoration and reforestation under the Bonn Challenge. Our future, and that of our children and grandchildren, depends on it.

As Americans head to the polls this November we should be mindful of the words of US President Theodore Roosevelt:

"We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted...."

Follow Bianca Jagger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BiancaJagger