SodaHead - Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day's Blog

Oppose Obama's Big Agriculture Nominee

2009-11-20T21:22:08Z

+1 raves

What's the solution to world hunger, biodiversity loss, and shrinking resources? According to Obama's nominee for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the U.S Trade Representative's Office, it's pesticides, genetically modified crops, and fossil-fuel intensive agriculture.

If Islam Siddiqui, Obama's nominee, is confirmed by the Senate, the self-proclaimed "voice of the industry" will be able to push America's industrial agriculture practices onto the rest of the world.

Siddiqui is a former pesticide lobbyist and is the vice-president of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, formerly known as the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. This industry trade group represents Monsanto, DuPont, and other companies that "produce, sell and distribute virtually all the crop protection and biotechnology products used by American farmers" -- or in simpler words, they promote toxic pesticides.

Here's a sampling of what Siddiqui and CropLife America have been up to:

- weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act;
- lobbying to allow pesticides to be tested on children;
- fighting to keep ozone-depleting chemicals and persistent pollutants like DDT in use;
- resisting the labeling of genetically-modified foods;
- targeting Michelle Obama for planting an organic White House garden; and
- promoting toxic-sludge grown, genetically modified, and irradiated food as "organic."

We can't allow Siddiqui to force Big Agriculture's pesticide-laden, fossil-fuel heavy industrial farming methods onto the rest of the world. Use the form below to send an email to your senators asking them to vote against the confirmation of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agricultural Negotiator. Urgent action is needed -- the vote to confirm Siddiqui is likely to happen soon.

*Fields marked with an asterisk are required. Crop dusting photo courtesy CDC.

New LFAS Sonar is Killing Whales!

2009-11-18T19:43:38Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

0 raves

A Holology Special Report, written by Freydis

Recent news reports have documented unusual localized whale beachings around the world, along with speculation as to the cause. Some suspect parasites or poisoning. Others have highlighted the chronological and geographic coincidence with Navy tests and they've used examinations of the dead whales showing ear damage and hemorrhaging as evidence that a new high powered Navy sonar called LFAS is killing cetaceans (marine mammals).

What is LFAS?

Military Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) has been under development for years and is reported in 2002 to have been tested about 25 times over 7,500 hours around the world with an estimated investment towards deployment at over $350 million. The Navy claims active sonar is needed to defeat recent technological advances such as anechoic coatings and quiet propellers being added to modern submarines that make sound detection more difficult.

The primary purpose of LFAS is to find and track diesel electric submarines, especially ones operating in naturally noisy shallow waters, which coincidentally is where most marine-life resides. Because diesel electric subs use electric motors when underwater this makes them very quiet, even more so than nuclear subs with pumps and reactor noises. Yet in order to find very quiet diesel electric subs in noisy waters the active sonar sound volume has increased to record levels to the extent that it may be adversely affecting the behavior of sound-dependent marine life, and even causing their deaths.

But first, here are some specifications on this military system. The T-AGOS ships are manned by civilian technicians on board, towing the UQQ-2 SURTASS at slow speeds, around 3 knots, which has active and passive components. Yet it's the active side that is of most concern because it operates at 100-1000 Hz due to the fact that sounds in this range can travel great distances, which is why whales utilize the same frequency ranges. The Navy has planned to use four SURTASS operating ships with only two at sea at any given moment. The SURTASS is described as being a 2,600 foot tube like structure encasing numerous hydrophones all attached to a 6000 foot towing cable designed to run at a depth of around 500-1,500 feet. Data is sent via satellite to shore to be processed. SURTASS operations are based in Norfolk Virginia, but other ports include Glasgow, Scotland; Rota, Spain; Yokohama, Japan; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Port Huneme, California. Oddly enough, although the Navy claims it will not use LFAS in shallow coastal waters, presumably for environmental reasons, the active SURTASS system is specifically designed to cut through the clutter and noise there. Indeed that's the main selling point. The Navy is either being disingenuous or perhaps they mean to float offshore and just crank up the volume to compensate.

The pervasive diesel sub threat propounded by the Navy seems unlikely. Although they are stealthy when using electric power underwater they must surface to run very loud diesel generators in order to recharge their batteries. Because of this they have limited range and endurance largely because, unlike nuclear subs, they need to be refueled with diesel frequently. This relegates them to tactical coastal patrol activities rather than the globe circling strategic missions done by the US Navy, which incidentally has no diesel electric subs at all. This tactical role suits most countries like Iran or China fine, but the threat they pose to American forces is really rather limited and remains defensive in nature. Basically the fear is the unlikely possibility of a stealthy rogue sub sneaking up on an American carrier battle group patrolling foreign waters. Yet the remote possibility of an unthinkable loss was enough for the Navy to initiate yet another sonar project and a major legal and environmental imbroglio.

The LFAS system sets records as the loudest man-made noise underwater besides undersea explosions. Estimated LFAS volumes run anywhere from 120 to 240 decibels. The Navy claims that the sonar sound field around the transmitting ship will be 180 dB out to 1 km and 150-160 dB up to 160 km away. By comparison the noise level next to a jet engine is around 120 dB. But here we need some brief clarification. The decibel system is on a logarithmic scale, so for example 240 dB is one billion times greater in volume than 140 dB. Second, comparing sound in air to underwater levels is not an exact match, one report calculated that 61.5 dB must be subtracted from a sound level in water to yield and an equivalent intensity in air. Third, sounds travel much farther and faster in water than in air, especially under certain circumstances, such as within disparate temperature zones because these ducts act as wave guides channeling sounds great distances.

High Volume Harm

After nearly completing testing on LFA sonar the Navy was preparing to finish up and prepare for full development when environmental groups started making the connection between collocated Navy tests and disturbed whale behavior, such as strandings and beachings. These groups threatened a lawsuit in 1995 to force the Navy to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by law. The Navy, facing a messy court battle, opted to write the report, their first ever for new technology, and shelled out several million dollars to hire researchers to study the effects of high powered sonar on marine life. And that's when things started going wrong...

According to a Navy document, after being exposed to 160 decibels of LFAS for 15 minutes, a Navy diver suffered dizziness, confusion, and tingling in the arms. Months later, the diver complained of ongoing memory loss, depression, and seizures. In 1998, eco-tour guide Chris Reid experienced similar symptoms, both short and long term, after being exposed to 125 decibels during LFAS testing in Hawaii. [3]

During trials conducted across the globe stories of beached whales made headlines and soon even the mainstream media began to question connections between LFA sonar testing being done by the Navy, even though they were reportedly conducted at less than 140 decibels. It's claimed that there have been nine major mass strandings of whales in the vicinity of naval operations since 1975. Some well documented ones include the March 2000 stranding of 16 whales, mainly beaked whales, but including four different species which occurred off Abaco Island in the Bahamas. Necropsies revealed blood in the eyes, brains and damage to the lungs.

In 1991, Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado reported incidents, involving Cuvier's, Gervais' and other beaked whales, on the coasts of Fuerteventura, and neighbouring Canary Islands. Military manoeuvres were observed at sea, close to the stranding sites. [LFAS 2001 WDCS]

March 4 [1998] (Reuters) - Greek scientists said on Wednesday that NATO tests of an underwater sonar system could have caused a mass stranding of whales off the coast of Greece.
Twelve Cuvier beaked whales, a deep diving breed that is rarely stranded, washed up on the west coast of Greece in May 1996 just days after the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation tested a Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) system used to detect diesel and nuclear submarines.
The latest stranding was also odd because the animals were not stranded together, but over a 40 kilometre (25 mile) area. Deep diving whales also seem especially affected by low-frequency sounds, even at low levels. [2]

Besides hearing damage it is equally plausible that resonance effects are causing internal ruptures leading to deaths and sinking instead of beaching which poses serious questions as to the full extent of marine life being killed by high-powered noise.

All of these strandings sound very serious but the Navy can still claim that the evidence is circumstantial. And this highlights the fundamental complexity of the issue which is the primary lack of knowledge of the behavior patterns of cetaceans and other marine life. Research is expensive and it's difficult to find and track whales, especially given the vastness of the ocean. It's almost pathetic how little scientists know about many whales species.

Speaking as a scientist who has studied whales for almost 20 years," says Weilgart, "I'm not confident we can accurately define what goes on ... with nursing, mating, and feeding [in the absence of LFAS]. The humpback whale, for example, has been studied to death, and we have never once observed mating." If normal behavior is not understood and rarely observed, she says, it is impossible to know what sort of observable behavior is abnormal or indicates harm. - Mother Jones News

The 50-ton sperm whales are being used instead of other underwater mammals because the research will help scientists better understand the elusive mammals. Sperm whales dive thousands of feet deep to feed, presumably on giant squid, and there's little research on how their clicking is used to find prey. - National Geographic News

Knowing so little about whales, the critical process of determining what's normal and what isn't becomes very challenging. Yet this is the primary tool used for deciding if LFAS is affecting marine life. If normal, or indeed much of any behavior patterns aren't understood, then what good is any of this? Environmental groups can point out whales leaving the area of the sonar tests and autopsies can highlight trauma to beached whales but the Navy can still claim that none of this is directly caused by LFAS.

It's known that sound is important to sea-life and is used to feed, mate, navigate, detect predators, and communicate. The blue whale is even thought to be able to communicate over ocean distances in excess of 1,000 km. One valid observation made by proponents of LFAS is that many whales themselves generate sounds at levels between "170 and 180 dB" or in the midrange of LFAS produced volumes. The sound pressure force is not the same, but even granting LFAS operating at similar volumes and frequency ranges this, at minimum, will create sound competition whales and other sea-life will be forced to compensate for, making hearing and communicating that much more difficult.

Navy research has fixated on hearing damage to cetaceans but this may not be the full extent of the issue. Even worse effects of high intensity sonar likely come from the resonance phenomena in the whales' cranial air spaces, destroying delicate brain and ear tissue. The necropsies done on the stranded whales in the Bahamas of March 2000 showed this to be the cause of death. Not just whales but all animals, including humans, with air filled lungs and swim bladders are vulnerable to undersea sound and shock waves due to the difference in impedance between air in the lungs and their body tissues or sea water. Submerged animals exposed to explosions at short range have shown lung hemorrhaging and ulceration of the gastro-intestinal tract. This may explain why deep diving whales like beaked whales seem more prone to damages, probably due to concussion pressures on them, the swim bladder, or in this case the lungs.

The US Navy is not alone on LFAS, other countries have, or will soon deploy, systems of their own. Britain has one for type 23 frigates called Sonar 2087, developed by Thomson Marconi. All of these advanced modern sound detection systems require significant computing power to electronically extract signal from noise. Yet the military and computers have a rocky history, especially when it comes to weapons systems. Every defense procurement must go through a prolonged process, trials, contract establishment and often multiple companies building components for a single custom designed system ordered for a specific task. This process always results in overpriced and under-powered computers because, as consumers know, computing power increases by the month while the price goes down. So the military will take 5 years to get a computer that ends up costing 10 times as much as an off the shelf system with a fraction of the processor power. Even a cursory overview of recent sonar and computer systems the Navy has developed or attempted to develop show chronic and serious problems, everything from cost overruns to systems that turn out to be too big to fit on the sub! Example, the BSY-1 system for the SSN 688 class subs.

Furthermore I believe this is the case with LFAS. The Navy is using 10 to 20 year old technology to solve present day problems. Off the shelf will beat contract designed computers every time. After that the military needs only to work on integration and software compatibility. With present day computing power it's likely that now, or very soon, it will be possible to process signal from noise using a passive system to achieve equal, if not better, results instead of using ear-shattering and location-revealing active sonar. Utilizing passive listening systems instead of active provides many benefits. The location of the emitter will not be disclosed, making naval employment less dangerous and operations stealthier, plus it's environmentally safe. I don't know of any technical reason LFAS must be employed instead of passive systems except perhaps the greater computing power needed to rapidly find the signal in the noise, in this case a diesel electric boat. Another means to minimize the harm to marine life would be altering the frequency range to one that is beyond the detection of whales, albeit at the cost of maximized distance propagation. The point is that technological solutions exist, if the willingness is there to pursue them.

One example of the benefits of passive listening systems comes from SOSUS. With the demise of the cold war and declining military activity the SOound SUrveillance System (SOSUS) was opened up to civilian research. SOSUS consists of strings of hydrophones laid across the sea floor at strategic positions across the globe, such as across the straits of Gibraltar and the North Cape off Norway. They're linked to command centers on shore and are highly sensitive passive sensors operating at low-frequency sounds (<1000 Hz). Different whales can be tracked at varying distances, for example the blue and fin whales can sometimes be detected by SOSUS at distances greater than 1500 nautical miles. In one case a blue whale was tracked across the ocean for 43 days. Interestingly enough SOSUS is being phased out by the Navy to be replaced by LFAS! LFAS may well render SOSUS useless anyway seeing as how they use the same frequency range so the SOSUS passive listening could be blasted out by the LFAS sound volume.

For sea life that relies on hearing to survive, LFAS is not the only affront to aural tranquility. Other loud, damaging noise come from petroleum exploration and a global warming research program known as ATOC or Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate. This program costs at least $43 million and is funded by the Department of Defense. Scripps Institute of Oceanography runs it in a complicated effort to measure water temperatures by blasting very loud sounds through an efficient conductor known as the deep sound channel, starting on one side of an ocean basin and measuring the time it takes for the sounds to arrive at the other side. Since sound travels faster in warm water than in cold, average temperatures for whole ocean basins can be measured.

Petroleum exploration utilizes various methods to locate oil deposits under the seabed to include air guns which emit a bubble that bursts creating immense sound shock waves over 250 decibels that bounce off the sea floor up to 30,000 feet below the surface and return to the surface recording the sub surface structure. Any whales within range will be immediately deafened, perhaps permanently which would doom them to death if not killed outright through concussion or similar physical damage from the resonance effects of the shock. The oil companies involved could switch to quieter sonar systems but like always the cost would be greater, and as of yet they seem to feel no need to be environmentally conscious except in advertising.

The point is that no one makes an attempt to limit the sounds underwater or add quieting technology, like a car needs a muffler. And the Navy is likely the least environmentally conscious of the military branches largely because they operate over water where the 'out of sight out of mind' mentality rules. Not just the Navy but all marine traffic is implicated in garbage dumping, oil slicks, pollution of every sort -- anything goes and almost anything does on the high seas because the distance from population centers, vastness of oceans and the international legal vagaries that leave little national oversight or property ownership to compel responsible behavior.

Currently LFAS approval is at a final stage with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in Maryland which holds the ultimate decision-making authority. With all the things that have gone wrong for the Navy recently, the loss of an EP-3 surveillance plane to China along with top secret information, the submarine caused sinking of a Japanese fishing boat along with a few school kids, not to mention the ongoing confrontation between the Navy and Puerto Ricans over the Vieques bombing range, one would think they'd wish to avoid another public relations fiasco. Alas this does not seem to be the case. So far the Navy continues to support LFAS, and given all the complexities, lack of research on marine life, the circumstantial nature of the opposing evidence, and the significant investment the Navy has already put into the program I would guess that NMFS will approve the program. But if they do the legal challenge is already waiting, and the saga continues.

Hypocrisy?: Republican National Committee Money Will Continue to Help Fund Elective Abortions Through Cigna

2009-11-17T15:30:30Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

0 raves

posted by: Scott P. 14 hours ago

Select a service:

sender info:

your name: your email:

recipient info: recipient's address(es): personal message

Hypocrisy?: Republican National Committee Money Will Continue to Help Fund Elective Abortions Through Cignaï¿½

Care2.com

send

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

6 comments

Scott P

Last Thursday, Politico reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) has been offering coverage for elective abortions in their employee insurance plans since 1991—which as Politico points out is "a procedure the party’s own platform calls 'a fundamental assault on innocent human life.""

This of course shows the hypocrisy of the 76 Republican members of Congress who voted for the Stupak Amendment which prohibits federal funds from being used to buy health insurance that covers elective abortions.

Since this information has come to light, pro-life conservatives, such as, those on RedState.com have not only called for the removal of that policy provision but have also stated that "no pro-lifer in good conscience can give [the RNC] a dime until" until the RNC "disclose[s] the names of all people involved in any way of the selection of their health care plan. And those people must be summarily fired. No severance packages, no golden parachutes; fired. For cause."

So far, RNC Chairman Michael Steele has not responded to the call to make heads roll but he has declared that "Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose" and "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Such a move has received praise from former presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas turned television host, Mike Huckabee, who reportedly stated,

"I think we need to commend Michael Steele for his quick and decisive corrective action on this. I am appalled that it was ever covered and it shouldn’t have been, but Michael didn’t create the problem, he inherited it without realizing it, but when brought to his attention, he did the right thing."

Unfortunately for Steele, even with Huckabee's support this issue is far from settled. For one, it is unlikely that removing the option will assuage pro-lifers who concur with the demands of Red State blogger Leon Wolfe that those responsible need to be terminated. For another, it is also clear that donations to the RNC will still continue to fund elective abortions because money paid to Cigna from the RNC goes into a pool which Cigna uses to cover other clients—even clients that offer their employees elective abortion coverage.

Unless the RNC finds an insurance carrier that does not offer any clients elective abortion coverage, their money will go to support such practices. For that matter, I have to wonder—are Leon Wolfe and the other pro-lifers out there are subsidizing abortions via their own insurance plans? It is unlikely they do not because such coverage is a standard provision offered by most insurance companies.

So what is the RNC going to do? Are they going to find an insurance company that doesn't offer any abortions? Does such a company exist? If not what are they going to do about it?

How will Michael Steele react to the demands of Leon Wolfe and the pro-lifers who have loyally donated to the RNC and are now feeling betrayed? Will he acquiesce to their demands or will he go on the attack and investigate their health plans? I would prefer the latter but even the former would make for a pretty interesting week.

Update: Could the RNC plan also cover "death panels"???? This may bear some further investigation because as Think Progress has discovered Cigna does provide end-of-life services and, in fact, Cigna offers "indepth information on the practice on its website." The website states, "you will face many hard decisions as you near the end of life. Those decisions will include what kind of care you'd like to receive, where you'd like to receive care, and who will make decisions about your care should you not be able to make decisions yourself. No one knows when his or her time may come. So it’s a good idea to spend some time planning what you want at the end of life."

It is hard to see how this could be considered a death panel.

This could be another bombshell sine it would be further proof of the RNC's hypocrisy. As Think Progress reports, Steele and the RNC supported Palin's hyperbolic use of the phrase "death panels" to bash end-of-life provisions in the health care bill.

These of course were shown to be nothing but a myth meant scare the public into opposing health care reform.

To be fair not all Republicans backed such rhetoric. When Senator Isakson (R-GA) was first asked about the Palin death panels he stated, "I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end-of-life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up."

But for the most part Repuclicans and the RNC endorsed such charges as a means of taking control of the debate and stopping health care reform.

Now that it is known that Cigna, the health care provider of the RNC, supports end-of-life care, can the RNC in good conscious still obtain their insurance from this company? For conservative voters it will be bad enough that their money will be used to pay for elective abortions for other Cigna clients...now their money will also be used to pay for corporate death panels. Unless of course, the RNC thinks it is perfectly acceptable to allow corporations to "dictate" American's "end-of-life" i.e. the charge they leveled against the health reform bill in an RNC July research document.

So there you have it: At best RNC money is funding "death panels" at worst they are actually offering "death panels" as a service to their own employees. Regardless, I don't see how the RNC can keep using Cigna as their insurance provider, unless all their talk of not using donations to fund abortions and the fear mongering over death panels is the talk of a bunch of political hypocrites.

I Thought We Were the Richest Nation On the Planet, so what happened?

2009-11-16T19:16:37Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+2 raves

Report Says 14.6% Of US Households Low On FoodFigure Is Highest Number Recorded

Posted: 10:31 am PST November 16, 2009Updated: 11:04 am PST November 16, 2009

A new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture says 14.6 percent of U.S. households -- or about 49 million Americans -- are low on food, the highest number since 1995 when the government began its "food security" report. Nearly 17 million of those going hungry are children.The new report covers 2008, a year marked by rising unemployment and the recession.The USDA said the prevalence of food security in 2008 was up 11.1 percent from the previous year.About 5.7 percent of households, or 17.3 million people, had "very low food security," meaning some household members cut back their food intake or went without food, the report said.The other food-insecure households were able to get food to avoid a substantial disruption in their eating patterns by eating less varied diets, participating in federal assistance programs or getting food from emergency kitchens or food pantries.The prevalence of food insecurity was more common in African-American and Hispanic households, and also in households headed by a single parent, the report said. Regionally, food insecurity was most prevalent in the south

Why is it legal in 38 states to fire a person because they are Gay????

2009-11-14T20:21:40Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+7 raves

Scott P

I remember as a teenager in 1991 being stunned after hearing about the case of Cheryl Summerville who was fired from a Cracker Barrel in Georgia for not demonstrating "normal heterosexual values" or as the separation notice read: “This employee is being terminated due to violation of company policy. This employee is gay.” I was even more stunned to learn that such a termination was not against the law. Since that time I have rarely thought about Cheryl, in fact, when I have driven by a Cracker Barrel I have only vaguely remembered the case and assumed that it was resolved, though I still refuse to eat at Cracker Barrel.

Well here it is 2009 and I am loath to realize that I now reside in a state, Florida, which joins 38 other states in allowing members of the LGBT community to be fired simply for having the audacity to be gay. That's right…38 states. In these states gay and lesbian Americans have no recourse if they are fired because of their sexual orientation. And let us not forget that 29 states allow companies to refuse to hire someone because they are gay or lesbian.

We constantly hear talk on the television and radio about the militaries' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy but we never hear about the same policy being allowed in the majority of the states. And just like the military this lack of protection is harmful to those who are discriminated against and to the very fabric of what this country purportedly stands for.

Job discrimination, for any reason, is un-American, unfair, and unwise. Our nation's economic success depends on having the most qualified, dedicated, and competent people as part of the workforce, regardless of sexual orientation. Too many gay and lesbian Americans still face job discrimination because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation. This should not be allowed to happen in our modern society.

This issue goes to the core of what it means to live in a free society. Freedom depends on people having the opportunity to pursue any career they wish. Any person's progress in the workplace should depend solely on his or her skills and ability, not their sexual orientation. If a workers is afraid to come out, afraid to be who they truly are than it will no doubt affect their mental and physical well being. I know that I would not like going to work every day knowing that I am living a lie. Such restrictions cannot fail to inhibit workplace happiness, let alone civic happiness.

In many cases corporate America agrees. According to the Human Rights Campaign, "among the Fortune 500, 328 companies (65%) have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation." Even Wal-Mart, which defines conservative old-fashioned American values, now offers protection for its gay and lesbian employees.

Thus it is with pride that I have since learned that the "Florida Competitive Workforce Bill" prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination at work, in public accommodations and in housing will soon be introduced by Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) of the Florida Senate and Kelly Skidmore (D-Boca Raton) of the Florida House of Representatives.

Currently Chapter 760 of Florida Statutes protects against discrimination in the aforementioned areas on the "basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status." The Florida Competitive Workforce Bill will add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression" to this statute.

Now I know the anti-gay opponents out there will make their case that this is giving special rights to gays but as I previously showed it would just be extending the rights we give to other discriminated against groups to them. Plus there is nothing in the legislation related to quotas or preferential treatment. Nor will it likely require companies to provide same-sex partner benefits (thought in my mind it should because that too is a form of discrimination).

This tired argument was made against anti-discrimination measures taken to protect the rights of blacks in the 1960s. For example, the opponents of a proposed open housing law in Detroit organized a successful voter initiative against such laws protecting African-Americans in 1964 by arguing that "such anti-discrimination measures conferred “special privileges” on African-Americans." (See THOMAS SUGRUE, THE ORIGINS OF THE URBAN CRISIS: RACE AND INEQUALITY IN POSTWAR DETROIT.)

Others may suggest that this will increase law suits from litigious gays but that is not evident when one looks at the states which do protect against anti-LGBT discrimination. A 2000 General Accounting Office report stated that there is, "no indication that these laws have generated a significant amount of litigation."

Of course the most common criticism will come from the religious right who will claim that such protections come at the expense of their religious freedom.

In opposing previous failed federal legislation aimed at protecting the LGBT community, Carrie Gordon Earl, Senior Director of Focus on the Family Action stated, "Too often it is religious liberty that's at stake when homosexuality is promoted in our society. The rights of people of faith who adhere to a biblical view of sexuality should not be crushed."

These defenders of the popular prejudice, lacking any recognizably rational basis for the distinctions they draw, all too often resort to claiming they are endorsed by millennia of moral teaching. Religion has all too often been used to excuse past discrimination. Many slaveholders would use the biblical reference of the "Mark of Cain"--the African slaves' blackness--as religious support for their enslaving the African American.

Furthermore, in 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"

"...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction... "

These are just some of the many examples one could cite to show how religion was used to discriminate against people of color so I am more than little apprehensive to take religious opposition to slavery…whoops I mean homosexuality as a viable concern, particularly when my church, the Unitarian Universalists happily accepts members of the LGBT community and endorses full rights for those of that community.

Moreover, Carrie is in the minority even among his anti-gay bretheren, as a 2002 Gallup poll showed that despite 44 percent of people opposed homosexuality, 86 percent (including those opposed to homosexuality) said homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.

I urge all people, even those who do not live in Florida to sign this petition in support of the Florida Competitive Workforce Bill because it is simply the right thing to do.

Definitive Answers about saftey of Plastic Food/Water Containers

2009-11-06T20:09:16Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+2 raves

Fairly safe: Recycling numbers 1, 5, and corn based plastics. Web Site tells much more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/recycling-sym...

Legalized Discrimination

2009-11-05T22:05:15Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+3 raves

The Human Rights Campaign is working closely with state leaders across the nation on marriage initiatives. Currently, same-sex couples are entitled to all of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. In New Hampshire, Gov. John Lynch signed legislation on June 3 recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. The marriage bill will take effect Jan. 1, 2010. No new civil unions will be granted after this date. People who previously entered into civil unions can apply by Jan. 1, 2011 to have their civil unions recognized as marriage. In addition, same-sex couples in New Jersey are able to enter into state-level civil unions, and there are broad domestic partnership laws in in California, the District of Columbia, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state (due to take effect July 26, 2009, now pending the outcome of a voter referendum in November). Also, following a ruling by the California Supreme Court, the approximately 18,000 marriages by same-sex couples that were performed prior to the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 remain valid. In New York and the District of Columbia, marriages by same-sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions must be legally recognized. Visit our Maps of State Laws & Policies for a snapshot of the status of marriage laws. We are working closely with state leaders across the nation on marriage initiatives and will be fighting to secure equal protections for all LGBT families. You can help support marriage equality for all by signing our Million for Marriage Petition. A wedding or commitment ceremony is a special occasion for a loving couple. Making a donation in honor of their declaration of love is a great way to celebrate their special day, but also a great way to support HRC's work. To make a contribution in honor of a specific couple's upcoming wedding or commitment ceremony, please visit HRC's Wedding Registry. http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage.asp

Tell Obama to book that train from Oslo to Copenhagen

2009-11-05T05:07:37Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+2 raves

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2009/10/tell_obama_to_bo... Then learn how animals will suffer greatly due to climate change: http://www.nwf.org/wildlifeandglobalwarming/

"THE WARNING", a Frontline expose

2009-10-31T03:54:14Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+5 raves

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. "I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake." Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born. "I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'" Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves." Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one. "It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

'Freezer Plan' Bid to Save Coral

2009-10-29T23:11:08Z

Nature Man ~ Every day is EARTH Day

+4 raves

'Freezer plan' bid to save coral By Matt McGrath BBC News, Copenhagen Corals in Honda Bay in Palawan island, western Philippines Coral reefs are a key source of food, income and coastal protection The prospects of saving the world's coral reefs now appear so bleak that plans are being made to freeze samples to preserve them for the future. A meeting in Denmark took evidence from researchers that most coral reefs will not survive even if tough regulations on greenhouse gases are put in place. Scientists proposed storing samples of coral species in liquid nitrogen. That will allow them to be reintroduced to the seas in the future if global temperatures can be stabilised. Legislators from 16 major economies have been meeting in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, to try to agree the way forward on climate change. The meeting has been organised by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (Globe). Losing the fight It's the last ditch effort to save biodiversity from the reefs which are extremely diverse systems Simon Harding Zoological Society of London Key coral reefs 'could disappear' One of the issues they have been considering is what to do with coral reefs, which make up less than a quarter of 1% of the ocean's floor. Yet the reefs are a key source of food, income and coastal protection for around 500 million people worldwide. At this meeting, politicians and scientists acknowledged that global emissions of carbon dioxide are rising so fast that we are losing the fight to save coral and the world must develop an alternative plan. Freezing samples for the future may be a necessary option. ''Well it's the last ditch effort to save biodiversity from the reefs which are extremely diverse systems," said Simon Harding from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). "It would take other work to try and reconstruct the reef so that you can start the process of building up a reef again," he said. "That is something that needs to be looked at in detail, but we can definitely store the species and save them in that way." According to recent research, one of the world's most important concentrations of coral - the so-called Coral Triangle in South East Asia - could be destroyed by climate change before the end of this century with significant impacts on food security and livelihoods.