blog/1/index.htm " For every evil under the sun there is a remedy ... en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:52:24 -0600 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:52:24 -0600 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss PHP/MySQL - Programmer Lewis A. Sellers lasellers@cedargrovedesign.com webmaster@cedargrovedesign.com Fact: • While it is accepted practice to wear house slippers to the local IGA, appear in anything resembling a nightgown and you're a spectacle. Take it from me, don't even try it. • In case I didn't mention it, www.cedargrovedesign.com went live on August 26th, 2005. Yahooooo!! hoooo! woo. YAW! We ROCK! Y'all jus' don't know it yet. • Grainger Co. is known for its tomatoes. You can even get them at Knoxville Wal-Marts. • A Tomato Festival is held here in July. It gets bigger every year. • One event at the festival is to throw rotten tomatoes at one another. • I have never participated in the above activity. • Bull's Market on Rt. 11 (and also Ritter's Farm) are selling boxes of tomatoes for $5 each. Many in the box I bought were not ripe yet and so the batch has lasted for well over a week, unrefrigerated. • Tomatoes lose flavor when refrigerated. • Tomatoes are indigenous to South America. • I have no idea what chemicals, if any, are used in the production of Grainger Co., tomatoes. • Lewis, a lifelong resident of Grainger Co., doesn't much like tomatoes. 2005-08-01 22:45:56 blog/1/322/index.htm blog322 Facts: There are edible plants in the woods of them thar hills. Careful though, some may be toxic or cause severe indigestion if not prepared properly. Here's another Yahoo Group I belong to: Native Gardening. Before you go mowing down those trees to make space for whatever, check out this list of USA endangered plant species from the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Check and see if you have any growing on your land so that you can relocate the plants out of harm's way. If you have a green thumb, you could be a hero by propagating and planting these species in their natural habitat. You might even sell them. Whatever it takes. Listed as indigenous to TN, specifically: Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) American hart's-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum) Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea) Large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana) American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Green pitcher-plant (Sarracenia oreophila) Ruth's golden aster (Pityopsis ruthii) Spring Creek bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata) Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Roan Mountain bluet (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana) Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) Gentner's Fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri) Tennessee purple coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis) Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) Cumberland rosemary (Conradina verticillata) Guthrie's (or Pyne's) ground-plum (Astragalus bibullatus) Cumberland sandwort (Arenaria cumberlandensis) Braun's rock-cress (Arabis perstellata) Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana) Another way you can help is by controlling the growth of Invasive Plants. 2005-10-28 22:51:03 blog/1/324/index.htm blog324 Cat Power's cover of the Velvet Underground's "I found a Reason" is on the "V" for Vendetta movie soundtrack. An excellent film, well worth the price of admission. It's written about the UK but many of the situations resonate in the USA as well. Best negative utopian film I've seen in a long while. Metal heart Lyrics Losing the star without a sky Losing the reasons why You're losing the calling that you've been faking And i'm not kidding It's damned if you don't and it's damned if you do Be true 'cause they'll lock you up in a sad sad zoo Oh hidy hidy hidy what cha tryin to prove By hidy hidy hiding you're not worth a thing Sew your fortunes on a string And hold them up to light Blue smoke will take A very violent flight And you will be changed And everything And you will be in a very sad sad zoo. I once was lost but now i'm found was blind But now I see you How selfish of you to believe in the meaning of all the bad dreaming Metal heart you're not hiding Metal heart you're not worth a thing Metal heart you're not hiding Metal heart you're not worth a thing 2005-10-01 22:52:30 blog/1/328/index.htm blog328 Ya know, you start up a new business and don't get many bites for awhile and then suddenly, boom, you have too much on your plate and not enough time left over for the volunteer-type stuff you were doing when you had tons of free time on your hands. But ya know, gotta pay the bills. Last month we did a website facelift for The Vegan Baking Company which has changed over with a new name and product packaging to "Harb Baking Company". Their great organic/vegan chocolates are now called, "Monkey Moo Munchies". www.harbchocolates.com This week I'm working on a website for some Grainger County businesses: "Whimzey Things", for a jewelry crafter and "Homestead Realty", for the new solo effort of Sherry Beeler...years of experience in the field but now she's decided to "GO LOCAL". :) Lookout Grainger County, there's two new entrepreneurs in town who might just liven things up around here. When completed, the websites will be housed at www.homesteadrealtytn.com and www.whimzeythings.com Check out their websites in about a week to see their sale listings. Meanwhile, Lewis has been subcontracting his programming services to a design firm in Omaha, Nebraska and has recently helped out Trinity Church. www.trinityomaha.com Now they're working on Grace University. www.graceu.edu 2006-08-16 07:59:29 blog/1/440/index.htm blog440 Anyone interested? Email me: webmaster@cedargrovedesign.com I'm talking to some people in Cocke County working on starting up a local Farmers' Market there and we could possibly duplicate their efforts here if enough local growers and local consumers are for it. Cyn 2006-08-29 19:29:22 blog/1/441/index.htm blog441 . for voting against the Torture Bill (Military Commissions Act of 2006): Nashville Office Phone: 615-736-5295 Washington D.C. Office Phone: 202-225-4311 cooper.house.gov/email.htm Jim Cooper was the ONLY member of our TN delegation to do the right thing. Of Course Wamp voted for it. Guess he forgot to ask WWJD.again. But then, all the rubberstampers must scramble to enact legislation retroactive to save their own hides for past actions that possibly led to violations of both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, mustn't they? No accountability in government any more. Just shameful. From Amnesty International: "Our representatives in Congress have just passed legislation that: 1.Establishes a new judicial system to try a wide variety of people in military commissions that lack the minimal safeguards regarding coerced evidence may deny the right of the accused to examine evidence against them. A person could be sentenced to death under this flawed system. 2.Strips prisoners in Guantanamo – and other alleged “enemy combatants” in U.S. custody — of the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus and challenge their detention. Many of these prisoners have been held for almost five years without charges or meaningful judicial review 3.Expands the definition of ‘unlawful enemy combatant” to allow the U.S. government to detain people – on or off the battlefield – indefinitely without charge or access to judicial review for an act as minor as writing a check. 4.Provides retroactive immunity to those who may have been implicated in creating policies or participating in abuse and other acts that most of us would consider torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. We appreciate the efforts of the members of Congress who voted against this legislation and in favor of human rights, the rule of law, and our standing in the international community. They took a principled stand. The first thing that we should do is thank the leaders who stood up for the America we believe in." 2006-09-30 11:32:42 blog/1/443/index.htm blog443 http://tn4irv.blogspot.com/ 2006-09-30 11:34:52 blog/1/444/index.htm blog444 I added a new Comics comic October 19, 2006 dedicated to my favorite Human Rights hero in 2006. Feingold really brought attention to John Bolton's lack of concern over genocide in Darfur during the nomination hearing in 2005 regarding his appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Feingold remarked, "I try to vote for the nominee...[Bolton] has a sworn disdain for the U.N. itself... Here's a person that's actually antagonistic to the very premise of the job." A Sample of Bolton's Diplomacy: video The senate chose not to approve his appointment but Bush installed him on a temporary basis anyway during their recess. Bolton's temporary position expires in 2007, a lot of people are hoping they manage to get his ass out of there next year and find someone who will actually work to improve relations with the rest of the world. Contact Frist & Lamar (tell them to find someone better): take action 2006-10-21 07:31:09 blog/1/468/index.htm blog468 I just met with his opponent Democrat Brent Benedict today to pick up some big signs for Grainger County. Brent said he bumped into Wamp at the local diner in Blaine (what are the odds??). They were apparently working the same diner but were on opposite sides of the establishment. How classic. Brent walked right up to him and shook hands, started up a conversation but did not attempt to debate, although he fully realized he could. He said Wamp seemed wary, even nervous but Brent tried to be polite & friendly (which is not hard for him because he always comes off that way anyway). "We've all had enough negative campaigning this year," he told me. "Going negative is just not my style (although I could because Wamp has plenty to hide from the public), but we've heard enough of that this year between Corker & Ford. Wamp's voting record speaks for itself." I said, "I know! I have found the issue that's all about why I'm not voting for Wamp (believe me, there are many but this is THE ONE). His vote to sell out our right to habeas corpus is just the most recent of a string of abuses. I'm so mad, I'm ready to take to the streets!" Such talk obviously made Brent uncomfortable since he's trying to stay away from "going negative" but this is not even about him, I reassured him. There is no Benedict voting record to compare to Wamp's. Wamp and other Bush rubberstampers have voted themselves out of a job this year. I really, truly hope people wake up and realize if they vote for these rubberstamping incumbents, they can kiss America-as-we-know-it goodbye. We wrote to our reps and pleaded with them not to vote for this horrible bill. As usual, they did it anyway. They're just a court of sycophants to the king, waiting for their tablescrap annuity or more. We might have one last shot at making a stand and forcing them to repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But we must all get out now in record numbers. Even I will pry myself away from my computer for this issue. How often does that happen? I care but I don't get out much. But I'm so ready to get out over this. You have no idea. 2006-10-26 14:04:23 blog/1/471/index.htm blog471 It was pretty cool. The UT event was attended by about 20 or so. Older people. Families. Young people. A real mix. It was great. As it turns out, Bob Grimac has been doing this once a month all year. website What a great thing to do! And I was pleasantly surprised to find that 90% of the feedback from passers-by was very supportive and positive. Even my sign which was about a subject many are not all that familiar with (the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies anyone a president deems "enemy combattant" the right to habeas corpus) got a few people giving me the thumbs-up saying, "YEAH, GREAT SIGN!" A serious-looking old guy in a UT vehicle took a picture of my sign in particular that stated "Military Commissions Act MCA2006 = Treason! Save Our Bill of Rights!" The sign my son held most of the time said "Torture is not a family value". We both agreed, it was a positive experience, well worth our time and we'd both be back on Nov. 19th to do it again with Bob Grimac and friends. I had the opportunity (because I also had with me a yardsign for Chris Lugo) to explain to Bob why I was anti-incumbent over the war. He gave me the usual Democrat standpoint that if more Greens had voted for Gore, we wouldn't be HAVING this war. And so I explained to him how (IRV) Instant Runoff Voting would allow people to vote their preferred candidate first without fear of inadvertantly throwing away their vote to the opposition if they vote for a long-shot like Nader or this year in TN, Lugo. I told him that with IRV, Ford could have ended up with many anti-war votes in his pocket anyway despite that they voted for Lugo to protest the war. See how this worked for Muppets It's obvious that a lot of people against the war want nothing to do with the Green Party after 2000 though (even though Nader tried to promote it even then). I see no point in harboring a prejudice against citizens for exercising their right to run candidates for office when the problem lies with the flawed election process, not the individual in this case. I'm sending Bob info and hope he'll begin to see IRV as a solution to the rift between Greens and Democrats being effective but also voting their conscience, as I do. The second gathering at Y-12 was not really a protest so much as a regular gathering of long-time civil rights devotees in the Knoxville/Oak Ridge area. We discussed upcoming human rights events/issues but spent most of the evening thinking up names of people who have had an impact on our lives in forming our conscience and activism, writing the names on strips of paper, and making a chain of people we honor both living and dead (in celebration of the Latin American holiday on Nov.2nd Dios de la Muerte, the Day of the Dead). I chose my mother who although she was not a civil rights hero, was a kind and decent, compassionate human being. She has everything to do with my ability to see good in others, even those unlike me or that I disagree with strongly. Her influence reminds me that empathy is crucial to realizing the difference between activism and militance, between doing what you know is right and acting out on prejudical assumptions. Militant prejudice will never bring about peace. My son and I (see photos) plan to do more with Stop the Bombs! as well, specifically, joining them when they go to Georgia to protest the School of Americas that trains Latin American fascists like Noriega. The one last year brought 15,000 people to the SOA's gate. I'd like to know what it's like to be part of something like that. I'll be posting info at 10-east soon if anyone wants to find out about future events. 2006-11-01 10:46:02 blog/1/524/index.htm blog524 Insurance may be the biggest scam of our time yet our government mandates it. Who made that happen? How did we get to this point? The U.S. seriously needs to establish a separation of corporation and state, not citizen and state. The needs of the corporation often conflict with the needs of country/U.S. citizen, which is comprised of people, not PACs, bankrolls, and global corporations. Allowing corporations and the free market to determine the moral attitudes of our country is tantamount to leaving the country on auto-pilot. Who even knows where we are going? Do we have a "morality" that extends beyond the next election cycle? Dennis Kucinich, a U.S. Representative and presidential candidate from Ohio, has a compassionate idea: expanding Medicare to cover all U.S. citizens, but will it find support? Will Kunicich even be allowed to discussed it in open debate before the next presidential election? The question is, even if a majority of Americans say they want it, can they find a politician (no offense to Kucinich) who can get elected that will champion it? Getting one elected is the rub. Moneyed folk make the campaign contributions (as well as own the media) so moneyed folks determine what happens with our healthcare system. In my experience, sneering pundits are often allied with the moneyed ilk and I imagine they are insured to the teeth. Never was there an issue that so clearly pinpoints the chasm between the HAVEs and the HAVE-NOTs. Noam Chomsky said regarding the 2004 U.S. elections: "The New York Times commented that Kerry didn't make any hint about possible government involvement in health care programs because that position has, in their words, "no political support." Well, according to the most recent polls, 80% of the population thinks that the government ought to guarantee health care for everyone, and furthermore regard it as a moral obligation. That tells you something about people's values. But there's "no political support." Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there's "no political support." It doesn't matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn't count as political support. It tells you something about the elite conception. You're supposed to vote for the image they're projecting. " Wasn't it HCA Senator Frist that called single-payer health care "single prayer healthcare" or was that someone else? Some people will always be able to afford the best health care the U.S. has to offer and will always be eligible but others may find themselves on the outside of the system, looking in. Insiders criticize socialized health care saying it will lead to rationing of services and supplies. The fact is, health care is already rationed in the U.S. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't, you will suffer and perhaps die for the lack of it just as you would in the poorest country in the world. It's not first-come-first-serve. The right to live in good health is a "privilege," not a given and it's a "right" bestowed by corporate policy, not government policy. So the corporations determine who lives and who dies in this country. In my opinion, they have TOO MUCH POWER. The irony is that suicide and assisting suicide is illegal but that's a purely archaic policy of the government. If it were up to the insurance companies, the law may be different, considering suicide is not their liability. Our government's attitude must be then, we expect that you will live, it's not our problem if you are not well. Every man for himself. Who writes policy about life and death? Policies regarding the death penalty, abortion, assisted suicide, these issues keep people voting along party lines. What would politicians do without the same old issues to keep us tuning in for the next election? The saga continues. Problems are seldom solved. Diseases are seldom cured. Fans of our laissez-faire mercantile system as survival of the fittest often say fundamental need drives people to be self-sufficient and productive. While that may be the case in some instances, on the whole, I have to disagree. A lack of healthcare when needed will simply add to the burdens of working and unemployed Americans and will further impair their ability to catch up and compete. It's not enough just to safeguard the health of kids and elderly. The people supporting them are the working-aged worker class and a lot of them are uninsured. Lose an income provider and the family implodes. If guaranteeing that every member of the family will, at least, receive adequate medical care is "single prayer," according to the most powerful U.S. politicians, then perhaps praying for it will do more good than voting for it. Go ahead and pray the insurance companies will deem you or your spouse eligible for coverage, go ahead and pray to find a job with a good health care plan... Pray for your family but throw in a prayer for the rest? Pray that our government will stop policies in favor of preemptive violence and killing people abroad and will start expanding one of protecting, helping, and healing its own citizenry here at home. Regarding Kucinich's plan for expanding medicare, however, considering the largest segment of our population is shifting into retirement, how this matter is handled will have everything to do with public perception of single-payer healthcare as a viable option (and we know who's in control of the spin). On a personal level, a large portion of our population may soon find out first-hand the consequence of a social-Darwinist attitude towards health care and the changing attitudes will impact family groups consisting of all ages. The baby-boomer shift may squelch any hopes for expanding Medicare when it becomes burdened with tending to the mass of Baby-boomers. Their middle aged offspring may find concensus regarding the need to tend to the needs of the elderly and children, however, may not find concensus regarding other population groups, preferring to cut their losses on those. The last thing the non-wealthy need is higher taxes, yet, slightly higher taxes will not ruin the majority of people. Sudden illness, however, can devestate the uninsured so the ethics and morality of pointing to the insurance industry as the necessary savior of our species are questionable. 2007-03-19 12:10:50 blog/1/595/index.htm blog595 I object to nuclear waste transport to East Tennessee for treatment and/or temporary storage. Accidents happen and the risk is too great. I heard someone say at the hearing on this matter, "Only a fool thinks his device is foolproof." This is very true when it comes to nuclear power and waste containment. Contamination of karst terrain could have unknown consequences. I have have read a report by the state that contamination of a water supply in karst terrain such as is found in East Tennessee may be irrepairable. I agree with Representative Wamp that we want to get rid of nuclear waste, not ship more in. This proposal is completely unacceptable for our geological area. I also object to the transport of nuclear waste for reprocessing because it may pass near my home and I don't think we should have to be exposed to the increase risk of terrorist attack en route. A lot of people live in East Tennessee. If you will choose a facility, I recommend choosing one in a less populated area. For another thing, we have not solved our nuclear waste storage problem. Recycling waste may do some good, however, funneling money into nuclear power will increase the usage and therefore, the amount of waste produced. Bad idea. We're putting the cart before the horse. We must have a solution to storage before committing to increased usage and I've read statements that increase use of nuclear power is the intention of this program. Lastly, this is a terrible waste of money. The government will have to subsidize this program. Frankly, I don't see the point except to prop up the nuclear power industry. Is that the government's job? If so, my business could use some money. Send subsidy to:Cynthia Rosenberry P.O. Box 290 Rutledge, TN 37861 (My mailbox is fairly large and may be able to fit a million dollars in large denominations, thanks.) =====Additional information on GNEP may be found at http://www.gnep.energy.gov. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY APRIL 4TH, 2007. =====Send a letter urging TN Senators to Oppose Funding For Reprocessing Nuclear Waste via Public Citizen: http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3524 2007-04-01 10:57:46 blog/1/607/index.htm blog607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~kesmith/TNARCH/ 2007-04-01 16:46:17 blog/1/608/index.htm blog608 Martha Stewart Picks Outer Space Gourmet Menu How weird is this news story? "...quail roasted in Madiran wine, duck breast confit with capers, shredded chicken parmentier, apple fondant pieces, rice pudding with candied fruit, and semolina cake with dried apricots." 2007-04-09 06:22:49 blog/1/613/index.htm blog613 This documentary about genetically modified foods is now viewable //http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvLBMXC_D0Q online// at Google Video. //www.thefutureoffood.com/ Buy the DVD>>// 2007-04-10 18:24:54 blog/1/614/index.htm blog614 Well, folks. It should come as no surprise that local alternative paper, the Grainger Today, recently announced that, due to rising gas costs, they’d no longer be giving the milk away for free. Starting next week, the price goes up from zero to .50. The Grainger County News is also .50. Although their claim to be "Grainger County's FAVORITE newspaper" may be true, I’m sure it had a least a little something to do with the fact that their paper was FREE. If so, raising the price may hurt their readership for a while if many readers enjoyed the ease of picking up a free paper after paying higher prices locally for groceries and gas. Their readers ALSO have to pay the high gas prices as well. Personally, I have always found it an inconvenience to have to go to the store on Wednesday to pick up a copy of the Grainger Today or find them all gone by the next day (I have always suspected some folks are just using them as kindling in the winter). The very idea of driving around Grainger County looking for a copy (even if it contains an article or letter to the editor that I have written) is deterrent enough. I sometimes call ahead to the local IGA nearby my home but I’m sure the shopkeepers have much more important things to do than answer calls about the availability of a product which they don’t actually “sell”. Personally, I’m glad it will be much easier to get a copy throughout the week if the price-increase will ensure that, even for a while. I don’t mind paying the extra couple quarters. We’ll gladly give up a candy bar to fit in the enormous expense. ;p The best reason to read newspapers such as the Grainger Today and the Grainger County News over relying on papers outside the county, owned by media conglomerates such as Scripps Network (who, as an aside, gobbled up Knoxville’s free magazine the Metro Pulse), is their dogged focus on LOCAL news and that means you and me. I reckon big corporations looking at the bottom line are not going to foot the bill for that level of focus on less populated, hence, unprofitable regions unless they own one of the county’s papers (knock on wood). Well, I guess we can’t expect newspapers to act like a public service. They’re obviously in it to profit or they’d all be non-profits. They gotta eat. Gotta pay the bills, like everyone else. We don’t blame newspapers for operating like any thriving business would and make a living doing something we might occasionally consider a service to the public (although maybe not a “public service”). That said, the authors of this website offer a proposal to our local newspapers to help them hold their own, one that could work out for everyone concerned. Local Grainger County papers could hire THIS neighboring Grainger County business to create a database archive that would allow locals as well as Grainger County expatriates to pay the subscription rate and just log into a password protected area to read the entire paper online, while yet offering a handful of articles up front for “free”. Not only would this save everyone on gas but it would also support local business (namely our mutual interests). Something else that may appeal to the locals (as well as the local papers if they have the articles online) is for someone to post a synopsis of highlights in both the local papers with links to get the full story. (DIGG.com does this right now and they’re extremely popular.) Access to the newspaper archives for a day could still cost .50 (because although they’re not paying for gas, they would still have to pay someone to post the articles online weekly.) PLUS, they’d be able to make extra money selling ads to their online site. After all, a great-looking and efficient archive to rival the likes of any Scripps-owned paper would surely encourage advertising sales coming in from outside the local area. Our cost? For the Grainger Today and the Grainger County News (because we love our Grainger County neighbors), free advertising in both the newspaper and online for the lifetime of the website, plus noticeable credit for creating the site on the site itself. Shoooot. ARE WE CRAZY OR WHAT?! (Don’t answer that.) We’d love to hear from our local papers (i.e.neighbors) if they’d be interested in such a collaboration. Until then, like everyone else, we’ll probably pay out the .50 to read local news for as long as the little guys can hold off selling out to Scripps (knock on wood again). 2007-06-28 12:24:26 blog/1/630/index.htm blog630 Sorry to say, Tennessee Folk is back in beta testing mode again. We transferred to a better host and this coincided with an influx of paying work. We'll fit Tennessee Folk in soon as we can. Errors appear to have sprung up associated with a conflict with our new host's software. Might take a few weeks to get around to hunting them all down. Works's booked up for a little while. Be patient with us, we're just glad to be paying the bills! :) 2007-06-28 12:43:53 blog/1/631/index.htm blog631 Please support: H. R. 1416 - To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States and to repeal the prohibition on treaty obligations establishing grounds for certain claims. and disband the military tribunals. Also, please support H.Res. 333 to impeach Cheney. We need accountability in Washington. I'd love to see my representative to be the one Republican to stand up and say, "I've had enough. There is evidence of wrongdoing and I want answers. The American People deserve to know what really happened here." also, if it's not asking too much in one email, could we PLEASE get out of the Middle East and start minding our own business? There's plenty at home to do and this debt y'all are amassing is frankly, ridiculous and beyond my comprehension. (I sent a similar letter to Senators Corker and Alexander.) 2007-07-20 08:19:49 blog/1/632/index.htm blog632 There is "[...]an ongoing Capitol Hill debate over whether to ban the use of electronic machines that lack paper trails. According to a recent New York Times report, sponsors of such an effort in the House of Representatives are hoping to pass a compromise version--requiring the paperless machines to be scrapped by 2012 instead of 2008--before Congress departs for its August recess at week's end. The Senate, however, appears to be moving more tentatively. But the California findings suggest the paper trail requirement may not be a cure-all by itself: the testers, after all, were also able to manipulate the paper receipts produced by touch-screen machines in the Diebold and Hart machines. " read full article: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9752129-7.html Scientists’ Tests Hack Into Electronic Voting Machines in California and Elsewhere By CHRISTOPHER DREW, NY Times Published: July 28, 2007 Computer scientists from California universities have hacked into three electronic voting systems used in California and elsewhere in the nation and found several ways in which vote totals could potentially be altered, according to reports released yesterday by the state. The reports, the latest to raise questions about electronic voting machines, came to light on a day when House leaders announced in Washington that they had reached an agreement on measures to revamp voting systems and increase their security. The House bill would require every state to use paper records that would let voters verify that their ballots had been correctly cast and that would be available for recounts. The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, and the original sponsor of the bill, Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, said it would require hundreds of counties with paperless machines to install backup paper trails by the presidential election next year while giving most states until 2012 to upgrade their machines further. Critics of the machines said that some of the measures would be just stopgaps and that the California reports showed that security problems needed to be addressed more urgently. The California reports said the scientists, acting at the state’s request, had hacked into systems from three of the four largest companies in the business: Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems. Thousands of their machines in varying setups are in use. The reports said the investigators had created situations for each system “in which these weaknesses could be exploited to affect the correct recording, reporting and tallying of votes.” Voting experts said the review could prompt the California secretary of state, Debra Bowen, to ban the use of some of the machines in the 2008 elections unless extra security precautions were taken and the election results were closely audited. Matthew A. Bishop, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who led the team that tried to compromise the machines, said his group was surprised by how easy it was not only to pick the physical locks on the machines, but also to break through the software defenses meant to block intruders. Professor Bishop said that all the machines had problems and that one of the biggest was that the manufacturers appeared to have added the security measures after the basic systems had been designed. read full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28vote.html The CA report (shows that eSlate was among those hacked): http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/red_overview.pdf From Hart Intercivic: "Election Deemed Successful In Tennessee Counties-- Voting Equipment Manufacturer Hart InterCivic Supplies Equipment To 31 Tennessee Counties, More Than Doubling Their Service Area Hart InterCivic, in association with Harp Enterprises, who markets and supports the Hart Voting System throughout Tennessee, provides the eSlate® voting device to 31 Tennessee counties including Knox County with more than 240,000 registered voters. --published August 23, 2006 " read full article: http://www.hartic.com/pr_view.php?prid=56 They say the last election was a success but given that the systems have been hacked without detection or any evidence of tampering afterwards, how do we really know that the systems weren't actually hacked in 2006? Beause of the flaw in the designs, we don't. 2007-07-30 19:30:08 blog/1/634/index.htm blog634 www.threeleggedlegs.com/repertoire/humans 2007-09-29 08:25:53 blog/1/635/index.htm blog635 A timely reminder posted in a Knox News Sentinel Letter to the Editor: Now is time to run for office I saw a bumper sticker recently that read, "Enough is enough: don't re-elect anyone." I'm writing to remind everyone that it is impossible to vote someone out of office if he or she is running unopposed. Now is the time to make sure every office has multiple candidates running for it. Nominating petitions are being circulated now, and the qualifying deadline is Dec. 13. If you know a good potential candidate for a county office, encourage him or her to get papers and get on the ballot. Let's make sure voters have choices in 2008. Judy Poulson, Knoxville view source 2007-10-14 07:29:13 blog/1/636/index.htm blog636 Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or whatever and you're a patriot, you'll want to see this guy run against Hillary Clinton. I know I do. Guess who I'll be voting for? Not just 'cuz I want to see someone in the head office who can swear the oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and mean it; someone who will stand by that oath, year after year; someone who's proven they can do it with their voting record. That's a good reason but that ain't the only reason. I wanna see someone who will repair the damage done by this administration and restore our country's reputation and relationship with the rest of the world. Who will make that happen? Once upon a time, I'd have assumed the answer would be the default Democrat but if that's Hillary Clinton, sorry guys, not this time. Most of all, I want to see someone end this God-forsaken war. Most everyone can see it's a pointless waste of lives and money. Those who can't see it, I don't know what to say to them except, prioritize. Who's gonna tip the scales? A pro-war Republican, an anti-war Republican, or a Pro-war Democrat? Here's what I think: if Ron Paul wins the primary, you're going to see a whole new spin from the Republican machine. Suddenly this guy is going to be the "It" guy. You'd feel the love on Pluto. And Republicans in general will find out more about him, see more of him, and realize, he's a nice guy. Way nicer and more likable than Bush. And he's going to show them what's really been going on and better still, how it can be fixed. Liberals who want the war ended will vote for the anti-war candidate. Nobody third party will vote for Hillary Clinton. Those numbers add up. Do I sound like a conservative? Not exactly. Ron Paul is an old-fashioned guy and we think differently about certain issues but setting that aside... Look at what his supporters accomplished on November 5th, raising so much in one day. He obviously has the ability to polarize the young, the old, pretty much everyone who's not for Hillary Clinton. Look, y'all...do I have to vote for Hillary Clinton? Seriously? I really don't want to vote for Hillary but I suppose I will if that's my only option. (No, the other Republicans are not an option for me.) Half this country didn't make this mess, but it's time to clean it up or get used to a longer-term change in lifestyle as the value of our money lessens and our homes and hourly wages mean acceleratingly less and less by the year. I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary so I won't have to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. Spare us poor Democrats and lefties from having to vote for Hillary...save us from that fate by voting for Ron Paul in the primary. And spare yourself eight years more of the Clintons. Consider who among the Republicans can realistically win this nation's vote. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, it will change this election. I really can't see many Democrats or independents switching parties and voting for Guiliani or Romney or whomever. Just not gonna happen. But a lot of Democrats and independents will vote for Ron Paul. Watch this interview again and think about it. 2007-11-07 18:43:35 blog/1/637/index.htm blog637 My reaction to the open-ed "Ron Paul's Radical Views" by Mike Kuykendall ."I have written previously about Representative Ron Paul's extremist views, but with his surging fundraising and steadily climbing poll numbers it seems another visit to this deluded Libertarian's views is in order. Many of my non-political friends have asked my opinion on Paul. They are seduced by his anti-war views and GOP underdog status, and somehow consider him a real alternative to the current crop of warmongering Republican and "celebrity" Democratic candidates." [ read article>> ]. My long response: I'm a former Democrat against preemptive military aggression and am crossing over and voting for Ron Paul in the primary. (We can do that in my state.) If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, I'm betting the majority of conservatives (give or take the strict pro-war minority) will buck up and rally around him, plus he'll win a lot of anti-war, fringe, and not-Hillary vote. He could WIN against Hillary because of her stance and record on the civil liberties and on the Middle East, etc. From my perspective, bothering to show up and vote for any of these top-tier candidates from either party is the worst demonstration of adult naivete' Like it makes a difference which of them you vote for, whether it's Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee. At this point, reinforcing the status-quo is a masochistic impulse to see how much worse things will get before they get better. I'm not saying someone like Ron Paul would always be the best choice for president. At this point in time, he might just be what this country needs though. In better times, he would not be my first choice. For certain, Hilly Clinton would not be my choice. Ron Paul is most definitely the lesser of the Republican evils and less evil than the Clintons. As for the rest of the Dems, I think she's got that locked up. The top three are so similar, she'll win by virtue of celebrity. (She is a Senator and former First Lady of two terms). Some of the more extremist lefties are really bugged by Ron Paul's views but really, I think they're just getting overworked. If he gets elected, he'll have to work with congress and senate to accomplish anything. I think he's going to make some strides in some areas but less in others. I definitely think he'll wield that power of veto on war spending. Think congress will overturn it? Doubtful. We should stop acting like voting is solely about backing candidates because they reflect all of our views...most of us must prioritize our issues and make concessions on the rest...sometimes we might back someone because they're the right person for a particular purpose addressing a particular need at a specific point in time. I think that now is the time to tighten the belt and pare down a government that's surging out of control toward fascist Imperialism. We're living beyond our means. And Ron Paul is not afraid to point both out. Once we get some things back to a comfortable and stable level, maybe it will be time for a more liberal change/choice in a presidential candidate or more socialist type programs if it's what the people want. Let's just ensure that meanwhile (as has been the case with the present psycho POTUS), no more changes take place that damage the elastic nature of our present system of checks and balances. I'm flexible enough to allow for someone like Ron Paul during a time of extreme national debt and the threat of long-term commitment to a wartime economy that will destroy the dollar and leave us at the mercy of our debtors but there's one thing I will not abide is our foreign policy of being a complete jerk and a bully so Hillary Clinton is not an option. At least Ron Paul wants the U.S. to start minding their own damn business. I think the world would be glad to see him in there, even if he did manage to get the U.S. to leave world organizations. Do you think that would last? Short-term, don't you think the world would be glad if we just butted out for a while? I get the impression they're sick to death of the U.S. anyway. As for foreign aid, if Darfur bothers you so much, join with others of like mind and organize as a private citizen. Far as I know, nobody's robbed you of the power to organize humanitarian aid or adopt refugees. Or are you saying you want to militarily intervene? Save lives and bring more peace at gunpoint? Why should we police the world? Do we own it? It's not as if people are FORCED to look to the government to solve all the world's problems. It's only because we're such lazy babies that we keep expecting a parent government to make the world a better place when we could be making that happen ourselves by taking personal responsibility and initiative, working together... Anyone who seriously thinks politicians will fix all the world's problems, there's your Radical, there's your extremist viewpoint. The rest of us are reasonably cautious about handing over too much power to the government. Politicians create more messes than they clean up. They traditionally leave their messes for others to clean up. Then the new guy comes along and creates a distraction or changes the subject. Meanwhile, the mess is forgotten. Bill Clinton's administration might have lowered the debt but they did that, in part, by "borrowing" money from social security. Who's going to put that money back now? Hillary? Forget it. She's just coming back to finish the job, my guess. The Clintons brought us NAFTA and Hillary will lead us into a North American Union and full-out socialism. Forget That! Canadians want their national sovereignty and Americans want theirs too and if you like the U.S. capitalist system, live here. You like socialism, go to Canada if they'll have you. But blur the boundaries? Who's getting a say? You see how nobody came to the rescue of state's rights with the Warner Act. Now a president can declare marshal law and bypass the consent of the states. Ron Paul voted against that, by the way. And Ron Paul is against the North American Union. Politicians are pulling all the strings and making bold moves without our say. And they're doing it in plain sight but Big Media's not covering it and so they help to legitimize these naked power plays. If you think it's not a feudal plutocracy already, you live in a charmed world. Ron Paul is not afraid to draw attention to the obvious. Frankly, that will be a refreshing change from the usual political spin. If enough voters disenfranchised by the two-party system get out and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, we could make a significant statement against Imperialism. If you're not stirred by the ethical implications of continuing a policy of preemptive warfare, at least recognize it's well past time to address the debt or lose the dollar. [ Reference Einstein on the symptoms of insanity... ] The GOP primary will decide this race if it's not rigged. 2007-11-16 12:31:15 blog/1/638/index.htm blog638 Please pray for peace. Images you don't see every day: Tehran 2007-11-30 14:43:17 blog/1/639/index.htm blog639 As if the Military Commissions Act of 2006 wasn't injury enough, now THIS>> Thank Knoxville Rep. John Duncan for voting against H.R. 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Ask Corker and Lamarr to vote against it in the Senate. Should we remind our legislators that violence against another citizen is already a crime. Inciting others towards breaking the law is also already against the law. Look, big surprise, even progressive TN rep. Steve Cohen voted for it>> And he was criticized by conservatives and religious folks for voting for the Hate Crime bill because it was [his critics said] legislating thought-crime. And for needlessly making up new laws for things that were already illegal. In his defense, I guess he thought he was doing the right thing by standing up for the victims of hate-crimes. Likewise, our legislators are trying to protect US from bad-guys. And they must feel they have to be tough on terrorism. Yet they must fail to see the contradiction of destroying the Constitution to save it and the absurdity of robbing us of our freedoms in order to save us from terrorism. It's like a badly-written action drama where the so-called-hero shoots into a crowd of innocent civilians to stop the bad guy. Instead of an oath to protect the Constitution, they ought to swear not to harm it and while they're at it, remember not to harm the 99.99% of innocent Americans in their way. 2007-12-03 16:47:04 blog/1/641/index.htm blog641 Looking back at 2007, here's a book that responds to the pained confusion and grasping for the familiar on the cusp of massive technological and social change. Remember all the alarmists warning about the end of the world prior to 2000 and prophesizing about the coming millennium. They capitalized on fear of change. In 2007, Andrew Keen's book "The Cult of the Amateur," charges that Web 2.0, i.e. Citizen Journalism and participatory online media such as WikiPedia, StumbleUpon, and DiggIt, are destroying American culture. He asserts that in our haste to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable, we are fast replacing them with a medium that has no gatekeepers, hence, no accountability whatsoever. Thus, he suggests, we are far worse off than we were to begin with. First off, while making his case against Web 2.0, he oversimplifies many issues and so merely succeeds at the very thing he accuses amateurs of: shallow judgment. But then, we have to remember, he’s selling a product and like most online advertisers, he has maybe a couple seconds to make the sale so the title is really the clincher. And it works. No doubt, there’s a huge market for reinforcement of the status quo and the silencing of the rabble of commonfolk. The choir he preaches to is most likely, anyone inconvenienced by change, unable or unwilling to adapt to change, and well, let’s face it, anyone who likes to read books about how America is destroying itself. I’m sure this one’s a best-seller over in India and China (where a sizable chunk of our American dollars and jobs are going). Keen shames Americans for being cheapskates and squeezing the internet for all its worth, for frittering away hours with idle chatter or worse, earnest, dilettantish dialogue, and for putting the "free" back in free time. Nevermind that the Internet is hardly free or that much of the time is spent on successful websites owned by media conglomerates making money off ad revenue. He scolds us for our impertinence in thinking it’s our place to hold our betters' feet to the fire. Supposedly, our lapse of attention is pointedly a campaign to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable. Yet realistically, if that were the case, what simpler and more democratic means would we have at our disposal than to ignore them? If, say, a particular publisher has managed to disenchant its former patrons, the responsibility rests with the publication to rise to the challenge and demonstrate its worth anew. It's not our responsibility in a "free" market to be loyal patrons of any media publication that has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, sustain our interest, or at the very least, suspend disbelief. Since when has American culture rewarded the loser of the contest with first-prize? The innovators are finding new ways to engage our attention and so they have won our attention. And although it may not be profitable for some, it may be the best thing for many, many others. As a result of participatory media, we interact more, collaborate more, write more, and compose our thoughts more carefully (well, we all do what we can). Even if nobody reads our personal blogs, op-eds, or articles, or comments, it’s something we each accomplished and something we might not otherwise have thought to attempt if it wasn’t all the rage where everyone was doing it. Is this effort less valuable than to simply drive to the store and purchase something someone else accomplished? Frankly, I don’t see how any of this expansion of knowledge or the extension of our circle of acquaintances beyond our immediate vicinity can be a bad thing for humankind or specifically, American culture. America is best known as a melting pot for many cultures and the Internet is a vehicle for voluntary integration and collaboration. No one is forcing anyone to visit websites that have participatory media. There are plenty of read-only sites on the Internet. If that's not enough, I suppose there will probably always be a fringe of separatists calling for a return to the old ways and better control over the masses, resulting in a limit to our access to information and to each other. Perhaps they’ll succeed in having their way but I for one sincerely hope the Internet users, the Internet community, and Internet mediums continue to evolve freely and democratically and hope that Tennessee Folk will someday soon (once finished) play a valuable, if only a minor part. The free dissemination of information is not all bad news for traditional media and institutions of higher learning. The more intelligently-run organizations are adapting, as must we all. Those that are not, well, you know how that goes. It’s sink or swim. But of course, there are some that are still floundering to find their way (on those the jury is still out). Will they learn to adapt? Stay tuned! Buy their product out of loyalty--so Keen seems to imply--or if for no other reason, out of morbid curiosity to see if it still sucks. Just keep those pro-culture dollars coming. Why do we need gate-keepers? I translate that as just keepers. We need a keeper supposedly, because we need others to do all the mental heavy lifting. Because we are seen as a nation of mental children. But then, doesn't it follow that exercising our brains through experimental discourse will grow a stronger and more capable, adult mind? Doesn't it also follow that widespread collaboration will lead to sustainable peace and productivity? It simply takes time. I think Americans are losing their childlike trust of gatekeepers in general. We're growing up. It's inevitable. But what does this mean for the experts and the elite? Well, what should happen? If someone hadn’t decided Americans were better off not knowing the full story about the evidence used as justification for attacking Iraq after 9/11, why we might not have killed so many people and spent so much money in the process. Thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars later…who’s ruining culture? Good looking out, experts and gatekeepers of information. We can tell you’ve really got humanity’s best interest at heart. Speaking of which, does it strike you that some publishers have lost confidence in their ability to excel at their job and be rewarded for their excellence? Take the American news services, for instance. Challenged by wider public access to free information, rather than step up the investigative reporting (what we expect to find prioritized in a news medium), some have responded by doing the opposite: cutting corners by paying less or retaining fewer full-time reporters on staff. I may not be qualified to judge the ins and outs of the industry but from a layman's perspective, I have to ask, will this improve or devalue the product? You know my vote. Are you, like I am, dismayed to see some celebrity’s embarrassing scandal plastering the major news media for weeks or months on end? I mean, maybe once or twice for the novelty but surely they must realize the novelty quickly wears off and leads to boredom. And does this inspire you to return to that source for serious news content? It doesn’t inspire my confidence. News publications should realize that since they are no longer monopolizing our full attention, there’s no need to attempt to be everything-to-everybody. Rather than whine about change and competition, we all should endeavor to excel at something and be of service. Be useful. My advice as a customer (and remember, the customer is ALWAYS right) is that news media should prioritize important NEWS (not attention-whoring scandal) and then prove to be a valuable, credible, and unbiased resource for the most current information. Even my local newspapers figured that one out. Kudos to them. Did I emphasize enough how sick I am of celebrity dirt? I’m very sick of celebrity dirt. Isn’t everyone? Evidently not. Perhaps some do come to CNN to see Britney Spear’s bald head. But then some people only log online to look at porn. If you spread out a smörgåsbord so everyone will find a little something, soon we’ll be finding porn on CNN. It would be nice if we had the option to filter out the garbage from the legit news. Oh, yeah. We can just skip CNN and go to BBC News and run across Britney’s bald head less often. Oh, but wait, that would be destroying American Culture. Lastly, in The Cult of the Amateur, Keen’s barbs are not solely reserved for the tools of Web 2.0, he packs a few for their alleged accomplices, such as Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig and skirts libel (if Lessig demonstrated Keen’s dearth of humor about the matter, he might be faced with a lawsuit): “ In a twisted kind of Alice in Wonderland, down-the-rabbit-hole logic, Silicon Valley visionaries such as Stanford law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig and cyberpunk William Gibson laud the appropriation of intellectual property. ” (p24) Enjoy a cheerful rebuttal by Lawrence Lessig>> I LOVE the way Lessig then proceeds to set up a Wiki>> so readers may collaborate on Lessig's critique of the fallacies contained in Keen’s book! Keen should have seen that coming. Or perhaps he hoped for as much. All this attention adds up to increased sales, I imagine. How clever of Keen. Or as Lessig says, BRILLIANT! Lessig's response is, of course, followed by many comments (ala web 2.0) that I personally found insightful and well worth the read. One in particular managed to sum up the message in Keen's book with one sentence, "Only Professionals Should Be Trusted". Well put, Fellow Amateur. Blog on! Look what Keen has to say about search engines: "Take Google, for example, the economic paragon of a truly successful Web 2.0 media company. With a market cap of approximately $150 billion, the Silicon Valley company took in $6.139 billion in revenue and $1.465 billion in profits in 2005. Telling is the fact that unlike companies such as Time Warner or Disney that create and produce movies, music, magazines, and television, Google is a parasite; it creates no content of its own. (p135) In terms of value creation, there is nothing there apart from its links." (p135) To Keen, my advice is: Best to leave the hubris, spin, and bias to the amateurs. After all, everyone has an opinion and they're giving it away for free whereas your book will set a reader back $20. But then, what does that matter so long as you’re selling and we’re buying. That’s what American Culture is all about? 2007-12-13 14:29:34 blog/1/642/index.htm blog642 FLASHBACK: SUCCESS STORIES OF 2007 courtesy of the Organic Consumers Association >> JANUARY: DOZENS OF "CERTIFIED ORGANIC" CANDIDATES SWORN INTO OFFICE >> FEBRUARY: FIELD TRIALS OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOTECH GRASS HALTED >> MARCH: MONSANTO'S GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ALFALFA BANNED >> APRIL: USDA BANS CLONED FOODS FROM ORGANICS >> MAY: CONSUMERS SUCCESSFULLY PRESSURE CONGRESS ON COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS JUNE: FACTORY FARM HAS ORGANIC CERTIFICATION YANKED >> JULY: CONGRESS PRESERVES LOCAL FOOD AND CROP SAFETY LAWS >> AUGUST: BEER GIANT GOES ORGANIC >> SEPTEMBER: OCA DECLARES VICTORY IN ITS "FRANKENBUCKS" CAMPAIGN >> OCTOBER: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN 27 STATES LAUNCHED AGAINST FACTORY FARMS >> NOVEMBER: rBGH BEING DRIVEN OFF THE MARKET: "rBGH-FREE" LABELING PROTECTED >> DECEMBER: MASSIVE NAIS THREAT TO FAMILY FARMERS HELD OFF >> 2007-12-20 09:39:39 blog/1/643/index.htm blog643 An Introductory Guide to Global Citizen Media>> 2008-01-17 14:06:29 blog/1/644/index.htm blog644 The End of Cheap Food 2008-01-30 09:46:43 blog/1/645/index.htm blog645 The End of Cheap Food >> 2008-01-30 09:48:20 blog/1/646/index.htm blog646 Internet failure hits two continents >> -Story Highlights -Extensive Internet failure has affected much of Asia, the Middle East, north Africa -NEW: Two undersea cables believed damaged, possibly by a ship's anchor -It has caused major disruptions to business, television and phone services -Several reports say damaged cable in the Mediterranean could take a week to fix 2008-02-02 16:57:00 blog/1/647/index.htm blog647 I fear I may be putting my neck on the chopping block for asking as so many in Tennessee are backing ethanol as if it were our salvation yet the Democrats with their Clean Edge 2020 and now with certain cowardly Republicans fearing for their jobs and now joining the chorus, I fear the politicians are pushing us to commit more and more resources towards something they'll eventually just have to admit was another costly mistake. Although I'm glad to see some farmers finally making a profit, I'm coming across a lot of outweighing cons from some highly reputable sources from the Washington Post to the Harvard Political Review and plenty of average Joes in between complaining about how their quality of life is worsening and they're mad because they say: 1.Ethanol is driving up the cost of living and doing business across the board. The oil industry has said publicly that the shift toward ethanol caused them to hold off on investing in expansions that would be necessary to meet the demand. This drives up the short-term demand and cost of oil. Higher gas prices mean we get passed higher prices on everything that requires transportation. Meanwhile, the value of the dollar is weakening due to inflation. We're slowly being robbed of our income. It's happening gradually, like a frog that doesn't realize it's being cooked...the cook knows not to turn the heat up so intensely that we'll clue in and hop out of the kettle. 2.Instead of our tax money going for things that could improve our quality of life, we're paying for subsidies and startup costs for the ethanol industry with tax dollars and without these subsidies, the industry would completely collapse from economic failure. A study found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon, about half of ethanol's wholesale market price. Somebody's profiting but it sure ain't the average consumer. Like Senator John McCain said back in 2003, “Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.” What's in it for us? Meanwhile, our infrastructure is taking a back seat...and social programs? Get over it. 3.Ethanol raising the price of corn benefits fuel corn growers but simultaneously hurts livestock and dairy farmers that use corn as feed requiring even more subsidies to keep them afloat so we can still have affordable U.S.-produced food. They say we won't have to choose between the two because the corn waste is used to make feed but if desperate farmers are jumping from food to fuel and prime farmland is sucked up to meet the fuel demand, we will eventually have to choose. 4.Opponents say that switching from gas to ethanol would actually worsen our climate and energy problems. If we replaced gas with ethanol, factoring in the energy required to convert land usage, over a 30 year period it would increase greenhouse gases by 93 percent, whereas switchgrass would increase it by a mere 50%. Neither qualifies as a “green solution.” 5.It costs 40% more fossil energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of ethanol itself. 6.Ethanol's energy density is one-third less than gasoline...gotta burn more of it to get the same amount of power. 7.In the wash (accounting the by-products plus all the handling and processing), it's far dirtier than gas. Short-term, greenhouse gas emissions would increase by as much as 30%. Air pollution deaths would increase by 200 persons per year. 8.Naturally, we can assume that pesticide and fertilizer usage and runoff will dramatically increase, AND 9.water usage will dramatically increase tapping our resources (of special concern in areas that have been dealing with drought)...which leads to the inevitable question, what if there's a drought? No fuel? (I'm guessing the answer will be genetically engineered drought-resistant feedstocks.) 10.If it's corn they're using, the best land for growing corn will be required for the optimal yield and it will quickly be exhausted by soil mineral depletion and... 11.genetically modified ethanol corn will cross-pollinate with our food supply. These are just basic facts of genetics and farming. Bear in mind, they're already doing weird things like crossing corn with cow stomach genes so the unneeded parts will consume themselves, poof. Anything to increase their profit margin, evidently. Of course they need to increase their profit margin because ethanol is extremely UNPROFITABLE, without government subsidies, that is. 12.What if farmers want to grow a special variety of corn? Or maybe even organic corn? Agriculture is changing because big corporations are coming in and bringing their lawyers and patents suits. Farmers risk going to jail now for saving seed from one year to the next or for NOT planting GMO corn when your neighbor does (if it's been cross-pollinated). Just because you paid for it doesn't mean you own the seed.And they have the power and money to make their point. They can crush small farmers like bugs. 13.Ethanol is wasteful. There's all the startup costs. Can't ship ethanol via existing pipelines due to its tendency to absorb water so it can't be transported in existing pipelines and must be distributed by truck or rail, which increases emissions and fuel consumption. Need special tanks for cars. Special flex fuel engines. Need new pumps too. And of course, since it's basically, nothing more than denatured alchohol, some of the product will simply evaporate before it ever reaches gas tanks. 14.Increased gas prices hurt tourism. We're a service-based economy and tourism is one of Tennessee's top industries. Out-of-state tourists can't afford the gas required to travel and when they do come, they have less money to spend. 15.Tennessee government is in debt. Since ethanol is a financial loss for the indefinite future, will pushing ethanol help anything but get someone elected for another election cycle by folks who still buy the Democrat salespitch that it's a “green fuel”? We can't afford to spend money on it even if it's federal money, there is obviously not an infinite supply of government money and at this point, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 16.U.S. corn prices and NAFTA are ruining the already poor Mexican economy, leading to an increase in immigration problems due to an influx of economic refugees fleeing from Mexico. 17.What if we need the land to grow food? Will land use suddenly become a national security issue subject to eminent domain seizure? 18.Replacing fifty percent of our current gasoline consumption with cellulosic ethanol would consume thirteen percent of the land in the United States - about seven times the land currently utilized for corn production. 19.We used to have a surplus that could have been used to feed the world's poor but many corn growers have switched from food to fuel corn. The amount of corn used to fuel one SUV tank with ethanol is enough to feed one human for an entire year. U.S. subsidies are adversely impacting the world food supply and market from Mexico to China. 20.Environmentalists that seriously think we're running out of oil must realize that ethanol will prolong the usage of oil as a fuel and fuels in general. These assumptions are going to divert funds and attention away from worthier, long-term zero-emissions goals. Seems to me, we have enough existing problems in government, with the environment, and with our economy without going way, way out of our way to create brand new problems.We'd be better off focusing long-term on serious solutions instead of short-sighted political boondoggles that hurt. 2008-05-21 18:46:42 blog/1/648/index.htm blog648 Dan Rather Slams Corporate News at National Conference for Media Reform source: http://tnimc.blogspot.com/2008/06/dan-rather-slams-corporate-media.html MINNEAPOLIS — On Saturday, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather gave a blistering critique of corporate news at the National Conference for Media Reform hosted by Free Press — the national, nonpartisan media reform group. The following are Dan Rather's prepared remarks: I am grateful to be here and I am, most of all, gratified by the energy I have seen tonight and at this conference. It will take this kind of energy — and more — to sustain what is good in our news media … to improve what is deficient … and to push back against the forces and the trends that imperil journalism and that — by immediate extension — imperil democracy itself. The Framers of our Constitution enshrined freedom of the press in the very first Amendment, up at the top of the Bill of Rights, not because they were great fans of journalists — like many politicians, then and now, they were not — but rather because they knew, as Thomas Jefferson put it, that, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be." And it is because of this Constitutionally protected role that I still prefer to use the word "press" over the word "media." If nothing else, it serves as a subtle reminder that — along with newspapers — radio, television, and, now, the Internet, carry the same Constitutional rights, mandates, and responsibilities that the founders guaranteed for those who plied their trade solely in print. So when you hear me talk about the press, please know that I am talking about all the ways that news can be transmitted. And when you hear me criticize and critique the press, please know that I do not exempt myself from these criticisms. In our efforts to take back the American press for the American people, we are blessed this weekend with the gift of good timing. For anyone who may have been inclined to ask if there really is a problem with the news media, or wonder if the task of media reform is, indeed, an urgent one... recent days have brought an inescapable answer, from a most unlikely source. A source who decided to tell everyone, quote, "what happened." I know I can't be the first person this weekend to reference the recent book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, but, having interviewed him this past week, I think there are some very important points to be made from the things he says in his book, and the questions his statements raise. I'm sure all of you took special notice of what he had to say about the role of the press corps, in the run-up to the war in Iraq. In the government's selling of the war, he said they were — or, I should say, we were "complicit enablers" and "overly deferential." These are interesting statements, especially considering their source. As one tries to wrap one's mind around them, the phrase "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind. The first reaction, a visceral one, is: Whatever his motives for saying these things, he's right — and we didn't need Scott McClellan to tell us so. But the second reaction is: Wait a minute... I do remember at least some reporters, and some news organizations, asking tough questions — asking them of the president, of those in his administration, of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and — oh yes — of Scott McClellan himself, once he took over for Mr. Fleischer a few months after the invasion. So how do we reconcile these competing reactions? Well, we need to pull back for what we in television call the wide shot. If we look at the wide shot, we can see, in one corner of our screen, the White House briefing room filled with the White House press corps... and, filling the rest of the screen, the finite but disproportionately powerful universe that has become known as "mainstream media" — the newspapers and news programs, real and alleged, that employ these White House correspondents — the news organizations that are, in turn, owned by a shockingly few, much larger corporations, for which news is but a minuscule part of their overall business interests. In the wake of 9/11 and in the run-up to Iraq, these news organizations made a decision — consciously or unconsciously, but unquestionably in a climate of fear — to accept the overall narrative frame given them by the White House, a narrative that went like this: Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator, harbored weapons of mass destruction and, because of his supposed links to al Qaeda, this could not be tolerated in a post-9/11 world. In the news and on the news, one could, to be sure, find persons and views that did not agree with all or parts of this official narrative. Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, comes to mind as an example. But the burden of proof, implicitly or explicitly, was put on these dissenting views and persons... the burden of proof was not put on an administration that was demonstrably moving towards a large-scale military action that would represent a break with American precedent and stated policy of how, when, and under what circumstances this nation goes to war. So with this in mind, we look back to the corner of our screen where the White House Press Corps is asking their questions. I have been a White House correspondent myself, and I have worked with some of the best in the business. You have an incentive, when you are in that briefing room, to ask the good, tough questions: If nothing else, that is how you get in the paper, or on the air. There is more to it than that, and things have changed since I was a White House correspondent — something I want to talk about in a minute. But the correspondents — the really good ones — these correspondents ask their tough questions. And these questions are met with what is now called, euphemistically and much too kindly, what is now called "message discipline." Well, we used to have a better and more accurate term for "message discipline." We called it "stonewalling." Now, cut back to your evening news, or your daily newspaper... where that White House Correspondent dutifully repeats the question he asked of the president or his press secretary, and dutifully relates the answer he was given — the same non-answer we've already heard dozens of times, which amounts to a pitch for the administration's point of view, whether or not the answer had anything to do with the actual question that was asked. And then: "Thank you Jack. In other news today... " And we're off on a whole new story. In our news media, in our press, those who wield power were, in the lead-up to Iraq, given the opportunity to present their views as a coherent whole, to connect the dots, as they saw the dots and the connections... no matter how much these views may have flown in the face of precedent, established practice — or, indeed, the facts (as we are reminded, yet again, by the just-released Senate report on the administration's use of pre-war intelligence). The powerful are given this opportunity still, in ways big and small, despite what you may hear about the "post-Katrina" press. But when a tough question is asked and not answered, when reputable people come before the public and say, "wait a minute, something's not right here," the press has treated them like voices crying in the wilderness. These views, though they might be given air time, become lone dots — dots that journalists don't dare connect, even if the connections are obvious, even if people on the Internet and in the independent press are making these very same connections. The mainstream press doesn't connect these dots because someone might then accuse them of editorializing, or of being the, quote, "liberal media." But connecting these dots — making disparate facts make sense — is a big part of the real work of journalism. So how does this happen? Why does this happen? Let me say, by way of answering, that quality news of integrity starts with an owner who has guts. In a news organization with an owner who has guts, there is an incentive to ask the tough questions, and there is an incentive to pull together the facts — to connect the dots — in a way that makes coherent sense to the news audience. I mentioned a moment ago that things have changed since I was a White House correspondent. Yes, presidential administrations have become more adept at holding "access" over the heads of reporters — ask too tough a question, or too many of them, so the implicit threat goes, and you're not going to get any more interviews with high-ranking members of the administration, let alone the president. But I was covering Presidents Johnson and Nixon — men not exactly known as pushovers. No, what has changed, even more than the nature of the presidency, is the character of news ownership. I only found out years after the fact, for example, about the pressure that the Nixon White House put on my then-bosses, during Watergate — pressure to cut down my pieces, to call me off the story, and so on... because, back then, my bosses took the heat, so I didn't have to. They did this so the story could get told, and so the public could be informed. But it is rare, now, to find a major news organization owned by an individual, someone who can say, in effect, "The buck stops here." The more likely motto now is: "The news stops... with making bucks." America's biggest, most important news organizations have, over the past 25 years, fallen prey to merger after merger, acquisition after acquisition... to the point where they are, now, tiny parts of immeasurably larger corporate entities — entities whose primary business often has nothing to do with news. Entities that may, at any given time, have literally hundreds of regulatory issues before multiple arms of the government concerning a vast array of business interests. These are entities that, as publicly held and traded corporations, have as their overall, reigning mandate: Provide a return on shareholder value. Increase profits. And not over time, not over the long haul, but quarterly. One might ask just where the news fits into this model. And if you really need an answer, you can turn on your television, where you will see the following: Political analysis reduced to in-studio shouting matches between partisans armed with little more than the day's talking points. Precious time and resources wasted on so-called human-interest stories, celebrity fluff, sensationalist trials, and gossip. A proliferation of "news you can use" that amounts to thinly disguised press releases for the latest consumer products. And, though this doesn't get said enough, local news, which is where most Americans get their news, that seems not to change no matter what town or what city you're in... so slavish is its adherence to the "happy talk" formula and the dictum that, "If it bleeds, it leads." I could continue for hours, cataloging journalistic sins of which I know you are all too aware. But, as the time grows late, let me say that almost all of these failings come down to this: In the current model of corporate news ownership, the incentive to produce good and valuable news is simply not there. Good news, quality news of integrity, requires resources and it requires talent. These things are expensive, these things eat away at the bottom line. Years ago, in the eighties and the nineties, when the implications of these cost-trimming measures were becoming impossible to ignore, and the quality of the news was clearly threatened, I spoke out against this cutting of news operations to the bone and beyond. Even then, though, I couldn't have imagined that the cost-cutting imperatives would go as far as they have today — deep into the marrow of what was once considered a public trust. But since the financial resources always seem to be available for entertainment, promotion, and — last but not least — for lobbying... perhaps there is an even more important reason why the incentive to produce quality news is absent, and that is: quality news of integrity, by its very nature, is sure to rock the boat now and then. Good, responsible news worthy of its Constitutional protections will, in that famous phrase, afflict the powerful and comfort the afflicted. And that, when one feels the need to deliver shareholder value above all, means that good news... may not always mean good business — or so goes the fear, a fear that filters down into just about every big newsroom in this country. Now, I have spent my entire life in for-profit news, and I happen to think that it does not have to be this way. I have worked for news owners who, while they may have regarded their news divisions as an occasional irritant, chose to turn that irritant into a pearl of public trust. But today, sadly, it seems that the conglomerates that have control over some of the biggest pieces of this public trust would just as soon spit that irritant out. So what does this mean for us tonight, and what is to be done? It means that we need to be on the alert for where, when, and how our news media bows to undue government influence. And you need to let news organizations know, in no uncertain terms, that you won't stand for it... that you, as news consumers, are capable of exerting pressure of your own. It means that we need to continue to let our government know that, when it comes to media consolidation, enough is enough. Too few voices are dominating, homogenizing, and marginalizing the news. We need to demand that the American people get something in exchange for the use of airwaves that belong, after all, to the people. It means that we need to ensure that the Internet, where free speech reigns and where journalism does not have to pass through a corporate filter... remains free. We need to say, loud and clear, that we don't want big corporations enjoying preferred access to — or government acting as the gatekeeper for — this unique platform for independent journalism. And it means that we need to hold the government to its mandate to protect the freedom of the press, including independent and non-commercial news media. The stakes could not possibly be higher. Scott McClellan's book serves as a reminder, and the current election season, not to mention the gathering clouds of conflict with Iran, will both serve as tests of whether lessons have truly been learned from past experience. Ensuring that a free press remains free will require vigilance, and it will require work. Please, take tonight's energy and inspiration home with you. Take it back to your desks and your workplaces, to your colleagues and your fellow citizens. magnify it, multiply it, and spread it. Make it viral. Make it something that cannot be ignored — not by the powers in Washington, not by the owners and executives of media companies. Write these people. Call them. Send them the message that you know your rights, you know that you are entitled to news media as diverse and varied as the American people... and that you deserve a press that provides the raw material of democracy, the good information that Americans need to be full participants in our government of, by, and for the people. T here is energy here, that can be equal to that task, but this energy must be maintained... if the press — if democracy — is to be preserved. Thank you very much, and good night. 2008-06-24 11:52:23 blog/1/649/index.htm blog649