The trial of the four – Pavel Ryguzov, former police officer Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, and Ibragim and Dhzabrail Makhmudov – was held in a court closed to the public in November 2008 because the jurors feared that media coverage would end up identifying them and thus leading to danger (though Politkovskaya’s family and friends wanted a public trial). All four defendants were acquitted in February 2009, though, as the Moscow Times tells us, there is renewed interest in the case because of a possible link between Khadzhikurbanov and the gun factory that, according to police, made the murder weapon
Anyone who has followed this case with any interest whatsoever knows that getting one’s hopes up for something approximating justice is a problematic exercise. However, all we can do is remain vigilant in the hope that justice may indeed one day come.
And one reason why I care about this story is that, in an age of utterly co-opted corporate media punditry, where those practitioners are famously indulged by their puppet masters, I happen to think that a journalist should not be murdered execution style in the dark stairwell corner of her apartment building for the simple yet courageous act of telling the truth.
Most voters think Congress’s ethics have gotten worse in the past two years, according to a new poll in key battleground districts.Another big, sloppy wet kiss goes out to those news organizations with initials for names on this one for falling down on the job yet again; as noted here…
The finding suggests that people likely to have a big say in who controls the House in the next Congress believe that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has failed to keep her 2006 promise to “drain the swamp” of congressional corruption.
Significant changes were made by Congress to the current lobbying laws, and to internal House and Senate rules on ethics and procedures, by the passage of S. 1, 110th Congress (P.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735, September 14, 2007) and the adoption of H.Res. 6, 110th Congress. In the face of mounting public and congressional concern over allegations and convictions of certain lobbyists and public officials in a burgeoning "lobbying and gift" scandal, and with recognition of legitimate concerns over undue influence and access of certain special interests to public officials, Congress has adopted stricter rules, regulations, and laws attempting to address these issues.And for anyone holding out hope that this good work wouldn’t be hindered or demolished outright by a potential Repug U.S. House takeover, I give you this.
…
The statutory and internal congressional rule changes which have been adopted address five general areas of reform: (1) broader and more detailed disclosures of lobbying activities by paid lobbyists, and more disclosures concerning the intersection of the activities of professional lobbyists with government policy makers; (2) more extensive restrictions on the offering and receipt of gifts and favors for Members of Congress and their staff, including gifts of transportation and travel expenses; (3) new restrictions addressing the so-called "revolving door," that is, post-government-employment "lobbying" activities by former high-level government officials on behalf of private interests; (4) reform of the government pension provisions with regard to Members of Congress found guilty of abusing the public trust; and (5) greater transparency in the internal legislative process in the House and Senate, including "earmark" disclosures and accountability.
With that in mind, I ask that you consider the following (from here)…
(In 1979) Carter said, "I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they'd sell them missiles and other weapons if only they'd keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.And this tells us more of how The Sainted Ronnie R waged his particular jihad against solar power, including the following…
And Ronald Reagan's first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies.
Today (in 2005), despite the best efforts of the Bushies, the bin Ladens, and the rest of the oil industry, Carter's few surviving initiatives have borne fruit.
It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid.
It was the winter of 1981 and the country was just beginning to feel the sharp edges of the Reagan revolution. Denis Hayes, head of the fledgling Solar Energy Research Institute, was walking through the halls of the Department of Energy when an acquaintance came up to him and said, "Has Frank lowered the boom on you yet?" The Frank in question was an acting assistant secretary, but the boom, it turned out, was falling from the top. President Reagan had once been General Electric's most camera-ready tout, and his administration viewed alternative energy with open scorn. "They're going to kill your study," the gray-suited informant warned Hayes, before slipping down the corridor.(By the way, it came as an utter shock to me that, as noted here, there actually was a solar panel initiative under Former President Highest Disapproval Rating in Gallup Poll History.)
The study, a yearlong investigation by some of the nation's leading scientists, provided a convincing blueprint for a solar future. It showed that alternative energy could easily meet 28 percent of the nation's power needs by 2000. The only thing that solar and wind and other nonpolluting energy sources needed was a push, the study concluded -- the same research funding and tax credits provided to other energy industries, and a government committed to lead the way to reduced reliance on fossil fuels. But the messenger in the corridor signaled that the solar future would only be won with a little guerrilla warfare. Hayes phoned a colleague at his office in Golden, Colorado, and told him to make 100 copies of the study and circulate them around the country. Energy Secretary Jim Edwards killed the study, all right, but not before it had been published in the Congressional Record.
It was a bold gesture, but not enough to alter the outcome. The quashed study proved to be the beginning of the end. The budget for the solar institute -- which President Jimmy Carter had created to spearhead solar innovation -- was slashed from $124 million in 1980 to $59 million in 1982. Scientists who had left tenured university jobs to work under Hayes were given two weeks notice and no severance pay. The squelching of the institute -- later partly re-funded and renamed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory -- marked the start of Reagan's campaign against solar power. By the end of 1985, when Congress and the administration allowed tax credits for solar homes to lapse, the dream of a solar era had faded. The solar water heater President Carter had installed on the White House roof in 1979 was dismantled and junked. Solar water heating went from a billion-dollar industry to peanuts overnight; thousands of sun-minded businesses went bankrupt. "It died. It's dead," says Peter Barnes, whose San Francisco solar- installation business had 35 employees at its peak. "First the money dried up, then the spirit dried up," says Jim Benson, another solar activist of the day.
And going back to 2005, Thom Hartmann reminds us of the following (from his previous article)…
"Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth," (Carter) said, a point that is still true. "We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden." Carter directly challenged the fossil fuel and automobile industries. "One choice," he said, "is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years. "Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. "We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process."Either a traitor or an editorial cartoonist lampooning visionary Democratic presidents, I guess.
But that would be unpatriotic, anti-American, and essentially wrong. Who but a traitor sold out to special interests, or an idiot, would countenance such insanity?
No comments:
Post a Comment