Saturday, 26 February 2011

Legislators Are Going to Unbelievable Lengths to Gouge Clean Water Laws and Cozy Up to Big Coal


Big Coal's backlash over the EPA crackdown on future mountaintop removal operations went from denial and anger to the outright absurd last week, as state legislatures conjured their own versions of a sagebrush rebellion and the new Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a sheath of regulatory gutting amendments to its budget bill.
On the heels of its Tea Party-backed coal rallies last fall, the dirty coal lobby couldn't have paid for a better show. As millions of pounds of ammonium nitrate fuel oil explosives continued to detonate daily in their ailing districts and affected residents held dramatic sit-ins to raise awareness of the growing health crisis in the central Appalachian coalfields, Big Coal-bankrolled sycophants fell over themselves from Virginia to Kentucky to West Virginia, and in the halls of Congress, to see who could introduce the most ridiculous and dangerous bills to shield the coal industry.
Their breathless message: "The EPA don't understand mining," as Kentucky’s House Natural Resources and Environment Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, declared to his colleagues.
That misunderstanding dates back to last spring's breakthrough announcement by the EPA, following up a memorandum of understanding between the numerous federal agencies, including the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement, on finally issuing guidance rules and cracking down on the irreversible and pervasive destruction of mountaintop removal mining operations to waterways. Based on government studies that conclusively demonstrate that "burial of headwater streams by valley fills causes permanent loss of ecosystems," the EPA issued new conductivity levels "to protect 95% of aquatic life and fresh water streams in central Appalachia" and effectively bring an end to the process of valley fills (and the dumping of toxic coal mining waste into the valleys and waterways).
After an eight-year hiatus of enforcement under the George W. Bush administration, in which an estimated 1,000-2,000 miles of the headwater streams were jammed and sullied by toxic coal waste(my emphasis), along with the destruction of hundreds of mountains and tens of thousands of hardwood forests and the depopulation of historic Appalachia communities, the EPA's return to its true role as enforcer of the Clean Water Act made it a convenient target for Big Coal outrage...
 Continue reading
Jeff Biggers @'AlterNet'
Danger Room
In the middle of a recession, Pentagon gives a $35B deal to US firm. Only in Washington would this be called a "surprise".

Outlawing 'Legal Highs': Can Emergency Bans Hinder Drug Development?

As states race to outlaw synthetic drugs sold as "bath salts" or "fake marijuana," there would seem to be little downside to banning these untested and possibly dangerous chemicals. But prohibiting "legal" intoxicants — many of which have exploded in popularity via the Internet — could have the unintended effect of keeping potential cures for diseases like Alzheimer's out of the pharmaceutical pipeline.
Many of the drugs marketed as bath salts and available under brand names like Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave and Blue Silk contain stimulants such as mephedrone and MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone); neither is approved for medical use in the U.S. These chemicals have not been scientifically tested in humans, but users report effects similar to cocaine and methamphetamine. Media accounts have linked the drugs to serious, even possibly fatal, side effects.
(In case you're wondering, no, Calgon and Origins Soothing Sea Salts cannot "take you away" to get you high: legitimate bath salts sold in the soap aisle do not contain psychoactive substances. The "bath salts" with amphetamine-like qualities are sold in head shops and other places that sell drug paraphernalia and are labeled in ways that imply their true purpose.)

So far, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has not banned these substances, but if their popularity continues to increase, they are unlikely to stay legal for long. It's not even certain that any "legal high" is actually entirely legal — a 1986 law bars the use or sale of analogues of prohibited drugs for human consumption, but it's unclear whether it can be enforced against these substances and under what circumstances...
 Continue reading
Maia Szalavitz @'Time'
Shock Doctrine US

Friday, 25 February 2011

Dirk Hanson
RT @: Fun fact: UN rates three largest global industries to be oil, arms and illegal drugs, respectively

A call to arms

Smoke Signals


Help Tunisia First

The pros and cons of military intervention in Libya

In The Realm of the Hackers


Via
In 1989, two Melbourne teenage hackers known as Electron and Phoenix stole a restricted computer security list and used it to break into some of the world's most classified and supposedly secure computer systems. So fast and widespread was the attack, no-one could work out how it had happened - until one of the hackers called The New York Times to brag. Ten years after their arrest, this dramatised documentary uncovers not only how they did it but why. It takes us headlong into the clandestine, risky but intoxicating world of the computer underground.

Summary:
http://www.filmaust.com.au/programs/d...
Breaking into The Realm:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/200...
Zardoz 'Security Digest':
http://securitydigest.org/zardoz/

Peter Biskind: The Rude Warrior

Until five years ago, Mel Gibson was one of the best-loved and best-paid talents in Hollywood, not to mention one of the town’s few real family men. How to explain the foulmouthed, violent bigotry that has since burst into public view, making him an industry pariah, even as his 26-year marriage imploded? With the help of Gibson’s friends—and his movies—Peter Biskind delves into the roots of a star’s divided life.
@'Vanity Fair'

Did David Held, Lord Desai and the LSE Overlook Gaddafi’s PhD Plagiarism?

The world is obsessed with Facebook



Middle East Uprising: Facebook's Back-Channel Diplomacy

The freedom to be who you want to be…

Peter Steiner’s iconic “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” cartoon may have been drawn in jest--but his point was deadly serious, as recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have shown. In reality, as the web has developed--with users anywhere able to post a blog, share photos with friends and family or “broadcast” events they witness online--the issue of identity has become increasingly important.
So, we’ve been thinking about the different ways people choose to identify themselves (or not) when they’re using Google--in particular how identification can be helpful or even necessary for certain services, while optional or unnecessary for others. Attribution can be very important, but pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason.
When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits.
Unidentified. Sometimes you want to use the web without having your online activity tied to your identity, or even a pseudonym—for example, when you’re researching a medical condition or searching for that perfect gift for a special someone. When you’re not logged into your Google Account (or if you never signed up for one), that’s how you’ll be using our services. While we need to keep information like IP addresses and cookies to provide the service, we don’t link that information to an individual account when you are logged out.
Pseudonymous. Using a pseudonym has been one of the great benefits of the Internet, because it has enabled people to express themselves freely—they may be in physical danger, looking for help, or have a condition they don’t want people to know about. People in these circumstances may need a consistent identity, but one that is not linked to their offline self. You can use pseudonyms to upload videos in YouTube or post to Blogger.
Identified. There are many times you want to share information with people and have them know who you really are. Some products such as Google Checkout rely on this type of identity assurance and require that you identify yourself to use the service. There may be other times when it’s more desirable to be identified than not, for example if you want to be part of a community action project you may ask, “How do I know these other people I see online really are community members?”
Equally as important as giving users the freedom to be who they want to be is ensuring they know exactly what mode they’re in when using Google’s services. So recently we updated the top navigation bar on many of our Google services to make this even clearer. In the upper right hand corner of these Google pages, you will see an indicator of which account, if any, you are signed into.
We’re also looking at other ways to make this more transparent for users. While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.

العقيد السعيد Happy qathafy

Live chat w/ Julian Assange (moderated by Aftonbladet)

[Kommentar från OlofOlof: ] Do you see yourself as a modern-day freedom fighter?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:45 Olof
22:46
Julian Assange: 
Hello everyone!
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:46 Julian Assange
22:50
Julian Assange: 
The freedom to communicate knowledge is, to me, the most important freedom. It is the freedom on which all other freedoms and rights depend. Concepts such as the right to representation, freedom from arbitary detention or torture all need to be voiced and evidence for them made clear. This can only be done effectively if the central freedom - the right to communicate is strong. In fighting for this freedom, we fight for all freedoms.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:50 Julian Assange
22:50
[Kommentar från JohnJohn: ] 
How Do u feel about the court decision today?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:50 John
22:54
Julian Assange: 
It was not a surprise. Over 95% of EU arrest warrants result in such an outcome in the lower courts. The judge involved, Riddle was the same judge that first put me in prison. I am of course, annoyed at the tremendous distraction from our work in the revolutions in the middle east. This angers me, but on the other hand, the process does mean we and others such as Fair Trials International can inspire law reforms in Sweden and europe.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:54 Julian Assange
22:54
[Kommentar från MariaMaria: ] 
What do you base your assumptions on that Sweden will send you to USA?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:54 Maria
23:04
Julian Assange: 
This is an interesting question that few people have looked at with any depth. Onwards extradition - to the United States - entirely a matter of politics. The Swedish Prime Minister has refused to block such an extradition, saying, falsely, that it is a matter entirely for the judiciary, while at the same time pathetically pandering with his other commentary on the case. Infact, he has the power, in the Swedish extradition relationship with the US, to disqualify my extradition. He refuses. According to what I have been told of the protocol between Sweden and the UK, and the US and the UK, the Home Secretary of the UK, simiarly has such power to politically veto such an extradition. The British government, thus far, has refused to do so. Now, while it is convention that an extradition from the UK or Sweden to the US would require the US to agree to not execute or torture me or other european based WikiLeaks staff, any such diplomatic guarentee would be meaningless. Sweden went through that formalism with its CIA assisted extraditions to Egypt, which were immediately ignored. In the US many senior politicians have called for our assassination or life imprisonment. There are three bills before Congress and the Senate to do such things as declare us a "transnational threat", so all our staff can be treated like al-Quada - as "enemy combatants" and shipped off to Bagram or Guantanamo, etc. Nothing Sweden can politely ask for can stop this legislative risk.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:04 Julian Assange
23:04
[Kommentar från MajaMaja: ] 
What happens to your work with Wikileaks now? Are you releasing anything new soon?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:04 Maja
23:06
Julian Assange: 
We are releasing new material every day. Major efforts throughout South America have appeared in the last week and we have had since the start of the year a special focus on the middle east, which is continuing.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:06 Julian Assange
23:06
[Kommentar från cleocleo: ] 
Hi Julian. Do you see yourself involved in what happening in the Arabic World? Are their fight for freedom based on the document you have revealed?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:06 cleo
23:13
Julian Assange: 
The heavy lifting in these revolutions has been done by long standing civil and political groups throughout the middle east. However we have tried to play a part in the region since last year. In particular, we are pround of the work of our media partner Al-Akhbar in Lebanon who published many important stories based on our material in Arabic. Al-Alkbar and WikiLeaks were then banned by the Ben Ali regime of Tunisia. Supportive computer hackers then redirected many Tunisian government websites to WikiLeaks and its cables exposing Ben Ali. Al-Alkbar suffered three critical cyber attacks and had its cable publishing eventually wiped out. The sophistication of the attacks point to state involvement. Subsequently, we worked with the Telegraph and on our own to aggressively expose Mubarak (Egypt), Soliman (Egypt), Bahrain and Libya.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:13 Julian Assange
23:13
[Kommentar från BJBJ: ] 
What makes you think you will not be given a fair trial in Sweden?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:13 BJ
23:23
Julian Assange: 
I could never have imagined just how badly the Swedish justice system can be abused. This question needs a very long answer, but Swedes everywhere are coming forward to tell us horror story after horror story. While these domestic considerations are bad enough, in my case we have united both Social Democrat patronage networks through political opportunists like Claes Borgstrom and other radical feminists who hope to get some limelight, toghether with the worst elements of the Moderates who hope to curry favor with the US. I do see, however that the Swedish press is starting to question what is going on more. But, I loved Sweden and the level of xenophoblic opportunism saddens me. I still believe Sweden can be a good country, but it must first, grow up.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:23 Julian Assange
23:23
[Kommentar från TheAmazingHannaTheAmazingHanna: ] 
What do you think the chances are for appealing today's decision?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:23 TheAmazingHanna
23:28
Julian Assange: 
The United Kingdom has its own pressures. Just look at the handling of the case here. It was the UK that appealed to keep me in prison, rather than have me under house arrest. It is not that, in terms of law, that the UK is safer at protecting me from the US, rather it is that, at least I am receiving matterials in my own language, English, something that the Swedish government has, to this day, refused to do, and being a larger country, the judiciary is further seperated from government patronage networks. I have greater ability to fight US extradition in the UK than I do in Sweden. The cables we released about Sweden paint a grim picture. Swedish politicians and bureaucrats sometimes do not follow the rule of law when it comes to their dealings with the United States.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:28 Julian Assange
23:29
[Kommentar från Andreas_AAndreas_A: ] 
If you are innocent to the allegations of sexual assault, why do you not willingly return to Sweden to clear your name and your reputation?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:29 Andreas_A
23:32
Julian Assange: 
There has been so many abuses by the Swedish government, including the ongoing refusal to provide me any material in English, and the prosecutor Ny lying about interview agreements, that I do not have confidence in the Swedish justice system. Let us not forget that I already gave an interview, stayed in Sweden voluntarily for a month, and the warrant for my arrest was dropped.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:32 Julian Assange
23:33
[Kommentar från AnnikaAnnika: ] 
The impression from the press is that this is a conspiracy against you, attacking Wikileaks. What I wonder is if there is any substance to the charges. Can you give any comment to this without compromizing the ongoing investigation?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:33 Annika
23:37
Julian Assange: 
There is a lot of pressure. We should not let people who want to detract from the seriousness of pressure recast it into a conspiratorial cartoon. That is not how real life tends to work. This case has been going for six months. There are many people and many complicated agendas.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:37 Julian Assange
23:37
[Kommentar från PeterPeter: ] 
Are you Wikileaks or will Wikileaks continue if you are in prision?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:37 Peter
23:39
Julian Assange: 
I have set structures in play. We will not be stopped.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:39 Julian Assange
23:39
[Kommentar från Gustav FGustav F: ] 
Don't you believe that "white lies" are a necessety for a functional government? I.E. the US ambassadeur personal judgements of certain european leaders?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:39 Gustav F
23:41
Julian Assange: 
The lies we have exposed are not white. They are the highest order concealment of criminality. If governments that conceal reality from their peoples can not function when those realities are revealed, that's fine by me. Let them be replaced with ones that do not.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:41 Julian Assange
23:42
[Kommentar från AnneliAnneli: ] 
Do you ever feel guilty that some of your leaks/sources has been exposed ?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:42 Anneli
23:44
Julian Assange: 
As far as we are aware, we have never failed a source. In two cases, alleged sources allegedly made the mistake of speaking to individuals or not from WikiLeaks.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:44 Julian Assange
23:44
[Kommentar från MartijnMartijn: ] 
What do you think of Anonymous attacks against websites such as mastercard in order to support you?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:44 Martijn
23:45
Julian Assange: 
We neither condemn not condone them. They are they online equivallent of a protest and as such are an expression of public sentiment.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:45 Julian Assange
23:46
[Kommentar från GabrielGabriel: ] 
What do you fear will happen if you came to Sweden?
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:46 Gabriel
23:47
Julian Assange: 
Already answered.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:47 Julian Assange
23:48
Julian Assange: 
OK. I have to get back to work now. Thanks everyone. Bye!
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:48 Julian Assange
23:48
Julian Assange: 
Oh. There is one more thing I would like to say.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:48 Julian Assange
23:50
Julian Assange: 
I would like to thank all those Swedish women and men who have stepped forward to help me and tell us what is going on and going wrong. Thanks!
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Julian Assange
23:50
Julian Assange: 
Night.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Julian Assange
23:50
Moderator: 
Då avslutar vi kvällens chatt.
Stort tack till alla er som ställde frågor och till Julian Assange som svarade på dem.
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Moderator
23:51
Moderator: 
Thank all of you for asking questions and thanks Julian Assange.
@'Aftonbladet'