Synaptic Stew

“We need a World War 2-level mobilization to weatherize buildings and put up solar panels,” Jones said.

There already is a huge green economy. In 2006, renewable energy and efficiency technologies generated 8.5 million jobs, nearly $970 billion in revenue and more than $100 billion in industry profits, Green For All reported. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab, the major barriers to a more rapid adoption of renewable energy and efficiency in America are insufficient skills and training. Democrats attached to the 2007 Energy Bill the Green Jobs Act to train workers for green-collar jobs. It authorizes $125 million for workforce training programs targeted to veterans, displaced workers, at-risk youth and families in poverty. If the money is appropriated, it will train people for jobs such as installing solar panels and weatherization.

Read more

You might think you have the right to vote. You might think your vote counts. You might think that there’s a problem here or there, but that they’re the exceptions. You might think that the 2000 presidential election was an aberration, in which the U.S. Supreme Court violated ethical and court precedents to crown the election loser, countering the will of the people. You might think it can’t possibly be an ongoing problem.

You might be very sadly mistaken.

Read more

I was wondering why Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama would wait to enact their plans for their future presidencies. Why would Mr McCain wait to implement his ideas on he economy and defense and energy? Why would Mr. Obama, as a Constitutional lawyer wait to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic?

Do they not know that all their ideas will begin as legislation introduced into either the Senate or The house?

Have they both forgotten they are sitting Senators and could begin implementing ANY plan they came up with - now?

So what’s the game gentlemen? Why wait until you are president to do what you could do today?

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.

“Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

Obama - and please note this quote…”It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced” - Cannot be outsourced.

“For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer.”

Video here

“…This is why, when Senators Shumer and Feinstein saved Mukasey’s confirmation, this is what they purchased. And, what Congress needs to do, the only thing they can do, is bring back Inherent Contempt and to say they’re going to start to exercise contempt on their own, that the deal is off. Attorney General Mukasey has broken a very long standing promise to be a faithful broker, to bring these cases to the grand jury - he won’t. And Congress has a right to now say we’re going back to doing this stuff ourselves.”

Crooks and Liars Video Here

Here’s 17 you should know about (Huffpost)

Electric Cars: You Want ‘Em? We’ve Got ‘Em!

Over the past 3 years, we’ve written about many electric cars here on
TreeHugger.

We think it’s time to look in the rearview mirror, so here’s an overview. If you see anything you like, just follow the links to see the original articles.

Read more

What one citizen thinks about the FISA ‘compromise’.

Dear Ms. Giffords, (U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Southern Arizona)

I would like to take the time to explore this issue and your response to your decision to back this bill in more detail.

Yes, the FISA amendments (H.R. 6304) passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote. Is it your contention that bipartisan support is the yardstick to measure whether one should support a bill or not, regardless of constitutionality? Does bipartisan support make it inherently right? Please explain to me how this bill is a “compromise”? What in your regard has been compromised? In my regard, the 4^th amendment has been “compromised”. Accountability has been “compromised”. The rule of law has been “compromised”. Justice has been “compromised”. Is that what Democrats mean when they repeatedly say it was a “compromise”?

Please explain this terminology of “modernized” FISA law? Please explain to me why it was necessary, rather seemingly critical, that the bill include “retroactive immunity” for the telecom companies who may have broken the law. Please elucidate to me point on point in your considered thinking process why this is necessary and why current FISA law needed the new amendments. I truly want to understand.

Current FISA (before the latest amendments) legislation protects the telecom companies from liability providing they obey the law. As Senator Russ Feingold stated “current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the attorney general that no court order is needed and that the request meets all the statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, the FISA legislation instructs the telecom companies to refuse the government’s request and does then subject them to liability if they decide to cooperate with the government.” Sounds pretty straightforward…accountability for actions taken that are unlawful.

Instead, Congress decides that the telecoms get a “do-over”. FISA law has been in effect since 1978. Authorization reportedly was denied less than 10 times in 3 decades. Telecom companies are not naïve nor need immunity. They have very knowledgeable well-funded legal departments with very knowledgeable lawyers. The original legislation devised a system to take the guesswork out i.e. the legal obligation and liability for compliance by the telecom company depends entirely on whether the government has provided the proper documentation. The telecoms were obligated to refuse or be subject to liability for their actions. I suspect that they knew full well their exposure and liability at the time of compliance. Qwest knew it and so did the others. Except, we’ll reward those who chose not to comply with the law. The law was broken but I guess Congress gets to decide when it really matters.

The conclusion that one is left with is that this HR 6304 is not about protecting Americans or the telecoms for that matter. It’s about expanding the surveillance capabilities of government on the citizens under the umbrella of national security. It’s about protecting those in government who have broken the law. Congress wants no accountability for itself or the President. Congress & the President do not want the public to have access or knowledge of what “our government” has been doing in the name of national security or is currently doing with regard to wiretapping and surveillance programs on its citizens. Congress & the President want citizens to be wiretapped. Most of all, Congress & the President want to stop the lawsuits because H.R. 6304 will result in the federal district courts granting immunity to the telecoms. Conveniently, this will bring an end to disclosure of details of the illegal surveillance program. We will never know what laws have been broken and hold anyone accountable for breaking the law.

When I spoke with your legislative aide in Washington, she had a very compelling argument on why these amendments were necessary. In fact, she almost convinced me that it was the “right” thing to do and that we citizens were more protected as a result. She stated that this amendment would allow the lawsuits to proceed. The courts would decide whether to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies which allegedly participated with the illegal warrantless wiretapping & surveillance.

However, Senator Feingold stated “the system is rigged… under the terms of the bill, a federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that the company received “a written request or directive from the attorney general or the head of an element of the intelligence community indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful.” We already know through public information that this is exactly the case…so under the terms of the proposal, the court is bound to grant retroactive immunity. Courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits or claims.” So, please, can you resolve these opposing views for me?

To paraphrase Senator Feingold, “How can you grant immunity when you don’t even know what you are granting immunity for…”

So what are the so-called compromises Congress had to make? I believe Congress put “on the table” the following to name just a few:

No probable cause or link to terrorism is required for surveillance Wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications Extended the wiretapping approval waiting period from 72 hours to 1 week and allows use of info even if FISA finds the wiretap unlawful. Retroactive and Prospective Immunity (Funny, I didn’t think Congress had the power to grant immunity for future lawbreaking much less retroactively.) Less oversight in the surveillance Court will not be told who is the target for wiretappingSo, what did we citizens get in return for this “compromise”? May I remind you of the oath you took:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.” Where in this oath does it say that you will uphold and enable those who violate the Constitution? Where does it say you will subvert the rule of law and the Constitution? It is a living document that is the foundation of this nation, not to mention why you are granted the privilege to make laws. You are complicit with subverting the Constitution which subverts our society and its founding values.

Again, I applaud you on your efforts to undermine citizens right to privacy and any oversight and accountability to those in our government and telecoms who have broken the law in this warrantless wiretapping policy. Thank you on a job well done.

Sincerely,

A Righteously Indignant Citizen