marble falls's Journal
Name: herb morehead
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:49 AM
Number of posts: 5,085
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:49 AM
Number of posts: 5,085
Yes, critics, Koch brothers do have more leased tar sands acreage than any other U.S. oil company
by Meteor BladesFollow
Kochs' lease holdings in Alberta tar sands.
Since last October, when the Koch brothers' extensive holdings of Canadian tar sands acreage were noted here after publication of the International Forum on Globalization's report—Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline—the claims have received considerable attention, including denials from Koch Industries and attacks from right-wingers, including a prominent blog.
The IFG concluded that, based on public records, the Kochs held at least two million acres of leased tar sands land, more than any other company. Subsequently, additional research by the organization confirmed 1.1 million acres in Kochs' hands in Alberta, the most of any American or foreign corporation. That is more than 1,700 square miles. Vast by any definition. The map on the right shows the distribution of the confirmed holdings.
The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres—an area nearly the size of Delaware—in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres. The companies with the next biggest net acreage positions in oil sands leases are Conoco Phillips and Shell, both close behind.
The story generated considerable pushback, including several bits written by John Hinderaker at the torture-approving, climate change-denying blog Powerline. Among other things, he attached the all-purpose "far left" label to IFG, questioned Eilperin's objectivity and posed—in that slimy just-asking-a-simple-question technique—whether the Post had intentionally timed the article to coincide with "attacks" on the Koch brothers by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Sheldon Whitehouse. Other critics called for a retraction and an apology from the Post. They mouthed the Kochs' repeated claims that they have no interest in the disputed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport tar sands bitumen from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast.
What did he find? Determining acreage is, in fact, complicated. Why? Because the experts who measure such things don't come up with the same answers. The bottom line is that Koch Industries ranks as No. 3 or No. 4 in terms of all tar-sands lease holders, and No. 1 as a non-Canadian holder. Those leases cover at least 1.12 million acres and as many as 1.47 million acres. But even that total may not tell the whole story.
The province of Alberta keeps track of designated representatives on oil-sands leases, but the list doesn’t indicate whether those representatives have partners who share the cost of purchase and development. It is a list of gross, not net, lease holdings. Net ownership could be higher (if a company holds a lot of minority positions in partnerships) or lower (if a designated representative brings in other partners to reduce development costs and spread risks).
Moreover, Canadian government and industry officials note that any company can establish a subsidiary identified only with a number, such as 12345Alberta, and the authoritative industry official says that Koch’s holdings far exceed the acreage listed by name with the Alberta provincial government. Other oil companies might be doing the same thing, adding another element of uncertainty.
This could, of course, be cleared up if privately held Koch Industries itself came forward and disclosed all its holdings. That will happen about the same time as they praise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Posted by marble falls | Sat Apr 12, 2014, 06:47 PM (3 replies)
Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
By Tom Boggioni
Monday, April 7, 2014 7:53 EDT
In a videotaped 2009 speech before student Republicans at Western Kentucky University, Rand Paul — who was just beginning his run for the Senate seat he eventually won — explained that former Vice President Dick Cheney, who counseled against war in Iraq in 1995, pushed for war following 9/11 to benefit his former employers at military contractor Halliburton.
In the video, discovered by David Corn at Mother Jones, Paul can be seen standing at a lectern describing Cheney’s opinion in 1995, when he said that invading Iraq would be, “a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy.”
There’s a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending Bush Number One , and he goes on for about five minutes. He’s being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that’s why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.
The day after 9/11, George Tenet is going in the House and Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.
It’s Dick Cheney in 1995 being interviewed on why they didn’t go into Baghdad the first time under the first George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There’d be a civil war. There’d be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.
Watch the Western Kentucky video below:
Posted by marble falls | Mon Apr 7, 2014, 10:09 AM (31 replies)
Posted by marble falls | Fri Apr 4, 2014, 09:21 AM (0 replies)
When May I Shoot a Student?
This op-ed in the NYTimes this morning by Prof. Greg Hampikian, Boise State University in Idaho, has written a must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark. The Idaho legislature has a bill pending that would allow students on campus to carry guns. A taste...
BOISE, Idaho — TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that we’ll all be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement.
I assume that if a student shoots first, I am allowed to empty my clip; but given the velocity of firearms, and my aging reflexes, I’d like to be proactive. For example, if I am working out a long equation on the board and several students try to correct me using their laser sights, am I allowed to fire a warning shot?
Wonderful read, worth going to KOs and NYT.
Posted by marble falls | Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:43 PM (35 replies)
The Texas state Democratic Party is distancing itself from a senatorial candidate currently leading in a party primary despite being decried by party leadership.
The Hill reported on Monday that self-identified “LaRouche Democrat” Kesha Rogers was revealed as the front-runner among Democratic challengers taking on incumbent Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) in a poll released by the University of Texas-Austin and the Texas Tribune.
Rogers is a follower of perennial political gadfly Lyndon LaRouche, who mounted seven unsuccessful presidential campaigns between 1980 and 2004. He was convicted of fraud in 1988 and was paroled after serving five years of a 15-year sentence. LaRouche is the object of veneration by a small movement that some have characterized as a political cult.
Rogers’ platform includes calls for the impeachment of Obama, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and the re-institution of the Glass-Steagall Act. According to the Texas-based Burnt Orange Report, Rogers released a video in 2012 depicting Obama with an Adolf Hitler-styled mustache, which includes the line, “His doctor should administer some pentothal of sodium,” referring to the chemical used in lethal injections in prison.
Despite receiving less funding than opponents David Alameel and Maxey Scherr, not to mention the lack of party backing, the poll showed 35 percent of respondents said they were more likely to vote for Rogers, compared to 27 percent for Alameel and 15 percent for Scherr.
“That poll was, to put it bluntly, nonsense,” a spokesperson for Alameel’s campaign,Suzie Dundas, told The Hill. “Our internal results are showing us doing very well.”
Posted by marble falls | Tue Mar 4, 2014, 09:33 AM (9 replies)
The hate map of the USA: From the KKK to black separatists, where America's 939 hate groups are based
Number of hate groups jumped dramatically since President Obama took office but this year marks a slight drop from 1,007 in 2012 to 939 in 2013
California has the most with 77 groups followed by Florida with 58 and Texas with 57
Hawaii is the only state without a single known hate group
By Meghan Keneally
PUBLISHED: 16:16 EST, 3 March 2014 | UPDATED: 16:48 EST, 3 March 2014
A revealing new map has made it clear where hundreds of hate groups are based in the United States, showing how racist and radical groups are still largely found in the South but the number of groups has multiplied dramatically since President Obama too office.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a 'hate map' last week which shows the national distribution of the various groups that they could confirm.
The overall number of groups actually dropped from 1,007 in 2012 to 939 in 2013- the last full year with available data- but one of their more troubling observations is that some of the far-right leaning groups have had their ideologies picked up by conservative Republican politicians.
‘The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, among others, is being plugged by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Last November, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) suggested the president was using the Affordable Care Act as cover to set up a “secret security force,”’ the report states.
‘Earlier in 2013, U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), echoing many Patriot groups, falsely claimed that a proposed United Nations arms treaty “set the stage for confiscation on a global scale.”’
The SPLC, which focuses much of its work combating racist groups, said that the lack of clear legislative victories for the Obama administration on gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook and the upcoming immigration reform battle appear to have effectively calmed some of the far-right groups.
‘Those factors, along with the collapse or near-collapse of several major groups for a variety of reasons, seem to have taken some of the wind out of the sails of the radical right, leaving the movement both weaker and somewhat smaller,’ the report states.
Many states have varying bands of hate groups, but for their map, the SPLC qualified them into eight categories: black separatist, neo-confederate, Christian identity, racist skinhead, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan and general hate.
There is only one state- Hawaii- that has no known hate groups but a vast majority of the rest can be found below the Mason Dixon line.
The 11 states that make up the area between Texas and the Atlantic are home to 589 of the 939 active groups that the SPLC identified- a whopping nearly 63 per cent.
Though Florida hosts 58 groups and Texas has 57, they do not take the top slot this year.
Posted by marble falls | Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:47 PM (48 replies)
video at link
John Wayne Rogers, a blind man acquitted of killing his friend James Dewitt under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute, successfully sued the state to have his guns returned to him.
Prosecutors had charged Rogers with first-degree murder in the 2012 shooting death of his house guest and drinking companion, James DeWitt. Rogers’s attorneys contended that he was a blind man defending himself from a drunken guest, but the prosecution had witnesses willing to testify that Rogers can see.
DeWitt’s girlfriend, Robertson, told Seminole County deputies that the two men had been “play fighting” when Rogers shot him.
Rogers was freed from Seminole County Jails on January 9, 2014, mere hours after Circuit Judge John Galluzzo granted his “Stand Your Ground” motion.
Rogers, who was blinded in a work-related accident in 2001, has an extensive history of violence. In 2010, following another night of drinking, Rogers shot at his cousin and roommate, Michael Rogers, 15 times with a handgun. Michael Rogers was not shot, and John Rogers eventually plead no contest to one count of unlawfully displaying a firearm, for which he was placed on probation.
That probation was revoked when, in 2011, he punched a woman, which led to him spending 71 days in jail on domestic violence charges.
Judge Galluzzo agreed, saying that “I have to return property that was taken under the circumstance. I have researched and haven’t found case law to say otherwise.” He ordered the return of the 10 millimeter Glock that Rogers had used to shoot at his cousin, Michael, and the hunting rifle with which he shot James DeWitt.
The judge did, however, order that all the confiscated ammunition be destroyed, claiming that it was “too old and dangerous.”
'cuz whats the worst that could happen, right?
Posted by marble falls | Sun Feb 23, 2014, 12:56 PM (8 replies)
An environmental project is providing some of the first specific numbers about people who may have been affected by the boom in natural gas drilling. Here's what the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project has found in Washington County south of Pittsburgh and how experts and the industry are reacting to it:
— Air pollution seems to be more of a threat than water pollution. Only seven of 27 cases of people who believed they were hurt by nearby natural gas activities involved water pollution. The rest involved air pollution. The numbers don't represent a full survey of the area, just cases so far with plausible exposures.
— Huge processing stations that push gas into national pipelines might be more of a problem than the drilling sites themselves. One of the worrying findings of the project was extremely high levels of air pollution found inside two homes about 1,000 feet from a large gas processing station.
— One expert not involved in the findings said more work needs to be done to confirm that residents were affected by natural gas activity and not by other factors, but he called the project an "important start."
— The gas drilling industry says that in general air quality has sharply improved because of natural gas since it emits far less pollution than coal-fired power plants.
Posted by marble falls | Sun Feb 23, 2014, 10:24 AM (0 replies)
Glenn Beck Is Done With America: 'I'm Really Considering Burning The Flag'
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 2/19/2014 4:35 pm
Whatever America once was and once stood for and once represented, Glenn Beck said on his radio program today, that it is all over ... and he really doesn't even care anymore if they just burn Washington, DC and all of its monuments to the ground.
"I will tell you this," he bellowed, "the country, the institution, what that flag, those buildings that the flag flies over, what the flag is becoming, what it means to the rest of the world, I DON'T KNOW! I don't care!"
No matter what happens though, Beck proclaimed that he was never going to change and would give his life in defense of the Constitution, if necessary.
"Shoot me in the head if you have to," he said, "you're not changing me."
Saying that he despises them, by which he means progressives who are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world, Beck said he is working on becoming entirely indifferent to them, so much so that "I don't really care" if they were to burn down the entire city of Washington, DC and the Capitol Building and the White House and all the monuments.
"I don't care," he shrugged. "I don't care. I'm not about the buildings, I'm not about the flag, I'll burn the flag every day. In fact, I'm really considering burning the flag. I may do a show really super soon where I burn the flag. And if you don't like it, then maybe you should figure out what the flag means."
While he vowed to defend the Constitution to his last breath, Beck said "I'll burn the flag every day of the week":
Posted by marble falls | Fri Feb 21, 2014, 01:12 PM (44 replies)
Montana judge admits fault for blaming victim of rape
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:32 EST
Rape is rape sign (AFP)
A Montana judge, under fire for suggesting a 14-year-old girl was partly to blame for being raped by a teacher, admitted on Tuesday that he violated judicial standards and invited censure from the state’s highest court, documents show.
Judge G. Todd Baugh drew fierce public criticism last year when he sentenced the former teacher, 54-year-old Stacey Rambold, to just a month in prison for the 2007 sexual assault of his student, Cherice Moralez, who later killed herself.
In a complaint filed with the Montana Supreme Court earlier this month, a Montana panel that oversees jurists sought to discipline him over the sentence as well as for saying the girl appeared “older than her chronological age,” and “as much in control of the situation” as her teacher.
The Montana Judicial Standards Commission said Baugh undermined public confidence in the judiciary, created an appearance of impropriety and “justified the unlawful sentence by blaming the child victim,” according to papers from the commission.
Baugh, in a response filed with the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, agreed that his comments violated judicial codes.
“My remarks … were the proximate cause of the firestorm of criticism and, thus, in violation of” judicial conduct, he wrote in legal documents, in which he also waived formal proceedings before the commission to submit himself to the state supreme court for reprimand or censure.
But the judge, who has said he would not run for re-election when his term expires at the end of the year, rejected the commission’s description of the rape sentence as overly lenient.
“It is a subjective observation. In any sentence, it is possible that some see it as lenient while others may see it as harsh,” Baugh wrote.
The judge technically sentenced the former Billings high school teacher to 15 years in prison with all but 31 days suspended and gave him credit for one day served.
State prosecutors have asked Montana justices to overturn the sentence, arguing that state laws required Rambold to serve a minimum of two years in prison for his crime.
It was unclear on Tuesday when Baugh might face disciplinary action or what penalties were to be imposed.
The commission has declined to say if it was seeking a reprimand or Baugh’s ouster, but said it received eight formal complaints against Baugh as well as hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from those outraged by his remarks and the light sentence.
The Montana chapter of the National Organization for Women, which lodged one of the formal complaints, wants him ousted, its president Marian Bradley said on Tuesday.
“There is only one right decision to be made in this case: remove Baugh from the bench,” she said.
(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and G Crosse)
Posted by marble falls | Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:41 AM (2 replies)