Obama to betray Standing Rock

SUBHEAD: Green light could come just one day ahead of national #NoDAPL rallies on Tuesday.

By Deirdre Fulton on 11 November 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/11/betraying-water-protectors-obama-set-approve-dakota-access-pipeline)


Image above: President Barack Obama interacts with children while flanked by first lady Michelle Obama and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman David Archambault II at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota in June 2014. From original article.

UPDATE: The Obama administration said late Friday afternoon that no decision has been made on the disputed easement for the Dakota Access pipeline.

Even as water protectors continued to face off against police on Friday in North Dakota, news outlets reported that the Obama administration is set to approve the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) as early as Monday.

Citing "two sources familiar with the timing," Politico said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could approve a disputed easement within days, which would allow pipeline construction—on hold since September—to continue across the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux's reservation.

The Standing Rock tribe is vehemently opposed to the project, saying it threatens water supplies and sacred sites.

Amid such opposition, Politico reported, "the prospect of a Monday announcement is raising concerns that nationwide protests planned for Tuesday could turn uncivil."

"That risk of escalating tension may yet prompt the administration to postpone its decision until later in the week," the outlet continued, "to add additional safety requirements to the easement that the Army Corps of Engineers first put on hold in September—or to change course entirely."

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, at least 39 protesters were arrested at the construction site in Mandan, North Dakota, on Friday.

Pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners said earlier this week it was mobilizing drilling equipment in preparation to tunnel under Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River.

The Army Corps had previously asked the company to "voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe," and on Friday it suggested that to do so might result in fines or legal action.

Still, Donald Trump's election on Tuesday led many to believe the $3.7 billion pipeline's completion was all but inevitable.

Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren—a donor to Trump's campaign—said Friday on "CBS This Morning" that he was "100 percent confident" the president-elect would ensure DAPL is built.

Now, it seems he won't even have to wait that long.


Image above: President Barack quoted in news article. "you will not be forgotten as long as I'm in the White House. Indians will hve a seat at the table when important decisions are being made about your lives. Washington can't - and shouldn't - dictate a policy agenda for Indian country. Trible nations do better when they make their own decisions." - President Obama, November 5, 2009.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Trump impact on Standing Rock 11/12/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Ann Wright on Standing Rock 11/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Turning Point at Standing Rock 11/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jackson Browne vs DAPL owner 11/5/16
Democracy Now: Boycott of DAPL Owner's Music Festival
Ea O Ka Aina: World responds to NoDAPL protests 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL victory that was missed 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: DAPL hid discovery of Sioux artifacts 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Dakota Access Pipeline will leak 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Route of the Dakota Access Pipeline 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sanders calls for stopping DAPL 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama hints at DAPL rerouting 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: New military attack on NODAPL 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How to Support NoDAPL 11/3/16
Unicorn Riot: Tweets from NoDAPL 11/2/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Rock & the Ballot Box 10/31/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL reclaim new frontline 10/24/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How far will North Dakota go? 10/23/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodman "riot" charge dropped 10/17/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodwin to face "Riot Charge" 10/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Shutdown of all tar sand pipelines 10/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why Standing Rock is test for Oabama 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why we are Singing for Water 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Labor's Dakota Access Pipeline Crisis 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Firm for Standing Rock 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Contact bankers behind DAPL 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL demo at Enbridge Inc 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Militarized Police raid NoDAPL 9/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16   
.

Trump impact on Standing Rock

SUBHEAD: The Sioux tribe is facing a pro-oil president-elect with personal investments in the Dakota Access pipeline.

By Jenni Monet on 9 November 2016 for Yes Magazine -
(http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/what-the-trump-victory-means-for-standing-rock-20161109)


Image above: Dakota Access Pipeline construction bulldozer with NoDAPL graffiti "Think of Your Kids". Photo by  Rob Wilson. From original article.

Less than 12 hours after Donald Trump walked onto a New York City stage as the newly elected president, the stock price for Energy Transfer Equity shot up 15 percent. Among that company’s holdings is Energy Transfer Partners, operator of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline. Protesters near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation continue to fight completion of the $3.8 billion project.

But the jump in share price indicates an immediate pro-energy confidence in Trump.
And that confidence is not unfounded.

In Bismarck, North Dakota, Donald Trump gave a speech in May that would help secure his seat as America’s 45th president. The candidate was lagging 30 delegates to become the Republican nominee. His decision to address oil entrepreneurs in North Dakota was political strategy.

At a petroleum conference, Trump introduced his energy plan for the first time: more fossil fuels, fewer regulations, and a vow to undo many of President Obama’s climate initiatives. Trump would meet the required 1,237-delegate threshold to go on and win the presidency, a startling upset for an outsider who has disrupted the political establishment.



Image above: Five day New York Stock Exchange history of Energy Transfer Equity stock indicates 17% jump the day after election was called for Trump. From original article.

What a Trump victory may spell for the continued battle over the Dakota Access pipeline—and for indigenous rights, in general—is alarming.

For starters, President-elect Trump would stand to personally profit from the project. His campaign energy adviser, Harold Hamm, would also see gains. Hamm is the CEO of Continental Resources, which has plans to flow its supply of Bakken fracked crude through the pipeline. With Trump’s recent victory, Hamm is also on the short list of becoming U.S. energy secretary.

As Politico reports, Trump is also seriously considering 74-year-old Forrest Lucas, of oil products company Lucas Oil, as a top contender for interior secretary, along with “Drill, Baby, Drill” Sarah Palin.
This political changeover has come at a critical time in the struggle at Standing Rock.
All sides, for and against the pipeline, have vowed to stand their ground. The battle to stop the project and protect the Missouri River has recently intensified, growing into one of the largest indigenous rights movements in the world.

On Tuesday, pipeline operators Energy Transfer Partners announced plans to advance its project despite earlier calls from the Obama administration to halt construction. According to a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had recently repeated this request in the midst of more violence between police and protesters erupting on lands belonging to the Corps. 

“We asked Dakota Access pipeline on Nov.  4 to honor the administration’s request for a voluntary shut down by stopping work for a 30-day period to allow for de-escalation,” said Colonel John Henderson, the Army Corps district commander. “Dakota Access did not agree to this request.” 

The U.S. government is reassessing permits and has said it’s looking at possible rerouting; the pipeline route currently needs to traverse easements on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands.
On Tuesday, Energy Transfer said it is “mobilizing horizontal drilling equipment” for tunneling under Lake Oahe, a basin on the Missouri River, near where thousands of protesters are camped out to protect the water.

That the energy company chose Election Day to announce its brazen defiance of federal appeals is worth mentioning—a day when the focus of most Americans would not be the pipeline, but on the race for the White House.

“Dakota Access remains confident that it will receive the easement for these two strips of land adjacent to Lake Oahe in a time frame that will not result in any significant delay in proceeding with drilling activities under Lake Oahe,” read a statement from the company.

Energy Transfer noted plans to start traversing the water within two weeks in an effort to meet its end of the year construction deadlines—a signal that it has no intention to negotiate, slow down, or reroute.

“We are concerned over recent statements from DAPL,” said Col. Henderson.  In his remarks, he once again urged the pipeline company to stop construction and leave the area. “We again ask DAPL to voluntarily cease operations in this area as their absence will help reduce these tensions.”

But now that Trump has won the election and has said he would steer energy policy toward more oil production rather than less, plans to ignore the Obama administration and advance the pipeline so swiftly doesn’t seem so brazen at after all. Just prescient.

According to his Public Financial Disclosure Report, Trump disclosed between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in ETP. He also disclosed $50,000 to $100,000 in investments in Phillips 66, which would own one-quarter of the Dakota Access pipeline once complete.

Between now and January 20, 2017, when Trump is officially sworn into office, it will be up to the Obama administration—through its three agencies, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to deny the permits to Energy Transfer and Dakota Access, if the pipeline is to be halted.

“In this time of uncertainty, President Obama still has the power to give our children hope,” said Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II. In a statement today, the tribal leader described the results of last night’s election this way: “We as a country have so much work to do.”
The question now becomes: What happens after Jan. 20?

Among Trump’s campaign promises has been a vow to rescind President Obama’s key climate policies, including reviving construction of the disrupted Keystone XL pipeline. That pipeline would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. Obama eventually stepped in and stopped the Keystone, a move widely celebrated for his commitment in addressing these environmental issues.

But what separates Keystone from Dakota Access are boundaries.

Keystone is an international issue because it crosses into Canada, so the State Department has authority over the proposal, unlike the Dakota Access pipeline.

Dakota Access is entirely domestic, beginning in North Dakota and crossing South Dakota and Iowa until it reaches a plant nearly 1,200 miles away in south central Illinois. The federal government has final oversight because the pipeline crosses interstate waterways, like the Missouri River. But even then, only 3 percent of the Dakota Access pipeline crosses federal lands. It also narrowly avoids falling under tribal jurisdiction by a half-mile.

The one constant factor delaying the pipeline process is the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s assertion of its sovereign right to protect the interests of its water.

But under a Trump presidency, even this right could be under attack.

In the final months of his campaign, Native American leaders canceled a planned meeting with Trump after the then-candidate repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as “Pocahontas,” a jab about her contested claims of having Cherokee ancestry.

Trump has a history of insulting Native Americans, including tribal leaders he saw as competition for casino interests on the East Coast. “They don’t look like Indians to me,” Trump once said in a congressional hearing. Meanwhile, in 2000, Trump was fined $500,000 for financing ads that portrayed Apache tribal members as criminals in their quest to open a casino.

“This is like Andrew Jackson’s victory,” quipped Rudy Giuliani, speaking to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The former New York City mayor was jovially referencing how Trump had appeared to beat the establishment in the way Jackson did in 1827. “The people are rising up against a government they find to be dysfunctional,” he said.

But the reference to Jackson could not have been more directly aimed at Standing Rock—and all of Indian Country. Jackson’s presidential legacy was violently forcing Native peoples from their homelands.

Last week, construction reached the river. Plans call to bury the pipeline 92 feet below the river’s surface. The Missouri is the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s prime water source; 18 million other people depend on it downstream.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Trump impact on Standing Rock 11/12/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Ann Wright on Standing Rock 11/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Turning Point at Standing Rock 11/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jackson Browne vs DAPL owner 11/5/16
Democracy Now: Boycott of DAPL Owner's Music Festival
Ea O Ka Aina: World responds to NoDAPL protests 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL victory that was missed 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: DAPL hid discovery of Sioux artifacts 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Dakota Access Pipeline will leak 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Route of the Dakota Access Pipeline 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sanders calls for stopping DAPL 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama hints at DAPL rerouting 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: New military attack on NODAPL 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How to Support NoDAPL 11/3/16
Unicorn Riot: Tweets from NoDAPL 11/2/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Rock & the Ballot Box 10/31/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL reclaim new frontline 10/24/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How far will North Dakota go? 10/23/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodman "riot" charge dropped 10/17/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodwin to face "Riot Charge" 10/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Shutdown of all tar sand pipelines 10/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why Standing Rock is test for Oabama 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why we are Singing for Water 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Labor's Dakota Access Pipeline Crisis 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Firm for Standing Rock 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Contact bankers behind DAPL 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL demo at Enbridge Inc 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Militarized Police raid NoDAPL 9/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16   

.

Meltdown at Justice Department

SUBHEAD: "Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department", President Obama.

By Editorial on 1 November 2016 for The Wall Street Journal -
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/meltdown-at-justice-1477956287?mod=e2two)


Image above: Still from ABC-TV report on Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton privately aboard her plane on tarmac in Phoenix in June before Benghazi Report. From (http://www.abc15.com/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix).

Fewer than 3 out of 10 Americans trust government to do the right thing always or most of the time, Gallup reports, and the years since 2007 are “the longest period of low trust in government in more than 50 years.”

The details emerging about the multiple investigations into Hillary Clinton explain a lot about this ebbing public confidence in institutions such as the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Start with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. A cavalcade of former Justice heavyweights are now assailing FBI director James Comey for reopening the Clinton email file, and Justice sources are leaking that the director went rogue despite Ms. Lynch’s counsel not to alert Congress so close to an election.

But Mr. Comey works for the Attorney General. If she thinks Mr. Comey was breaking Justice rules by sending Friday’s letter to Congress, then she had every right to order him not do so. If Mr. Comey sent the letter anyway, and he didn’t resign, Ms. Lynch could then ask President Obama to fire him.

Our guess is that she didn’t order Mr. Comey not to send the letter precisely because she feared Mr. Comey would resign—and cause an even bigger political storm.

But the worst approach is to let a subordinate do something you believe is wrong and then whisper afterwards that you told him not to. The phrase for that is political cowardice.

Ms. Lynch’s abdication began when she and her prosecutors declined to empanel a grand jury. It continued in June after her supposedly coincidental rendezvous with Bill Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac.

She could have told Hillary Clinton’s husband that the appointment was inappropriate, or refused to let him board her plane. She says the conversation was “social,” but she allowed the ex-President to create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

“The fact that the meeting that I had is now casting a shadow over how people are going to view that work is something that I take seriously, and deeply and painfully,” Ms. Lynch conceded at an Aspen forum in July.

The Clinton campaign compounded the problem by gossiping to the press that Mrs. Clinton would keep Ms. Lynch on as AG if she wins.

Ms. Lynch also abandoned her post when Mr. Comey staged his July media event dissecting the evidence in the Clinton email case and exonerating the Democratic nominee. The FBI’s job is to build a case, not make prosecutorial decisions.

Yet Ms. Lynch later told Congress that rather than make up her own mind on the evidence she would merely “accept the recommendation of that team” at the FBI “and there was no basis not to accept it.”

Meanwhile, the Journal’s Devlin Barrett broke the news Sunday that senior Justice officials and FBI officials disagreed over how aggressively to pursue the Clinton Foundation for financial fraud and influence peddling.

FBI field agents—in New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Arkansas—wanted to pursue subpoenas and empanel a grand jury. Senior officials at Justice, likely political appointees, refused to give the FBI agents permission.

But the agents continued to investigate under their current authorities, even after Justice denied their request to read the Clinton-related emails that the national-security team had uncovered.

In August a “very pissed off” Justice official dressed down Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s second-in-command who oversaw the Clinton email investigation, for looking at the Clinton Foundation in an election year.

According to the Journal story, Mr. McCabe replied, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” The official said no, but the message down the FBI chain of command was to “stand down.”

This follows Mr. Barrett’s previous scoop that Mr. McCabe’s wife received $675,000 in campaign donations from Clinton comrade Terry McAuliffe for a Virginia legislature race.

The FBI says there was no actual conflict of interest because Mr. McCabe detached himself from his wife’s campaign, but the appearance of a conflict is egregious. Mr. McCabe should have been removed from the FBI probe.

Democrats and their media allies are now in attack-and-deflect mode, assailing the FBI agents on the Clinton cases as “conservative.”

But considering that the Journal story is the first public confirmation in the heat of election season that the Clinton Foundation is under investigation, the agents were handling the matter professionally and discreetly despite Washington interference.

All of this reveals a Justice Department and FBI in turmoil, with some agents in semi-open revolt against their political leadership. This is terrible for those institutions, for confidence in government, and for Mrs. Clinton’s ability to govern if she does win next Tuesday’s election.

These events mean she could enter the Oval Office under criminal investigation, with her right-hand aide Huma Abedin suspected of concealing evidence, and Congress investigating these compromised investigations.

The Clinton penchant for deception and secrecy bears much of the blame for this mess, but then so does the President who is currently responsible for the Justice Department.

Mr. Obama sent his own bad political message when he twice suggested in interviews, in October 2015 and April 2016, that Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured email setup did not endanger national security and that she had no ill intent.

The norm is for the chief U.S. law-enforcement officer not to comment on ongoing investigations, and Mr. Obama’s prejudgment of the legal questions may have seeped down to the rank and file.

In Mr. Obama’s April 2016 absolution of Mrs. Clinton, the President said repeatedly that “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.”

He added that “Guaranteed. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law.”

If Donald Trump wins next Tuesday, one major reason will be that the meltdown at Justice has shown how manifestly false Mr. Obama’s statements were.

.

It's Time To Bring Back Bernie

SUBHEAD: He's a candidate who can tell the difference between the truth and perception management.

By Charles Hugh Smith on 12 September 2016 for Of Two Minds -
(http://eaglenews.org/opinion/millennials-feel-the-bern/)


Image above: Bernie Sanders for President 2016 graphic still works for me. From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/lets-talk-about-bernie-sa_b_8023768.html).

This tells you everything you need to know about how Hillary will operate as President: there will be no honesty, transparency or truth, ever.

Hillary's bid for the presidency is no longer defensible; it's time to bring back Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee.

The issue isn't Hillary Clinton's health per se; what is indefensible is her response to legitimate questions of the American public regarding her health.

Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself to be President of the United States because she is incapable of telling the truth about anything. There is no such thing as truth or transparency in the Clinton persona and campaign; everything is an ongoing experiment in perception management.


First one narrative is floated; if the narrative shifts the public perception positively, it is defended to the death, and anyone questioning it is instantly accused of being a conspiracy theorist from the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that has been Hillary's favorite defense for 30 years.

If this tried-and-true attack fails, then the questioners are accused of being sexist, partisan, etc.

If the first trial balloon narrative doesn't gain public perception traction, it's quickly dropped and another explanation is unleashed on a willing-to-accept-anything-as-"fact"-from-Hillary mainstream media.

So when the "overheated" explanation in 79-degree weather doesn't get traction, then it is dropped in favor of pneumonia, which mysteriously puts most sufferers in bed but Hillary declares that she feels great.

This process of replacing explanations and narratives, interspersed with attacks on anyone who questioned the previous narrative, is repeated until the perception management result is satisfactory. Hillary is clearly incapable of honesty--the word has no meaning, because all communication is aimed at concealing or obscuring the facts of the matter and defending what is visibly indefensible as if perception management is the same as the truth. It is not the same, but Hillary is incapable of discerning the difference.

This reliance on attacking the questioner to delegitimatize what is a legitmate inquiry also disqualifies Hillary. The American public has a legitimate interest in how Hillary Clinton benefited from the Clinton Foundation's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from overseas donors during her stint as secretary of state.

The American public also has a legitimate interest in the health of presidential candidates. John F. Kennedy's poor health was masked by a compliant media in the early 1960s, but that sort of duplicity is no longer condoned. The American public wants an accurate accounting of the candidate's health.

As you view the clip of Hillary collapsing, study the body language of her multiple handlers. I'm not referring to the Secret Sevice agents; I'm referring to her private handlers and aides. Note their extreme defensiveness about anyone seeing what was happening to Hillary. Their way of propping her up doesn't look like it was the first time they had to prop her up; their actions were practiced, automatic.

They are accustomed to propping her up and masking her true condition from the public. Study the clip; it's all there, in plain view.

Their hyper-wary posture was not just an attempt to shield the candidate from anyone seeing a moment of weakness; their over-protective watchfulness for "eyes on the candidate" is 24/7. Their only job is to mask the truth of Hillary's condition, whatever it may be.

This tells you everything you need to know about how Hillary will operate as President: there will be no honesty, transparency or truth, ever. Life for Hillary boils down to managing perceptions and hiding facts--inconvenient or otherwise. This is not a campaign strategy--it is her default mode of existence, the only way she knows how to operate.

Hillary's health may or may not be decisive, but what is decisive is how she has banished honesty, truthfulness, candor and transparency. The issue for Hillary and her handlers is not the facts of her health; it's how to manage public perceptions of her health in a satisfactory manner.

We don't just need to know whether Hillary suffers from conditions beyond allergies and pneumonia.

What counts most is whether she is capable of being honest, forthright and truthful about legitimate, important issues. She has clearly proven that she is incapable of being honest and truthful about anything, very likely because she cannot distinguish between plain, simple truth and perception management.

Let's be honest for a moment, and confess that this is a character flaw that disqualifies the candidate from holding office. The last two presidents who saw their job as hiding the truth and managing perceptions were Richard Nixon during the Watergate era, and Lyndon Johnson during the War on Vietnam.

Attacking every legitimate inquiry as a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is not governance; it's a paranoia and distrust of the American public that leads inexorably to catastrophes like Watergate and wars of choice that drag on as the bodies and lies pile up.

It's time to bring back Bernie Sanders, a candidate who can tell the difference between the truth and perception management, someone who isn't an embarrassment to the nation.

I understand that Hillary's coronation as Head of the Deep State has already been scheduled by the Powers That Be, but that doesn't mean we too must lose the ability to differentiate between the truth and perception management.

.

Mainstream journalism for sale

SUBHEAD: The Atlantic and Economist are selling editorial interviews to lobbyists at DNC and RNC.

By April M. Short on 2 July 2016 for Alternet.org -
(http://www.alternet.org/media/big-political-news-outlets-are-selling-interviews-and-editorial-coverage-lobbyists-dnc-and-rnc)


Image above: Clinton and cover story from The National Enquirer. From (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-scandals-secrets-affairs-bill-coverup/).

In case you still had faith in the political media machine's integrity, several big outlets have cleared that misconception right up for you. They’ve decided to offer news interviews up for sale at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

This means these outlets not even trying to hide their sleaze anymore. As Lee Fang wrote in a July 1 article for The Intercept, which broke the story:

“For high-rolling special interests looking to make an impression at the presidential conventions next month, one option is to pay a lot of money to a media outlet. Lobbyists for the oil industry, for instance, are picking up the tab for leading Beltway publications to host energy policy discussions at the convention, including The Atlantic and Politico.

And for the right price, some political media outlets are even offering special interviews with editorial staffers and promotional coverage at the convention.”

The Hill newspaper, for example, is sponsoring events at both party conventions and is promising its sponsors who pay $200,000 convention interviews with The Hill editorial staffers for “up to three named executives or organization representatives of your choice,” according to a brochure obtained by The Intercept.

“These interviews are pieces of earned media and will be hosted on a dedicated page on thehill.com and promoted across The Hill’s digital and social media channels,” the brochure promises.

The Hill ignored The Intercept’s inquiries, Fang wrote.

Fang's article mentionsThe Economist and its subsidiary CQ Roll Callas having similar deals on the table.

Even for big media, this is a slimy new low. These once-journalistic news organizations are undeniably morphing into paid advertising and PR for the 1-percenter corporations and billionaires who control the political lobby.

People who care even a little bit about the importance of journalistic integrity, or the checks and balances of the press—which are a necessary piece of any healthy democracy—should immediately boycott any news organization willing to stoop this low. This kind of behavior erases the already-too-fuzzy line between the news media and the moneyed class's greedy interests.

Maybe you aren’t shocked by this new low because this is simply a blatant version of what you already knew has been going on behind the scenes for years—but still. That they are so brazen about it is terrifying.

What does it say about the state of the press when these well-known, long-time trusted publications are straight-up going, "Hey, rich people: ever wanted to buy off a journalist? Now's your chance!"

It's upsetting on a whole new level.

You can read the full Intercept article here.

.

Empire of Lies

SUBHEAD: We can say that nothing new can be born without the death of something... and that all births are painful but necessary.


By Ugo Bardi on 8 February 2016 for Cassandra's Legacy-
(http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-empire-of-lies.html)


Image above: The period of the  so-called “late” Roman Empire of 220 A.D. to the 600’offers significant lessons in how not to manage the army of a great power. From (http://cimsec.org/lessons-late-roman-army/11667).

At the beginning of the 5th century AD, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, wrote his "De Mendacio" ("On Lying"). Reading it today, we may be surprised at how rigid and strict Augustine was in his conclusions. A Christian, according to him, could not lie in any circumstances whatsoever; not even to save lives or to avoid suffering for someone.

The suffering of the material body, said Augustine, is nothing; what's important is one's immortal soul. Later theologians substantially softened these requirements, but there was a logic in Augustine's stance if we consider his times: the last century of the Western Roman Empire.

By the time of Augustine, the Roman Empire had become an Empire of lies. It still pretended to uphold the rule of law, to protect the people from the Barbarian invaders, to maintain the social order.

But all that had become a bad joke for the citizens of an empire by then reduced to nothing more than a giant military machine dedicated to oppressing the poor in order to maintain the privilege of the few.

The Empire itself had become a lie: that it existed because of the favor of the Gods who rewarded the Romans because of their moral virtues. Nobody could believe in that anymore: it was the breakdown of the very fabric of society; the loss of what the ancient called the auctoritas, the trust that citizens had toward their leaders and the institutions of their state.

Auguistine was reacting to all this. He was trying to rebuild the "auctoritas", not in the form of mere authoritarianism of an oppressive government, but in the form of trust. So, he was appealing to the highest authority of all, God himself.

He was also building his argument on the prestige that the Christians had gained at a very high price with their martyrs. And not just that. In his texts, and in particular in his "Confessions" Augustine was opening himself completely to his readers; telling them all of his thoughts and his sins in minute details. It was, again, a way to rebuild trust by showing that one had no hidden motives. And he had to be strict in his conclusions. He couldn't leave any openings that would permit the Empire of Lies to return.

Augustine and other early Christian fathers were engaged, first of all, in an epistemological revolution. Paulus of Tarsus had already understood this point when he had written: "now we see as in a mirror, darkly, then we'll see face to face."

It was the problem of truth; how to see it? How to determine it?

In the traditional view, truth was reported by a witness who could be trusted. The Christian epistemology started from that, to build up the concept of truth as the result divine revelation. The Christians were calling God himself as witness. It was a spiritual and philosophical vision, but also a very down-to-earth one.

Today, we would say that the Christians of late Roman times were engaged in "relocalization", abandoning the expensive and undefendable structures of the old Empire to rebuild a society based on local resources and local governance.

The age that followed, the Middle Ages, can be seen as a time of decline but it was, rather, a necessary adaptation to the changed economic conditions of the late Empire. Eventually, all societies must come to terms with Truth.

The Western Roman Empires as a political and military structure could not do that, It had to disappear, as it was unavoidable.

Now, let's move forward to our times and we have reached our empire of lies. On the current situation, I don't think I have to tell you anything that you don't already know.

During the past few decades, the mountain of lies tossed at us by governments has been perfectly matched by the disastrous loss of trust in our leaders on the part of citizens.

When the Soviets launched their first orbiting satellite, the Sputnik, in 1957, nobody doubted that it was for real and the reaction in the West was to launch their own satellites.

Today, plenty of people even deny that the US sent men to the moon in the 1960s. They may be ridiculed, they may be branded as conspiracy theorists, sure, but they are there.

Perhaps the watershed of this collapse of trust was with the story of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that we were told were hidden in Iraq. It was not their first, nor it will be their last, lie. But how can you ever trust an institution that lied to you so brazenly? (and that continue to do so?)

Today, every statement from a government, or from an even remotely "official" source, seems to generate a parallel and opposite statement of denial. Unfortunately, the opposite of a lie is not necessarily the truth, and that has originated baroque castles of lies, counter-lies, and counter-counter lies. Think of the story of the 9/11 attacks in New York.

Somewhere, hidden below the mass of legends and myths that have piled up on this story, there has to be the truth; some kind of truth. But how to find it when you can't trust anything you read on the Web?

Or think of peak oil. At the simplest level of conspiratorial interpretation, peak oil can be seen as a reaction to the lies of oil companies that hide the depletion of their resources. But you may also see peak oil as a scam created by oil companies that try to hide the fact that their resources are actually abundant - even infinite in the diffuse legend of "abiotic oil".

But, for others, the idea that peak oil is a scam created in order to hide abundance may be a higher order scam created in order to hide scarcity. Eve higher order conspiracy theories are possible. It is a fractal universe of lies, where you have no reference point to tell you where you are.

Eventually, it is a problem of epistemology. The same that goes back to Pontius Pilate's statement "what is truth?" Where are we supposed to find truth in our world?

Perhaps in science?

But science is rapidly becoming a marginal sect of people who mumble of catastrophes to come. People whom nobody believes any longer after they failed to deliver their promises of energy too cheap to meter, space travel, and flying cars.

Then, we tend to seek it in such things as "democracy" and to believe that a voting majority somehow defines "truth". But democracy has become a ghost of itself: how can citizens make an informed choice after that we discovered the concept that we call "perception management" (earlier on called "propaganda")?

Going along a trajectory parallel to that of the ancient Romans, we haven't yet arrived at having a semi-divine emperor residing in Washington D.C., considered by law to be the repository of divine truth. And we aren't seeing yet a new religion taking over and expelling the old ones. At present, the reaction against the official lies takes mostly the form of what we call "conspiratorial attitude."

Although widely despised, conspirationism is not necessarily wrong; conspiracies do exist and much of the misinformation that spreads over the web must be created by someone who is conspiring against us.

The problem is that conspirationism is not a form of epistemology. Once you have decided that everything you read is part of the great conspiracy, then you have locked yourself in an epistemological box and thrown away the key. And, like Pilate, you can only ask "what is truth?", but you will never find it.

Is it possible to think of an "epistemology 2.0" that would allow us to regain trust on the institutions and on our fellow human beings?

Possibly, yes but, right now, we are seeing as in a mirror, darkly. Something is surely stirring, out there; but it has not yet taken a recognizable shape. Maybe it will be a new ideal, maybe a revisitation of an old religion, maybe a new religion, maybe a new way of seeing the world.

We cannot say which form the new truth will take, but we can say that nothing new can be born without the death of something.

And that all births are painful but necessary.

.

Freedom to Flack

SUBHEAD: In America we've been taught to think we are free. Free to buy whatever the flacks tell us to buy.

By Juan Wilson on 12 March 2015 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2015/03/freedom-to-flak.html)


Image above: Slightly modified detail of cover of book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You". From (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/pr-flack-randal-simonetti-sells-conflict).

Two recent articles in the Garden Island News caught my attention in the last couple of days. One was an article on Monday titled "GMOs and the right to know" by Chris D'Angelo. He opens with

"Some, including the Department of Health, say a state law requiring genetically engineered foods to be labeled would be costly, and the task of making sure a food has or doesn’t have such traits is next to impossible."

The DOH says it would take millions of dollars of equipment and training to guarantee the DNA content of any food as GMO free. I wonder when the last time the Hawaii DOH did a molecular analysis of the ingredients of anything. According to the movie "Food Inc." the modern American supermarket has on average 47,000 products.

I can't quite see the DOH having the capability or responsibility of analyzing 47K products for truth in packaging. I mean getting in there and determining the molecular/chemical breakdown of everything from a carton Coffeemate Sugar Free French Vanilla dairy creamer to a bag of Lay's Wasabe Ginger Kettle Cooked potato-chips to dsee if the listed ingredients matched the what was in the product?

Creamer Ingredients: from Walmart
Water, Coconut Oil, Maltodextrin, Sodium Caseinate (A Milk Derivative)**, Sugar, Mono- And Diglycerides, Dipotassium Phosphate, Natural And Artificial Flavors, Sucralose, Acesulfame Potassium (Non-Nutritive Sweetner), Artificial Colors. Contains Milk Derivatives. **Not A Source of Lactose.

Chips Ingredients: from Walmart
Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Corn, And/Or Canola Oil), Wasabi Ginger Seasoning (Sugar, Maltodextrin [Made from Corn], Brown Sugar, Salt, Soy Sauce [Soybeans, Wheat, Salt], Spices [Including Ginger], Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Natural Flavor, Citric Acid, Gum Arabic, Yeast Extract, Medium Chain Triglycerides, Caramel Color, Horseradish, Sunflower Oil, And Wasabi). Contains Wheat And Soy Ingredients.

By the way, if you are looking for specs on packaged food check out Walmarts.com. They often identify if a product is GMO free and they seem to list ingredients consistently.

My point is that all the public has voted to see is what the food processing companies say is in their packages. They do it now for everything imaginable down to fractions of a percent of contents. Why not tell us if there is genetically modified organisms in our food? I'll tell you why - sales of those products might go down in favor of products not genetically modified.

Moreover, once one a major state (read California) enacts a GMO labeling law the food processing corporations will have to decide if they are going to produce unique labels for only one state's requirement or just bite the bullet and go national. It's really all or nothing for those using GMO ingredients.

For many people it's not even the idea of DNA manipulation so much as the necessary application of pesticides (read RoundUp) to the plants so that they can grow.

The whining and bitching by the DOH representative sounds like the work done by flacks for the big-ag GMO companies. And maybe one day they will be lucky enough to qualify as professional flacks.

Our public servants do have access to the spoils through the corporate revolving door: Note West Hawaii Today reports longtime Kauai County spokewoman Beth Tokioka is going to join Syngenta later this month. It tells you which side her bread was buttered on.

Unnecessary Arrests

SUBHEAD: The sun is still out and everything is fine after arrests drop by two-thirds in NYC.

By Jon Queally on 4 January 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/01/sun-still-out-and-everything-after-arrests-drop-two-thirds-nyc)


Image above: Some police officers turn their backs as Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks during the funeral of NYPD Officer Wenjian Liu on Jan. 4, 2015 in the Brooklyn borough of New York. (From (http://abc7chicago.com/news/mayor-eulogizes-nypd-officer-as-cops-outside-turn-backs-again/461296/).

If angered NYPD can so dramatically reduce arrests and citations, many are suggesting it could offer an ironic path to better policing nationwide.

Earlier this week, responding to initial news reports that the New York Police Department had drastically reduced the number of arrests and citations following the murder of two of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on December 20, New York-based journalist and radio host Allison Kilkenny took to Twitter and noted, "Arrests plummeted 66% but I just looked outside and nothing is on fire and the sun is still out and everything. Weird."

What has been largely reported as a "virtual work stoppage" by NYPD officers as a result of a perceived lack of support coming from the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio, the internal turmoil between City Hall and the police stemmed from the interplay between ongoing street protests in the city that followed the non-indictment of Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the choking death of Eric Garner and public comments made by the mayor in support of those protests.

When the man who killed officers Liu and Ramos appeared cite revenge for Garner's death as part of his motivation, many officers—including union heads and leaders of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association—quickly put the blame on de Blasio for creating what they called an "anti-police" atmosphere.

Though the public debate over the relationship between City Hall and the NYPD has seemingly started to cool, many people are now looking at the "work stoppage" itself—which reportedly resulted in drastic reductions in arrests, citations, and even parking tickets—as rather positive evidence that a city with less arrests may be something to celebrate, not criticize.

Writing for Rolling Stone on Wednesday, journalist Matt Taibbi described the situation in the city as "surreal," but noted positively that, "In an alternate universe, the New York Police might have just solved the national community-policing controversy."

In his article, Taibbi explores that if the police protest was done for "enlightened reasons"—as opposed to what he described as "the last salvo of an ongoing and increasingly vicious culture-war mess that is showing no signs of abating"—there would be something wonderful about living in a city that called on officers to prioritize building-up community members instead of finding ways to put officers "in the position of having to make up for budget shortfalls" by issuing unnecessary fines and citations to people who can barely afford to make ends meet in the first place.

"If I were a police officer, I'd hate to be taking money from people all day long," Taibbi writes. "Christ, that's worse than being a dentist. So under normal circumstances, this slowdown wouldn't just make sense, it would be heroic.  Unfortunately, this protest is not about police refusing to shake people down for money on principle."

But as Matt Ford asks in a new piece for The Atlantic, the stoppage—whatever its motivation—still raises this key question: "If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?"

The "human implications" of that question, he continues, are not insignificant, especially for those most impacted by aggressive forms of policing. He writes:

Fewer arrests for minor crimes logically means fewer people behind bars for minor crimes. Poorer would-be defendants benefit the most; three-quarters of those sitting in New York jails are only there because they can't afford bail. Fewer New Yorkers will also be sent to Rikers Island, where endemic brutality against inmates has led to resignations, arrests, and an imminent federal civil-rights intervention over the past six months. A brush with the American criminal-justice system can be toxic for someone's socioeconomic and physical health.

The NYPD might benefit from fewer unnecessary arrests, too. Tensions between the mayor and the police unions originally intensified after a grand jury failed to indict a NYPD officer for the chokehold death of Eric Garner during an arrest earlier this year.

Garner's arrest wasn't for murder or arson or bank robbery, but on suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes—hardly the most serious of crimes. Maybe the NYPD's new "absolutely necessary" standard for arrests would have produced a less tragic outcome for Garner then. Maybe it will for future Eric Garners too.

Concluding his assessment, Taibbi describes what he thinks are the two issues that are central to what's happening in New York City and their relevance to a much broader conversation about race, policing, and other public policy questions for the nation as a whole. He writes:

One is an ongoing bitter argument about race and blame that won't be resolved in this country anytime soon, if ever. Dig a millimeter under the surface of the Garner case, Ferguson, the Liu-Ramos murders, and you'll find vicious race-soaked debates about who's to blame for urban poverty, black crime, police violence, immigration, overloaded prisons and a dozen other nightmare issues.

But the other thing is a highly specific debate over a very resolvable controversy not about police as people, but about how police are deployed. Most people, and police most of all, agree that the best use of police officers is police work.

They shouldn't be collecting backdoor taxes because politicians are too cowardly to raise them, and they shouldn't be pre-emptively busting people in poor neighborhoods because voters don't have the patience to figure out some other way to deal with our dying cities.

However, what Taibbi ultimately laments is that because the work stoppage, in his opinion, represents a self-interested gesture by the NYPD it will likely have little, if any, long-term impact.
Instead of shining a light on the broader issues he mentioned, Taibbi says, it will unfortunately be "just more fodder for our ongoing hate-a-thon" that plays out on cable news and elsewhere.

Sardonically, Taibbi signed off, "Happy New Year, America."

See also:
These are the articles that got me fired as a TGI columnist back in 2008.
Island Breath: The Nature of Police Patrolling 6/7/2008
Island Breath: The Kauai Police Department  Mission 5/18/2008
These are the articles that led to the ones above.
Island Breath: Kauai police need bikes not riot gear 4/5/08
Island Breath: Lingle Plan for Police State 09/22/07

.

Tepco under reporting of radiation

SUBHEAD: Fukushima operator to review its massive erroneous radiation data. What a surprise!

By Staff on 9 February 2014 for NHK -
(http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140209_80.html)


Image above: Photo looking into Fukushima Well No. 1-2 showing water gushing in behind iron gate directly from Reactor #2 on 4/5/11. At that time water at the crack, outside the pit: 5.2 million becquerels/cubic centimeter of iodine-131. From (http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/07/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-radioactive.html).

The operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has decided to review radiation data after finding the initial readings may be much lower than actual figures.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says it has detected a record high 5 million becquerels per liter of radioactive strontium in groundwater collected last July from one of the wells close to the ocean.

That's more than 160,000 times the state standard for radioactive wastewater normally released into the sea.

Based on the result, levels of radioactive substances that emit beta particles are estimated to be 10 million becquerels per liter, which is more than 10 times the initial reading.
TEPCO initially said it had detected 900,000 becquerels per liter of beta-emitting substances.

The utility attributes the error to the improper measuring method that had been used until last October. It says the readings of radioactivity can be measured as being lower than they actually are in the highly contaminated water.

TEPCO plans to review other data measured with the improper method, including the radiation level of around 300 tons of waste water that leaked from a storage tank in August.

An initial test of the leaked water found it contained up to 80-million becquerels per liter of beta-emitting substances, including strontium.

---

Tepco admits error 7 months late

By Arevamipal on 7 February 2014 for EXSKF -
(http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/02/fukushima-i-npp-tepco-admits-error-7.html) 

It may not just be about groundwater samples along the embankment. All the high-density all-beta/strontium analyses done at Fukushima I NPP, including the analyses of all-beta/strontium in the RO (reverse osmosis) waste water, may be wrong. Or TEPCO says they "cannot deny the possibility that the analyses were wrong." (from a tweet by @jaikoman who tweets just about every single TEPCO and NRA press conference)

Jiji Tsushin just reported the same thing. The information is from the press conference on February 7, 2014.

For more information about the RO waste water leak of August 2013, go to this link. Of that, strontium-90 alone turned out to be 5 million Bq/L.

The reason (excuse)? Wrong measurement method used.

Or something to that extent that even people who know a lot about nuclide analysis are scratching their heads trying to figure out how that happened.

Yomiuri Shinbun has the best summary of the situation (2/7/2014):

On February 6, TEPCO announced that 5 million Bq/Liter of radioactive strontium was detected from the groundwater sample taken on June 5 last year from one of the observation wells on the embankment of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant [the embankment is located between the turbine buildings and the plant harbor].

The density is 160,000 times that of the legal limit for release into the ocean, and it is about 1,000 times that of the highest density in the groundwater that had been measured so far (5,100 Bq/L). TEPCO didn't disclose the result of measurement of strontium alone, as the company believed there was a possibility that the result of measurement was wrong.

As to this particular sample, TEPCO had announced on July last year that the sample had contained 900,000 Bq/L of all-beta including strontium. On February 6, TEPCO explained that they had "underestimated all of the results of high-density all-beta, which [in fact] exceeded the upper limit of measurement." This particular sample may contain about 10 million Bq/L of all-beta, according to TEPCO. The company recently switched to a different method of analysis that uses diluted samples when the density of radioactive materials is high.

So this is the lowdown of the case of strontium more abundant than all-beta, all thanks to the faulty measurement by TEPCO.

Browsing through the documents released by TEPCO, the particular observation hole was No.1-2, which is no longer used as the result of waterglass injection into the soil in the embankment. It is close to where the extremely contaminated water from Reactor 2 turbine building had been found leaking in April 2011 (via the underground electrical trenches).

From TEPCO's document for the press (2/6/2014; English label is by me), the location of No.1-2 observation hole:

TEPCO inserted the newly disclosed 5 million Bq/L for strontium-90 but the number for all-beta remains uncorrected, at 900,000 Bq/L (which TEPCO now says 10 million Bq/L instead):

10,000,000 Bq/L of all-beta, or 10,000 Bq/cubic centimeter of all-beta. That's the same order of magnitude of all-beta in the water that gets contaminated after circulating through the reactors (see my September 2013 post), but the levels of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in this sample water is too low for this water to be the contaminated water that is currently circulating the reactors.

.

KIUC hanky panky

SUBHEAD: After agreement with concerned co-op members, KIUC balks and rewords ballot on charges for no Smart Meter.

By Jonanthan Jay on 15 January 2013 in Island Breath -
(INSERT_LINK_BETWEEN_PARENTHESES)


Image above: Example of utility company customer who chose to opt out of a Smart Meter. From (http://marylandsmartmeterawareness.org/smart-meter-news/california-cheney-residents-move-to-remove-smart-meters/).

Just so all of you know, even thought KIUC has not announced it yet, the closing date for the special ballot, the due-date for the ballots and the subsequent counting of the ballots will be the 4th Saturday in January, the 25th, 2014.

However, this is an email I received from KIUC on Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 3:58 PM, from Jim Kelly :

Aloha Jonathan:

The agenda for the Tuesday meeting has been posted at http://website.kiuc.coop/content/board-meetings along with the ballot wording proposed by the board.

Jim Kelly
Communications Manager
Kauai Island Utility Cooperative
(jkelly@kiuc.coop)
Tel: (808) 246-4308
Cell: (808) 635-2681
Fax: (808) 246-8257

As a result some bad news to report:  It turns out our initial meeting with KIUC about the ballot language was a farce, and KIUC simply do what they wish.  When we sat down, with KIUC officials in a private meeting three weeks ago to hammer out the initial ballot language, we wanted a ballot that was:

1) sim­ple,
2) easy to under­stand,
3) nar­rowly focused on the action the board took to approve new fees, and
4) to say what those new fees were.

What KIUC originally agreed to was three out of those four.  Zero enumeration of the fees was included.  At the Public Meeting on Monday night, KIUC Management heard numerous testimony from people calling for the full figure of the fees to be included on the ballot.

However, KIUC has moved backward on the ballot language, and included little of what was requested.  Once again, KIUC is demonstrating they  know little to nothing of what a fair election looks like.  Click here to see how they have moved firmly to stack the deck of the ballot language:

http://kauai.coopwebbuilder.com/sites/kauai.coopwebbuilder.com/files/2013-1217-specialmeetingnotice.pdf

The very language that we originally objected to - and they agreed with - is BACK IN!  The language we requested - that they enumerate the fees - is MOSTLY ABSENT!  And now they have even introduced a hypothetical  "could" onto the ballot, all to try to steer the outcome of the election.  That is not what democracy looks like!

Danny asked me that Monday night what recourse we might have if KIUC management did exactly what we feared....  Since the rules that KIUC wrote give them the 'sole discretion' to determine the ballot language, it might appear we have NO recourse.  But I think we can do better than standing dumbly by.  What say YOU to this challenge?

We must rise and not let this go unanswered!
 
KIUC management will do whatever they damn well please, then they will go through the motions of pretending to listen, hearing only what they wish... what supports what they are gonna do anyway.  we delude ourselves to think otherwise.  only by acting off-script can we hope to entangle them into a substantially different narrative, because they have set up the game and rigged it to win.  the bias of the ballot is a perfect example of this.

This is my response concerning change of wording of the ballot:

Aloha Jim Kelly,

 I have several questions for you regarding the biased new ballot language KIUC management has unilaterally crafted and posted online for the agenda of the 5pm meeting on Dec 17th:

1)   Who exactly was party to the crafting of this new language?
2)   How were these choices made?
3)   Why does the ballot now include an 'endorsement' from the PUC for the new fees?
4)   Why is there language back on the ballot that was already rejected by the joint Committees of the Board and Petitioners?
5)   Why is there now a hypothetical "could..." scenario attached to the NO choice on the ballot?
6)   Why does is the ballot question now cluttered with extraneous information not necessary to a YES/NO vote on the new fees?
7)   Why is only the lowest of the new fees included in the ballot? What about the $50.64 and the $138.80 set up fees for residential and business accounts?
8)   Why did KIUC management bother to bargain in such bad faith with the Petition drafters, if you were intent on unilaterally drafting your own ballot language ?
9)   Why does KIUC management feel it has to bias the wording of the ballot in order to get the desired vote outcome?
10) Why is KIUC so afraid of a fair, balanced and neutral ballot?
11)  Will KIUC allow an agreed upon neutral third party like the Oahu League of Women's Voters to arbitrate the questions of bias about this ballot?

I am sure I am not the only person who would like to hear the answers to these questions. Perhaps there are many readers of our island's newspaper of record who would also like to get some clarity, transparency and accountability from our utility cooperative.

Mahalo for your considered attention in this matter,

jonathan jay
(jjkauai@gmail.com)
www.p2pKauai.org

Below is an example of testimony that is being sent to KIUC from its co-op members  who opposed to smart meters:

Aloha KIUC Board Members and to all concerned,

As you are all aware, many KIUC members have opted out of having a wireless smart meter at their home or business. As I work on this issue I hear from many people, here in Kaua'i and the world over who have decided to take this action as there are serious privacy and health issues with a wireless smart meter system.

I know that smart meters were made attractive to utilities as part of the economic stimulus package and that the main purpose for this program was in fact to stimulate the economy and not to save energy. I know this because smart meters do not actually save any energy. Any projected energy savings from a smart meter is based on rate payers changing their behavior because they have more potential for monitoring their energy use. However, most rate payers are unlikely to take this path and therefore the forcing of smart meters on every home and business is for the most part a waste of our money - both taxes from the stimulus and in increased costs as we are forced to pay for the installation, upkeep and analysis of a wireless smartmeter system.

KIUC knows this too. However you have chosen to pretend that all is well in this system and that is likely due to the fact that as rate payers move to using less energy and to installing their own renewable energy, utilities profit lines are dropping. The data that is collected from smart meters and the wireless mesh networks set up by utilities are both potential money making gambits. I know that KIUC currently says they will not sell rate payer data, however KIUC policies can change at any moment. As we have seen with the rushed special board meeting where KIUC decided to apply to the PUC for a tariff on the rate payers who opted out of smart meters, KIUC board often makes hasty decisions which seem for all purposes designed to limit membership input.

Do you all really consider yourselves part of a coop? It does not appear so.

I suspect that the reason KIUC applied to the PUC for a rate tariff is due to the fact that KIUC knows that people are learning of the dangers of wireless radiation emitted by smart meters and other devices. As this knowledge grows more people will opt out of having an uncontrollable emitter on their homes.

The fees for those who opt out are punitive. KIUC is a coop and coops share costs. They do not create separate classes of rate payers. I know that members of our community have shared information on the harm from the Class 2B possibly carcinogenic microwaves emitted by smart meters to you. (Same category as lead, DDT and gasoline fumes.) - http://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/iarc-cell-phone-radiation-possible-human-carcinogen

You have chosen to ignore this information. Even further you have chosen to misrepresent to the members on this issue. You perform a great disservice to our community as more and more people start to suffer from the ever increasing electrosmog created by wireless device on top of wireless device.

It is clear that the only true recourse here is for KIUC to apply to the PUC to recall the tariff on rate payers who opt out. We all know that this member ballot is a sham as KIUC has informed us that even if the members vote to overturn the board's actions the opt out fee is not a law and the board may not break this law.

So I ask that you do the right thing. Apply to the PUC to recall the tariff. Put the truth out to our community about the dangers of wireless radiation. You have been sent the links before, but just start with posting the BioInitiative Report 2012 - http://www.bioinitiative.org - which evaluated over 1,800 studies on microwave exposure from the last five years alone.

As you know this report, put together by 29 experts in the field of microwave exposure and biological effects calls for a halt to wireless smart meters. Another item to include for our community is the comparison of a smart meter to a cell phone. These are two very different types of exposure. A cell phone typically has very high near field exposure, which is implicated in brain cancer, hence the Class 2B carcinogen classificiation.

However the Internal Agency on Research for Cancer, IARC, made it clear that the cancer risk is not limited to cell phone exposure, but is applicable to all wireless devices which emit in the microwave frequency band. The whole body exposure from a smart meter which can never be turned off is much higher than the exposure from a phone which can be turned off or every left in the car overnight.

This issue is not going away. As public knowledge grows there will be a call for accountability. KIUC cannot plead ignorance. You realize that children are suffering. I saw one poor mother at the last hearing sharing the suffering her child has endured to a smart meter.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has also called for a halt to wireless smart meters. They recently issued a press release on a study that considered 92 case studies of people who have been injured by smart meters. The stories in this study are repeated the world over. People who had no idea wireless radiation could harm them. People who suddenly found themselves suffering from insomnia, headaches, heart arrhythmias, ringing in the ears and dizziness after a smart meter was installed on their homes - http://www.aaemonline.org/docs/smcs/pdf

The numbers of people who have overt symptoms from wireless radiation is sure to grow. Imagine being in sunlight. 5 minutes, half an hour is no problem for most. But as exposure lengthens more and more people will suffer an adverse reaction. And after this adverse reaction they will find that they must avoid future sun exposure until their body recovers.

Well a smart meter on a home is basically 24/7 exposure. There is no time for recovery. This leads to a collapse in health. People will not allow this assault on their health to continue. It is in KIUCs and our communities best interest to either reject the smart meter system in its entirety or to more to a fiber to the home grid where the individual home owner/business owner can then choose if they want to allow a wireless option in their home. If KIUC is genuine in its desire to create a more sustainable world this is the action it will take.

Mahalo for your attention to this matter. I know that it is hard to turn things around once such a huge mistake has been made, but it is the best course for all of us.

 Angela Flynn

.

Yukimura sells soul to Devil

SUBHEAD: Councilwoman opines that deferral does not necessarily mean killing Bill 2491.

By JoAnn Yukimura on 15 October 2013 in the Garden Island -
(http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/guest/deferral-could-possibly-forward-bill/article_53b050c4-35d6-11e3-9a0b-0019bb2963f4.html)


Image above: Joann Yukimura with the Devil in a detail from "The Devil Presenting St. Augustine with the Book of Vices, oil on wood by Michael Pacher. Mashup by Juan Wilson. Click to enlarge.

[IB Publisher note: I watched JoAnn grilling those who testified in favor of passing the bill. She was not listening to their testimony but arguing with them to consider that it might be better to defer the bill so it wouldn't be vetoed by mayor Carvalho or rejected by the state. No one subjected to this line of questions bit on her bait. Finally, after a comment by Gary Hooser, Chair Jay Furaro asked her to stop that line of dialog with those who testified. Considering her moves on this bill I have to say: Joann, as a council member you are dead to me. To hell with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the US Environmental Protection Agency. We will move this mountain from here on Kauai... just as we did with the Superferry... and we won't be polite about it. We'll walk over you to do it if necessary. The following is JoAnn's opinion piece in the Garden Island. ]

Opinion by Joann Yukimura
Many citizens were impatient and angry when Bill 2491 was deferred at the first committee meeting on August 5. “Just pass the bill!!” people cried, condemning the councilmembers who voted for deferral for being “against the bill.” In retrospect, that was jumping to conclusions.

If the council had done as was demanded, we would have a bill that provides for annual, rather than weekly, pesticide use disclosures and an EIS that would cost a million-plus dollars without providing the data or community buy-in that we really need.

Or, Bill 2491 might be dead by now. I believe the amendments proposed by Council Vice Chair Nakamura and me have kept the bill alive by strengthening certain provisions and focusing on the areas that have the most community consensus — i.e. pesticide disclosure, buffers and the need for a well-conducted study.

Another deferral could strengthen our efforts once more.

Let me explain the possibility.

State law says:

“Notwithstanding any law, rule, or executive order to the contrary, the chairperson of the board of agriculture, in consultation with the advisory committee on pesticides and also with the approval of the director of health, shall suspend, cancel or restrict the use of certain pesticides or specific uses of certain pesticides when the usage is determined to have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” — HRS 149A-32.5

This provision could be very reasonably interpreted as an express preemption that prohibits county government from regulating pesticides. I have said, however, that we should go to court to find out what the law is. But the situation is not a slam dunk. What if the courts find preemption? Then where will we be after all this effort and agony?

Working with the Department of Agriculture over the next two months could give us a contingency plan to effectuate the law in the fastest way possible. If we get the Department of Agriculture to work with us, we might avoid preemption because they are allowed under state law to have cooperative agreements with other entities.

Or if — because the mayor and council are united in requesting their cooperation and the Kauai legislators have expressed their concerns — we secure their understanding of the urgency of this issue and their commitment through a memorandum of agreement (MOA), then if the courts find preemption, the Department of Agriculture will already be committed to work on this issue. They could adopt the provisions of Bill 2491, or something similar, into their rules and take it from there, with all of us watching. There are no guarantees, but we don’t know unless we try.

Unless a majority of the County Council and Mayor Carvalho commit to passing and enforcing Bill 2491 in two months, I will not vote for a deferral. If, however, we have a commitment to pass a bill at the end of two months if a memorandum of agreement to implement the provisions of Bill 2491 is not signed by then, it might be wise to give that option a try.

.

Black Hat heckles NSA head

SUBHEAD: NSA director heckled at Black Hat conference as he asks for security community's understanding.

By Andy Greenberg on 31 July 2013 fo Forbes -
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/31/nsa-director-heckled-at-conference-as-he-asks-for-security-communitys-understanding/)


Image above: From ().

When NSA Director Keith Alexander appeared at the Las Vegas security conference Black Hat Wednesday morning, he hoped to mend the NSA’s reputation in the eyes of thousands of the conference’s hackers and security professionals. It didn’t go exactly as planned.

Alexander was about a half hour into his talk when a 30-year-old security consultant named Jon McCoy shouted “Freedom!”

“Exactly,” responded Alexander. “We stand for freedom.”

“Bullshit!” McCoy shouted.

“Not bad,” Alexander said, as applause broke out in the crowd. “But I think what you’re saying is that in these cases, what’s the distinction, where’s the discussion and what tools do we have to stop this.”

“No, I’m saying I don’t trust you!” shouted McCoy.

“You lied to Congress. Why would people believe you’re not lying to us right now?” another voice in the crowd added.

“I haven’t lied to Congress,” Alexander responded, visibly tensing. “I do think it’s important for us to have this discussion. Because in my opinion, what you believe is what’s written in the press without looking at the facts. This is the greatest technical center of gravity in the world. I ask that you all look at those facts.”

Alexander’s talk had begun with a plea for the hacker and security researcher community to reconsider the NSA’s role in the wake of a still-unfolding scandal revealed by the classified leaks of former Booz Allen contractor Edward Snowden. “Their reputation has been tarnished,” he said, speaking of his NSA staff. “But you can help us articulate the facts properly. I will answer every question to the fullest extent possible, and I promise you the truth: What I know, what we’re doing, and what I cannot tell you because we don’t want to jeopardize the future of our defense.”

Alexander’s talk focused on the oversight placed on the NSA by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which must approve the NSA’s surveillance in any case where it might target Americans. The FISC, which hears the NSA’s arguments without any opposing counsel, has been accused of offering negligible oversight of the Agency’s work. The FISC stated in April that it had received 1,789 applications for electronic surveillance, of which 1,748 others were approved without changes and only one was withdrawn.

“I’ve heard the court is a rubber stamp. I’m on the other end of that table, against that table of judges that don’t take any—I’m trying to think of a word here—from even a four-star general. They want to make sure what we’re doing comports with the constitution and the law,” Alexander said. “I can tell you from the wire brushings I’ve received, they are not a rubber stamp.”

Alexander also cited a Congressional inquiry into the NSA that found no evidence that it had engaged in any illegal use of its spying powers. But the NSA has come under continued Congressional scrutiny, including in a hearing Wednesday morning in which the Senate Judiciary committee grilled members of the intelligence community, including NSA deputy director John Inglis, over the mass collection of Americans’ cell phone records. Also Wednesday morning, the Guardian published new documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealing yet another NSA program known as XKeyScore, a tool that allows the broad search of millions of individuals’ emails and browsing history.

In his Black Hat talk, the four-star general presented a timeline of terrorist attacks around the world, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the Boston Marathon attack. He told the story of Najibullah Zazi, a terrorist accused of plotting an attack on the New York subway whose plot was foiled by the NSA’s surveillance, particularly the PRISM program that allows the NSA access to user data from Google, Microsoft, Apple, Skype, Facebook and other tech firms.

Alexander also noted the 6,000 NSA cryptologists who have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, 20 of whom were killed in the line of duty according to Alexander. “Think about people willing to go forward to Iraq and Afghanistan, to make sure our soldiers, airmen and marines get the intelligence they need,” he said. “I believe these are the most noble people we have in this country.”

“We get all these allegations of what [NSA staff] could be doing,” Alexander added. “But when people check what the NSA is doing, they’ve found zero times that’s happened. And that’s no bullshit. Those are the facts.” The crowd responded to that line with loud applause, as Alexander asked the press not to quote his swearing, noting his 15 grandchildren.

“The whole reason I came here was to ask you to help you to help us make it better,” said the general. “And if you disagree with what we’re doing, you should help us twice as much.”

“Read the constitution!” shouted McCoy in one last heckle.

“I have. So should you,” responded Alexander to another round of applause.

After the talk, I found McCoy in the crowd and asked him about his not-so-friendly debate with the general. “His speech was pretty canned,” said McCoy. “It’s anything you can see on Fox News any day. We’re in danger, we have to get rid of your freedom to keep you safe.”

“Everyone’s thinking this, but no one’s saying it public, so everyone thinks they’re alone,” he said. “Ninety-eight percent of society has issues with this…But no one speaks up.”
.