Toyota is recalling vehicles that have been on the road 10 years.
Will owners of Prius have to wait that long before Toyota fixes the BRAKES?
How many people will die before Toyota corrects the problem?
[The brake pedal of my Prius C traveled to the floor and was demonstrated repeatedly to a Route 44 Technician sitting in the passenger seat.]
Corolla, Lexus models recalled
January 31, 2013
Toyota Motor Corp. has announced recalls of 1 million vehicles, including some models of its Toyota Corolla and its Lexus IS sports sedan.
About 752,000 Corolla and Corolla Matrix cars are being recalled to fix an airbag control module that is susceptible to short-circuiting that could eventually cause the front airbags and seat belt pretensioners to deploy when they shouldn't.
The recall affects Corollas from the 2003 and 2004 model years. There have been two reported accidents and 18 injuries linked to the problem, said Brian Lyons, a Toyota spokesman.
For years, the Corolla has played a key role in Toyota's sales success in the United States. It was the second-best-selling compact car nationally last year with sales of 291,000 vehicles, second only to the Honda Civic, which sold about 318,000.
Toyota also said it will recall 270,000 IS sport sedans sold by its luxury Lexus division because a nut on the front windshield wiper arms could be insufficiently tight. If movement of the wipers is restricted by an external load, such as a buildup of snow on the windshield, one or both of the wipers could stop working.
The recall includes vehicles from the 2006 model year through the beginning of the 2013 model year.
There have been 25 reports of wipers not functioning correctly, but no reports of accidents as a result.
CALL Subject : Airbag Inadvertent Deployment Report Receipt Date: JAN 30, 2013 NHTSA Campaign Number: 13V029000 Component(s): AIR BAGS Potential Number of Units Affected: 887,709
Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
SUMMARY:
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2003-2004 Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles and 2003-2004 Pontiac Vibe vehicles. The supplemental restraint system (SRS) circuits are susceptible to internal shorting. The electrical short may create an abnormal current flow and increased heat which can damage the circuits. This could result in an inadvertent deployment of the front airbags and/or seat belt pretensioners.
CONSEQUENCE:
Inadvertent deployment of the airbags or the seat belt pretensioners may increase the risk of injury and the possibility of a vehicle crash.
REMEDY:
Toyota will notify their owners, and General Motors will notify theirs. Dealers will install a supplemental harness containing an electrical filter between the airbag control module and its wire harness, free of charge. A notification schedule has not been provided. For more information, Toyota owners may call 1-800-331-4331 and Pontiac owners may call 1-800-620-7668.
NOTES:
Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.
Making an informed decision based on evidence and understanding is defensible.
Making ignorant and unscientific legislation based simply on stupidity is inexcusable.
Rep. Cathrynn Brown has re-written the legislation in crayon.
Maybe her constituents need a better education.
Middleboro Review This isn't meant to demean you, but your comment indicates that you weren't taught some basic things in school.
When a pregnant woman believes there is a possibility of a severe genetic defect in her fetus, doctors are able to do an 'amniocentisis' - extracting the fetus' DNA to analyze for that defect.
The same DNA exists in an aborted fetus - same thing.
Forcing a rape victim to bear a child is barbaric and scientifically unnecessary.
Under pressure, New Mexico Rep. amends bill that would have charged rape victims who had abortions with “tampering with evidence”
One week after Republican lawmakers were advised not to talk about rape, a New Mexico state representative introduced a bill that would have criminalized abortions for rape victims. Facing intense criticism, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Cathrynn Brown, has now amended the measure.
Tim Korte/AP
New Mexico Rep., Cathrynn Brown has re-worded her controversial bill that would have criminalized abortions sought by rape victims. The new version of the bill goes after rapists who convince their victims to undergo the procedure.
Apparently, not every Republican politician received the memo advising the party to stop talking about rape. Facing an outcry over her controversial bill that would have charged rape victims who sought an abortion with “tampering with evidence,” New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown has offered revisions to the measure.
“House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims,” Rep. Brown told New Mexico Telegram. “Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.”
The original wording of HB 206, which classified the “procuring of an abortion as tampering with evidence in cases of criminal sexual penetration or incest” as a third-degree felony.
Staunchly pro-life, Brown’s attempt to further limit the the number of abortions performed in her state did not go unnoticed.
“The bill turns victims of rape and incest, who have just been through a horrible sexual assault, into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” ProgressNow New Mexico executive director David said in a statement. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.”
After local news organizations printed stories about the bill, Brown received a flood of complaints, and removed her contact information from her website.
Finally, one day after introducing the bill in the state legislature, she posted an amended version of it that targets “a person who commits criminal sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence,” the text of the revised bill states.
The pill-popping, doctor shopping, prescription forging, four times married fat piece of racist shit strikes again. Hey, Rush, how do you like owning an NFL team? Oh yeah, that's right, even the white billionaire club wanted nothing to do with you. Sorry, chump.
Dies Wednesday!!!! Please save Diesel - LOVES PEOPLE - GOOD WITH KIDS. NEEDS TO BE AN ONLY DOG - ABSOLUTELY NO MALE DOGS Please message Tish at tishfof@gmail.com if you can rescue or adopt Diesel. He's neutered and only a year old :(
Youngstown Ohio Mahoning County Dog Pound and Adoption Center Diesel Diesel was an owner turn in. He is 1 year old, neutered, said to be housetrained and good ...with kids. Owner said he does not like male dogs, but fine with females. He is available for adoption now. If you wish to sponsor a dog at the Mahoning County Dog Pound; Please go to this link to donate: www.friendsoffidomahoning.org If you can help or want to adopt this baby; please email Tish Dillon-Wensel at tishfof@gmail.com Petfinder Link: http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/24553040 Helpful Links: Dogs in the Urgent Folder - Time Limits- Temp Tests- Vaccinations- Spay Neuter Etc. Etc. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=285643561450777 How do I Tag and Share http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296193473729119 PLEASE do NOT contact the pound directly unless you can adopt or foster, some of our pounds only have one phone line and in some cases you may be tying up the phone lines and not allowing other adopters or fosters get through. We MUST keep those lines open for adopters wanting information - UOD does NOT support, condone or TOLERATE any of our members calling pounds or rescues to unleash your fury on them...... It's Ok to be angry but BE ANGRY at the PREVIOUS owner who has put this fur baby in this position- Please Tag and Share it saves Lives-
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson
Posted: 01/28/2013
A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system's integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.
Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn't and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.
Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”
Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.
The prosecutor in the case said he knew of no other voters in Nevada or elsewhere arrested for voter fraud.
Democratic Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, who has called for a photo ID law, slammed Rubin in a statement. "If Ms. Rubin was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, she clearly failed and proved just the opposite," he said.
Rubin's deal requires her to pay $2,481 to the state in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, stay out of trouble and complete an impulse control course. CORRECTION: This article originally misidentified the party affiliation of Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller. He is a Democrat.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday opposed a moratorium on wind power projects in Vermont that he said would send a “terrible message” to the rest of the country and set back efforts to stop global warming. A member of the U.S. Senate environment and energy committees, Sanders urged state lawmakers to reject a three-year ban on wind power projects. “If Vermont ceases new wind development the message will go out all across the country, spread by the well-funded coal and oil companies, that even in Vermont – progressive Vermont – there is not a serious commitment to combating global warming,” Sanders said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday opposed a moratorium on wind power projects in Vermont that he said would send a “terrible message” to the rest of the country and set back efforts to stop global warming. A member of the U.S. Senate environment and energy committees, Sanders urged state lawmakers to reject a three-year ban on wind power projects. “If Vermont ceases new wind development the message will go out all across the country, spread by the well-funded coal and oil companies, that even in Vermont – progressive Vermont – there is not a serious commitment to combating global warming,” Sanders said. Read the senator’s full statement »
Sanders was joined at the news conference in his Senate office by Paul Burns of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Don Hooper of the National Wildlife Federation, Gabrielle Stebbins of Renewable Energy Vermont and Christopher Killian of the Conservation Law Foundation.
Sanders next month plans to introduce sweeping legislation to address the crisis of global warming by transforming the nation’s energy system away from fossil fuels. A major new federal investment in wind and other sustainable sources of energy will be part of the most aggressive measure ever waged in Congress to stop an alarming, worldwide rise in temperatures.
The senator in March will host a major conference in Vermont that will focus on major changes that climate change will bring about in agriculture, the tourist economy, the condition of Lake Champlain and the impact on state budgets.
“For many decades now, the state of Vermont has been a leader in environmental protection. We are leading the nation in terms of energy efficiency and, in the last few years, have made very good progress in wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. When it comes to new ideas in terms of protecting the environment, the rest of the country has looked to Vermont for leadership – and we should be very proud of that,” Sanders said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (L) listens to Paul Burns (R) of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group at a news conference Monday in Burlington, Vt., on wind energy.
MALE, TAN / BLACK, PEKINGESE, 3 yrs ... OWNER SUR - ONHOLDHERE, HOLD FOR OWNER DIED Reason OWNER DIED Intake condition NONE Intake Date 01/18/2013, From NY 11233, DueOut Date 01/27/2013,
Medical Behavior Evaluation BLUE Medical Summary SCAN NEGATIVE BRIGHT, ALERT, RESPONSIVE, HYDRATED PHYSICAL EXAM- Abnormal hind gait, very painful when palpated at lower back Trimmed severely overgrown nails, pain not associated with nails Mild dental tartar Gingivitis Heavily matted coat, trimmed llittle Dry skin on back Male NOSF Weight 18.5See More
Maybe the Tea Baggers will consider where the $$$ comes from instead of blindly following the Kochs - one of the biggest threats to our nation and our planet.
Let's not ignore that the Kochs have generously funded Cape Wind opposition.
OilBillionaires Back Climate Crisis Deniers: Koch
Connection And $500m
By Countercurrents.org
27 January, 2013 Countercurrents.org
The Independent, the UK daily, in an
exclusive report [1] by Steve Connor said a section of the super-rich linked to
fossil fuel industry back climate crisis deniers.
The report headlined “Billionaires secretly fund attacks on
climate science” said: A secretive funding organization in the US that
guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator
in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global
warming.
The exclusive mentioned two organizations that help the job:
The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital
Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funneling millions of dollars into the
effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its
wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.
However,
an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American
billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority
stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in
Kansas.
Millions of dollars, said the report, have been paid to Donors
through a third-party organization, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with
is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.
Referring to a number of commentators assumption the UK daily
said: Such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield
the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate skepticism –
some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.
To back the climate crisis denial interests, millions of dollars
have already been contributed as the report found: The Knowledge and Progress
Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to
Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to
have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the
websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.
The report said:
The Donors Trust is a "donor advised fund", meaning that it has
special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous
tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own
charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors
spends the cash.
Anonymous private funding of global warming skeptics, who have
criticized climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming
increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate
funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobil. One such
organization, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch,
claimed that the "Climategate" emails illegally hacked from the University of
East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world
has ever seen".
$500 million
The report said:
Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in
Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given
to organizations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much
of the money donated anonymously through third parties.
The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise
Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann
of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims
that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child
molester.
Dr Brulle said: "We really have anonymous giving and
unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate
countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of
these foundations to the public.
"By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can
plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organizations, and there is no
way to prove otherwise."
The two brothers
Steve Connor in another report [2] writes about the super-rich
Koch brothers:
Even by the standards of the super-rich, Charles and David Koch
are extraordinarily wealthy. Together they own most of Koch Industries, one of
the largest private conglomerates in America with annual revenues of around
$100bn (£62.5bn), and interests as diverse as energy, petrochemicals, pulp and
paper.
The two brothers share a similar political outlook. They are
right-wing libertarians who believe in minimal regulation of industry, smaller
government, lower corporate taxes and less generous social services. They are
also closet "skeptics" when it comes to climate science.
Charles, 77 and the elder of the two, has effectively run the
family business since the death of their father, Fred, in 1967. He is described
as a hands-on executive, whereas David has played a more junior role.
Nevertheless, the spectacular growth of the family firm has put
them both among the richest men in America – and the world.
Each of the Koch brothers has his own charitable foundation and
they have given generously to organizations that share their free-market
outlook. They have both funded opposition campaigns to many of the policies of
the Obama administration – so many, in fact, that their opponents have dubbed
their ideological network "The Kochtopus".
Together, the two brothers have given millions of dollars to
non-profit organizations that criticize environmental legislation and support
lower taxes for industry.
The Kochs have also contributed vast sums to promote skepticism
towards climate change, more even than the oil industry according to some
estimates. Greenpeace, for instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m
on climate-skeptic groups between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch
brothers backed such groups to the tune of nearly $25m.
Americans for Prosperity, a group established by David Koch, did
much to foment public outrage over the "climategate" emails stolen from the
computers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009. The organization
claimed the emails proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world
has ever seen".
Meanwhile, Charles and his wife Liz have established a
little-known organization called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, which appears
to have been set up to channel Koch money into a third-party organization called
the Donors Trust.
The Donors Trust is a "donor advised" fund, which means it has
special status under the US tax system. One of the benefits of donor-advised
funds for billionaires such as Charles is that their names are not linked to
funds given out by the Donors Trust to other organizations.
Among the
beneficiaries of Donor Trust money is the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
which is being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused
of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.
Professor Mann was one of the scientists named in the stolen
emails from the UEA and has been a target of climate skeptics keen to rubbish
his work on temperature records, which produced the now famous "hockey stick"
graph showing a rapid temperature rise in the 20th century.
[I]n 2003, Donors received just 3 percent of the funding that
eventually went to climate skeptic groups such as the ultra-conservative
Heartland Foundation, which has led the attack on climate scientists. Professor
Brulle said this had risen by 2009 to about a quarter of the total funding of
the climate countermovement dedicated to denying the link between greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuels and global warming.
The link between the Koch family and Donors was discovered by
Professor Brulle and John Mashey, a retired software engineer living in
California, who has trawled through hundreds of official tax records, including
the US Inland Revenue Service's "990" forms of the Knowledge and Progress Fund,
which mention that it had given Donors millions of dollars for "general
support".
"The Kochs decided it was better to go underground and foster
all these think-tanks. Charles Koch has often said publicly that anyone should
be able to give money to anyone without having to make it public," Dr Mashey
said. "The point of all this is that Koch wants to anonymise his giving as much
as possible."
Whitney Ball, the chief executive of Donors Trust, said the fund
has given more than $400m to about 1,600 beneficiaries since it began in 1999
but that only a few of them are involved in promoting climate skepticism.
"We don't disclose our list of donors, any more than other
donor-advised funds… We are not legally required to do so. We have been referred
to as a black box but this is a misleading and unfair characterization. We are
no different from any other donor-advised fund," she said.
"There are all kinds of reasons why people want to be anonymous.
Imagine you lived a fairly modest lifestyle and you wanted to give charitably.
You could do it through a donors-advised fund and no one would treat you
differently," she said.
Asked whether the Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund have any
connection with the Koch family, Ms Ball said: "I wouldn't say we have a
relationship. We are knowledgeable about some of the groups that they fund and
we are ideologically sympathetic."
Asked if she could explain how the money from the Knowledge and
Progress Fund was spent, she said: "There's been a lot of hyperventilating about
this… Like other donor-advised funds, we don't disclose that information."
The Koch Foundation and Koch Industries declined to
comment
Anonymous donations to Britain's leading climate-change skeptic
organization have more than doubled over the past year – but the registered
charity has consistently refused to comment on the identity of its backers.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up in 2009
by Lord Lawson, the former Conservative Chancellor, received £408,641 from
anonymous donations in 2012, compared with £158,008 in 2011.
The foundation has repeatedly refused to name its financial
supporters, although a leaked email last year suggested that Michael Hintze, a
wealthy Tory donor and philanthropist, was one of its main backers.
Benny Peiser, a founder member of the foundation, said the
charity does not receive any corporate money from the fossil-fuel industry, but
denied it is being secretive about its backers.
"Our concern is about transparency of the science, not the
funding. We don't take funding from vested interests and we make sure there is
no conflict of interest before accepting donations," Dr Peiser said. "The main
reason why they want to remain anonymous is so that people like you [the media]
don't harass them," Dr Peiser explained.
Hate campaign against a
scientist
Steve Connor’s another report [3] said:
A climate scientist who says he has been subjected to a
vitriolic hate campaign has denounced the way that American billionaires have
been able to secretly finance the climate-skeptic organizations that have
attacked him.
Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, who has been
targeted by climate-change skeptics for his work on global temperature records,
said it was wrong for wealthy individuals such as the oil billionaire Charles
Koch to surreptitiously finance the “counter-movement” that denounces the
science of global warming.
It was only when he was researching a book that he became aware
Koch was assisting some of the organizations that he says have been attacking
him and his colleagues for so many years, Professor Mann said. He said the
skeptic organizations had “single-handedly sought to poison the public discourse
over human-caused climate change. In the process they have potentially mortgaged
the futures of our children and grandchildren. You couldn’t invent villains like
this if you tried.”
He said: “I think its intent is to frighten scientists away from
participating in the public discourse, and prevent communication to the public
of the true risks of the potential climate changes that will result from
fossil-fuel burning. No doubt it has frightened some scientists from
participating in the discussion or even from pursuing research that might incur
the ire of fossil-fuel vested interests,” he added.
Professor Mann said it is ironic that the same organizations
that he says have pursued him and his colleagues for alleged lack of
transparency are being funded anonymously by people who are so closely tied to
the fossil-fuel industry.
“There are some of us, however, who have been
emboldened by the attacks. We don't take kindly to propaganda campaigns intended
to smear scientists and confuse the public,” he said.
Koch Brothers Exposed is a hard-hitting investigation of the 1% at its very worst. This full-length documentary film on Charles and David Koch—two of the world's richest and most powerful men—is the latest from acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed, Rethink Afghanistan). The billionaire brothers bankroll a vast network of organizations that work to undermine the interests of the 99% on issues ranging from Social Security to the environment to civil rights. This film uncovers the Kochs' corruption—and points the way to how Americans can reclaim their democracy.
Livestock falling ill in fracking regions, raising concerns about food
While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many suspect chemicals
used in drilling and hydrofracking (or "fracking") operations are poisoning
animals through the air, water, or soil.
Last year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, New York, veterinarian, and Robert
Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell's College of Veterinary
Medicine, published the first and only peer-reviewed report to suggest a link
between fracking and illness in food animals.
The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas states whose
livestock experienced neurological, reproductive, and acute gastrointestinal
problems after being exposed—either accidentally or incidentally—to fracking
chemicals in the water or air. The article, published in New Solutions: A
Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, describes how scores of
animals died over the course of several years.
The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock
population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but
environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning.
Exposed livestock "are making their way into the food system, and it's very
worrisome to us," Bamberger says. "They live in areas that have tested positive
for air, water, and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in
milk and meat products made from these animals."
In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour's exposure to spilled fracking
fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and release pockets of
natural gas. The most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.
In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found
petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals.
In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking
wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the
remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived.
In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking
chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half their
calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of Colorado,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported the death of
goats.
Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of
water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants,
biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents,
emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. At almost every stage
of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals and compounds can be
introduced into the environment.
Tomorrow, January 28th, Connecticut Congressperson Joe Courtney will be at a pro-tar sands summit in Hartford. It's very last minute but we are trying to get as many people as possible to contact Joe via social media to tell him that supporting tar sands is not okay.
Please 'attend' this Facebook event and share it with as many people as possible. Also, make sure you read the event description because it gives you all the ways to actually contact Joe.
Please share this 'event' as WIDELY as possible!
As you may know, on Monday Connecticut is hosting a pro-tar sands business summit in Hartford [http://export.gov/connecticut/Events/index.asp]. To add insult to injury, we recently found out that Connecticut's Representative in the 2nd District, Joe Courtney, will be the opening speaker at this appalling event [http://bit.ly/TarSandsCT]. Since Courtney's lifetime environmental score in Congress is 98% (according to the League of Conservation Voters...) his implicit support of tar sands exploitation feels like a betrayal, especially because he originally voted against legislation to expedite a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Considering the enormous magnitude of the threat tar sands development poses, members of 350 Connecticut, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Interreligious Eco-Justice Network, Vermont Rising Tide, Green Mountain Earth First, Connecticut’s Capitalism versus the Climate, and Occupy New England will be there protesting. You can see the Facebook 'event' here: https://www.facebook.com/events/120596471445490/.
In the meantime, we are calling on everyone that opposes tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline to contact Joe Courtney immediately and ask why he has turned is back on us. We want the outcry to be as public as possible so we need people to use Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and any other social media outlets available. We need to show Joe Courtney and everyone else that tar sands are not an option!
Below are several messages that you can send out using social media; please post them early and often. Of course, you personalize them however you'd like, just please make them as visible as possible. And if you don't use social media, Joe Courtney's contact information is included too; please email him and call his office.
After you contact Representative Courtney please let us know so we can keep track.
If you have any questions, about this social media campaign please contact Colin Bennett at colinthegreat@gmail.com. And again, please forward this message WIDELY. If you have questions about the protest please contact Sophie at 802-291-3634.
Why does Joe Courtney* support tar sands exploitation? We need climate justice, not corporate greed that is destroying our planet.
You can also tag Joe Courtney is posts on other people's profiles. Raise awareness by directly reaching out to your Facebook friends. Remember, we are trying to make this as visible as possible.
*To tag Joe Courtney you have to type @ immediately followed by Joe. At this point a drop down menu should appear. Type Courtney and his name should appear and you can select it. He is labeled as a Government Official. If in doubt you can see his page here: https://www.facebook.com/joecourtney. Unfortunately he does allow you to post questions on his wall but you can send him messages or you can comment on anything he posts.
Washington Office: 202-225-2076 Norwich Office: 860-886-0139 Enfield Office: 860-741-6011
Leave a message saying something along these lines:
We need climate justice, not corporate greed that is destroying our planet: do the right thing! Reject the Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands, mountaintop removal, fracking, and all forms of extreme energy!
Please invite as many people as possible to this event! Also, please be sure to read the whole event description as it lists all the ways to contact Joe Courtney. He needs to know that it's not okay to support tar sands.
The mining bills currently before the Wisconsin state legislature would allow for iron ore mines to open up in the pristine Penokee Hills of Northern Wisconsin. Inhabitants of the Mogpog River and Idaho Blackbird Creek could testify to their nightmare experience with iron ore mines and the destructive legacy of pollution they've left.
Interesting comments from a KGB agent.....if Americans knew more about history, this wouldn't seem surprising. That's why media consolidation is so important to 'them.'
This amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It's shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.
This amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It's shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.
In New Mexico, women who are raped would have to carry pregnancy to term or face prison. (photo: Getty Images)
Should a recently introduced bill in New Mexico become law, rape victims will be required to carry their pregnancies to term during their sexual assault trials or face charges of “tampering with evidence.”
Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.
Sexual assault trials are infamously grueling for survivors, who are often subjected to character assassination and other attempts to discredit their accounts. State Rep. Cathrynn Brown’s (R) bill would add the forced choice between prison or an unwanted pregnancy to these proceedings.
After several failed GOP candidates, including Todd Akin (R-MO) and Richard Mourdock (R-IN), made offensive comments about rape victims during the last election season, Republican consultants launched sensitivity training to teach candidates how to avoid talking about rape. But GOP policy speaks for itself. At the federal level, former vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a failed bill that would negate sexual assault that are not deemed “forcible rape.” And another New Mexico lawmaker, Gov. Susana Martinez (R), advanced a proposal to require women who become pregnant from rape to prove they were “forcibly raped” in order to qualify for childcare assistance.
In addition to burdening victims of sexual assault, Brown’s bill also reveals some hypocrisy in the anti-abortion community. While anti-choice advocates maintain that a fetus should be afforded the full rights of personhood, charging abortion as “tampering with evidence” effectively turns the fetus into an object. This isn’t the first time so-called pro-life supporters have dropped the fetal personhood crusade when it was convenient — last year, a Catholic hospital in Colorado reversed its stance on fetal personhood in a malpractice suit, arguing in court that the term “person” should only apply to individuals who have already been born.
Several states have pursued murder charges for women who have miscarried. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
Back in 1872, just after she was arrested for casting an illegal vote, Susan B Anthony gave a rousing speech in which she posed the question of whether women are actually persons. Her point, of course, was that if women were indeed flesh and blood persons, then there could be no legal basis under the constitution to deny them a vote. It took nearly 50 more years – women finally achieved suffrage in 1920 – to get a definitive answer to what was a rhetorical question.
Now, however, less than 100 years after that long-delayed answer, the question of whether women – or at least, pregnant women – are still persons endowed with all the human, civil, and constitutional rights that personhood bestows, is once again in play. And the evidence suggests that the answer is, at best, a "maybe".
This week, just in time for the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) released a study (pdf) on the "criminalization of pregnancy", as reported last week by the Guardian's Karen McVeigh. It details hundreds of cases of women who were arrested, forced to undergo medical procedures, and held in jails, prisons, or mental institutions.
These arrests and detentions were made possible by the relentless quest to undo Roe v Wade and restrict access to legal abortions. But there is a bigger issue, according to NAPW's executive director Lynn Paltrow:
"We are no longer just talking about [attacks on] reproductive rights, but whether, in the guise of trying to end just abortion rights, we are going to remove pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons."
That sentence should send chills up the spine of any woman in America who is pregnant or who may someday become pregnant (which covers quite a few of us). There are now anti-foeticide laws in 38 states. Colorado and Mississippi have tried (and intend to try again) to pass personhood laws that would grant full constitutional rights to a fertilized egg.
Georgia tried, and thankfully failed, to pass a law that would have had all miscarriages investigated as possible homicides. Alabama did pass a chemical endangerment law that is being used to prosecute (mostly poor and minority) pregnant women suspected of taking drugs. The upshot of all this attempted legislation is that terminating a pregnancy is still lawful, but hundreds of women who miscarry or have stillborn babies can be charged with murder and sentenced as murderers.
Many reproductive rights advocates have long suspected that these various laws are more about controlling women than genuine attempts to protect babies. I would argue that anyone genuinely pro-life should be demanding universal healthcare for pregnant women, not prison terms for a failure to provide their unborn babies with a level of care and well-being they themselves do not enjoy.
Whatever the intention of these laws, what has become clear is that rather than protecting the rights of the fetus, this legislation steadily erodes the rights of the women on whom those fetuses are dependent.
The Roe v Wade decision explicitly rejected the argument that fetuses were to be treated as separate constitutional persons under the law. Yet, we now have documented evidence of hundreds of women being forced to undergo medical procedures against their will, against their doctors' advice and sometimes in restraints, on the grounds that the fetus has its own set of rights separate from those of its mother.
Lynn Paltrow recounts the tragic case of Angela Carder, who was ordered by a court to undergo caesarian surgery – against the advice of her doctors, her family, and her own wishes.
"Ms Carder was 27 years-old and 25 weeks pregnant when she became critically ill. She, her family and her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital however called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus.
"Despite knowing that Caesarian surgery could kill Ms Carder, the court ordered it, claiming that the fetus had independent legal rights. The fetus was born alive but died two hours later. Angela Carder died two days later, with the surgery listed as a contributing factor."
A higher court later ruled that Carder's rights had been violated – scant comfort to her grieving family. The dissenting judge in that ruling, however, gave some frightening insight into what women are up against: he argued that the viable unborn child is a person with rights separate from the pregnant woman, and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons".
I don't imagine that "special class of persons" is one Susan B Anthony, or indeed, any self-respecting woman, would care to be a part of. In this class, a pregnant woman can apparently be expected to forgo her own right to life, whether or not there is a chance that the fetus she is carrying might outlive her.
We (women, I mean) should be grateful that, for now, this particular judge's dissenting opinion is not the law of the land. But these increasingly common opinions, and not the law of the land, are driving continued arrests, detentions, and illegal interventions into the lives of pregnant women.
What does this mean for American women in the future? I do not know, but what is certain is that as legal battles to undo abortion rights continue (and they will), women – and men who care about them – need to realize it's no longer just reproductive rights we have to worry about, but our basic civil and human rights.
To mark the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on Jan. 22, 2013, the Guttmacher Institute — a sexual and reproductive health policy nonprofit — has created five infographics on the state of abortion in America.
Some highlights: By age 45, one in three women will have an abortion. The majority of these — about 58 percent — will happen in their twenties. About 60 percent will already have at least one child.
Unintended pregnancy rates are rising among poor people and falling among higher-income people, but abortion rates are still about five times higher among people living below the poverty line. Rates are also significantly higher among people of color than among white people. State barriers to abortion are also increasing. In 2012 alone, 43 restrictions on abortion were put into place in 19 states. In 2011, 92 were enacted. The majority of states have some barrier to abortion access on the books.
Forty years
after the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion, the new
documentary After Tiller follows the only four doctors left in the
United States who are known to provide abortions in the third trimester. In
2009, their colleague, Dr. George Tiller, was assassinated while attending
church in Wichita, Kansas. The four doctors depicted in the film have also
braved threats, harassment and the emotional weight of the stories they hear to
provide women with a desperately needed medical procedure. We're joined by the
directors of After Tiller, Lana Wilson and Martha Shane. Watch/Listen/Read
![More Republican hypocrisy… Thanks to @[192518057471204:274:Anti-Republican Crusaders] for sharing this.](https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/542862_198693510255628_1807132395_n.jpg)
![The mining bills currently before the Wisconsin state legislature would allow for iron ore mines to open up in the pristine Penokee Hills of Northern Wisconsin. Inhabitants of the Mogpog River and Idaho Blackbird Creek could testify to their nightmare experience with iron ore mines and the destructive legacy of pollution they've left.
@[117610195068827:274:Idle No More]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/205660_369962803101903_1875109003_n.jpg)
Posted: 01/28/2013
A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system's integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.
Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn't and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.
Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”
Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.
The prosecutor in the case said he knew of no other voters in Nevada or elsewhere arrested for voter fraud.
Democratic Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, who has called for a photo ID law, slammed Rubin in a statement. "If Ms. Rubin was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, she clearly failed and proved just the opposite," he said.
Rubin's deal requires her to pay $2,481 to the state in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, stay out of trouble and complete an impulse control course.
CORRECTION: This article originally misidentified the party affiliation of Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller. He is a Democrat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/roxanne-rubin_n_2566297.html