Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Thursday, October 31, 2019

First These Kentuckians Couldn't Drink The Water. Now They Can't Afford It



KENTUCKY: You got screwed!

This isn't about politics, yet it's all about politics.
You embraced DIRTY COAL, failed to diversify your economy, allowed your elected officials to be BOUGHT & PAID FOR BY DIRTY COAL....

No one insisted DIRTY COAL clean up its mess.
No one insisted elected officials do their jobs and invest in infrastructure.
No one insisted on REGULATIONS.

DIRTY COAL is gone!
You have the MESS

Due to REPUBLICAN economic policies, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES to KENTUCKY are scant.

Poor education and poverty cripple the work force.
Maybe you'll stop voting for REPUBLICANS.

There are those who chafe at Massachusetts regulations and insistence on annual water reports of periodic water testing.


About this website


Jasper Davis stoops to tilt a plastic bottle under a drip of water that's trickling from a crack in the mountainside.
"Tastes better than what the city water does," he says. "Way better."
The spring is innocuous, a mere dribble emerging from a cliff face that was cut out to make room for a four-lane highway. But there's evidence of frequent visitors. A small footbridge has been placed over the muddy ground, and some enterprising soul shoved a rubber tube into the mountain to make filling jugs easier.
"You just stick your jug under there and just catch the water as it comes out, one jug at a time," Davis says.
This has become routine for some in Martin County, a rural, mountainous community on Kentucky's border with West Virginia. The area has made news for decades for its notoriously dirty water supply. But now, efforts to fix that have led to another crisis: Many are unable to afford their water bills.
The water that comes out of Martin County taps can be cloudy at times. There are boil-water advisories and pipes so leaky that most of the water is lost before it reaches residents' taps. For years, residents received monthly advisories that some people exposed to the chemicals in their water "may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer."






Local officials are trying to fix all that, and they say the water is now safe to drink, save for occasional problems. But this has taken a lot of money, and the cost of that has been passed on to customers. After a series of increases, water rates went up 41% last year alone.
Lingering distrust, higher rates
Davis has been wary of his tap water since he was 15. That's when, in 2000, a massive coal slurry impoundment broke in Martin County, sending 306 million gallons of toxic sludge oozing into the county's water source, leaching into groundwater and seeping into residents' wells.
"It was horrible," Davis says, pointing at a creek near his home where all the fish turned up dead amid the spill. The slurry has been cleaned up. But most people in Martin County remain deeply distrustful not only of the water that comes out of the pipes but of the authorities who are tasked with providing it.
A 2018 rate increase made Martin County's near-undrinkable water the eighth most expensive in the state, according to a recent affordability analysis. Since then, Mary Cromer, an attorney who represents Martin County residents in their battle with water regulators, says she sees more people struggling to pay their bills.
Last year, the county made news when it arrested a man accused of stealing water by illegally hooking his home to another family's meter. This past summer, authorities sent disconnect letters to 300 houses, about 10% of all homes served.
The Martin County water board is stockpiling bottled water for the neediest, but it faces significant challenges. Major coal companies have recently declared bankruptcy, leaving hundreds of miners in the region out of work. Once a coal-producing powerhouse, Martin County has seen total employment fall by 32% since July 2010.
Industry troubles also mean Martin County's annual revenue from the coal severance tax fell 81% from 2012 to 2018. Similar declines in neighboring coal-reliant communities have prompted some to cut back on services like trash collection.
A recent report from the Brookings Institution and Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy noted that the loss of coal revenue could send at least 26 U.S. counties into financial insolvency.
Billions needed for water infrastructure
But water problems here and elsewhere go beyond the decline of coal.
"We are dealing with systems that are old," says Colette Easter of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The group has found that America's drinking water infrastructure needs a $105 billion investment in repairs, including more than $8 billion in Kentucky.
And Easter says declining population can compound the challenges facing all rural systems, as fixed costs are spread among fewer ratepayers.
"The only way you can fix infrastructure without affecting rates is if someone gives you the money," says Andrew Melnykovych, a spokesperson for the Kentucky Public Service Commission. But federal and state grants for repairs are harder to come by. "Absent some dramatic change at both the state and the federal level, that grant money is just not out there in the kind of quantity needed to address water infrastructure needs," he says.
Local officials say they understand the hardship this means for residents.
"Affordability is the biggest thing we worry about," says Jimmy Don Kerr, treasurer of the Martin County water board. And he knows there's the risk of a vicious cycle. "We lose customers, so we have to raise rates again to cover expenses. More people can't pay, so we get more cutoffs."
A rain barrel and hard choices
Jasper Davis has not been cut off, but he works hard to keep his water bills as low as possible. In a good month, he says, collecting stream water could save as much as $100.
After he fills his bottles, he leads me to the comfortable double-wide trailer he shares with his girlfriend, three relatives and a friend who needed a place to stay. Davis supports them all on just $15,000 a year.
In the yard is a large plastic barrel where he collects rainwater for flushing the toilet. "If we got plenty enough rain, it'll rain over," he says. "But here lately, ain't had no rain." At the bottom on this day is just dirt and muck.
His girlfriend, Shelby Cornette, says that even if they use the tap only for showering, the household might have just $20 left for necessities like toilet paper and shampoo or to cover emergency expenses.
"You got to decide, 'Well, let's pay this water,' " she says, but maybe we're not going to eat.
There may be more hard choices to come. The regulators who approved the recent rate increase have also ordered Martin County to hire a professional outside manager. The hope is that more expertise can solve the system's woes, but paying for that will probably mean even higher water bills.
Sydney Boles is a reporter with WMMT and the Ohio Valley ReSource public media collaborative.








With Biden Floundering, Democratic Establishment Considers Clinton and Kerry




MORE DNC STUPIDTY!

JOE BIDEN = MR BIG CORPORATIONS, Creepy Uncle Joe and much else.

IGNORE THE DNC AND PLEASE DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE DNC OR DCCC!

Support individual candidates who support YOU! Work for their election, volunteer, knock on doors, make phone calls, register voters.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT!

Let's change the DNC mindset.

Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz & the top 3 DNC officials resign as a result of this? Why did the DNC issue a formal apology to Bernie Sanders?? "Although the initial leaks dated from late in the primary, when Hillary Clinton was close to securing the nomination, they revealed the DNC leadership's bias against Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in contradiction with their publicly stated neutrality,[5] as multiple DNC operatives seemed to deride Sanders' campaign and discussed ways to advance Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[6] The revelations prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[7] The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[8] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[9]"

About this website

TRUTHOUT.ORG
The Democratic establishment’s faith in Joe Biden is being sorely tested.



If The New York Times has the right of it, the Democratic establishment is beginning to sweat live bullets over the gaseous anomaly that is the third-try presidential campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden. On Tuesday, the Times ran a hilariously titled piece — “Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anyone Else?’” — in which some possible Biden alternatives were floated: Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry and, of course, Hillary Clinton.
Way to go, Joe.
A little context is in order here. On that same Tuesday, former Ukraine ambassador William Taylor eviscerated Donald Trump’s “no quid pro quo” defense of his Ukraine dealings during a closed-door hearing before the House Oversight Committee that included several Republicans (a fact which should muzzle the mayhem House Republicans unleashed on Wednesday, but probably won’t).
In the face of this damning turn of events, Trump decided it was high time to change the subject by letting his unvarnished racist flag fly free in the breeze. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching,” he tweeted early that morning.
An immediate detonation of outrage justly followed Trump’s decision to equate his own constitutionally appropriate political woes with the generational massacre of Black Americans. Rep. Elijah Cummings passed only days before Trump vomited his vile comment onto the nation’s carpet, but one needs no imagination to know what his reaction would have been.
Joining the chorus of condemnation that day was Joe Biden. “Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution,” he tweeted on Tuesday afternoon. “Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.”
It took only a few hours for Biden’s own words to boomerang on him, again. A video clip of Biden describing the Clinton impeachment as a “partisan lynching” went viral, and he was forced to apologize for his choice of language. “This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that,” he tweeted that same night.
Abhorrent. Despicable. Utterly predictable.
Joe Biden’s Senate career spanned from 1973 to 2008, a 45-year run that saw him take a number of praiseworthy actions that were brutally offset by a larger number of genuinely terrible actions. Salted throughout his long career are enough verbal car accidents to leave the general impression that “Gaffe” is his middle name.
His 1988 presidential campaign collapsed in the shame and disgrace of a plagiarism scandal that should have been enough to end or at least severely curtail his political career, but Biden was a senator from Delaware, and Delaware is Valhalla for big banks, credit card companies and other massive corporations.
Those entities dug a campaign finance moat around Biden’s Senate seat, chasing off anyone who might challenge him in a primary. This served to protect Biden from his own blunders, allowing him to hold his place for nearly a half-century without experiencing any electoral consequences for his serial missteps. Over those years, Biden has repaid their largesse with interest.
After Biden’s second failed run for president in 2008 ended in the single digits after Iowa, he was rescued from Delawarean obscurity because Barack Obama needed him on the ticket to appease white establishment voters, and for the money he could bring in because he has the financial industry on speed dial.
Somehow, this long and badly damaged resume has been translated into a belief within Democratic establishment circles that Joe Biden is the only candidate who can defeat Donald Trump in 2020. Now, as his third and presumably last run for the Oval Office sputters visibly, that belief is being sorely tested.
Biden’s “lynching” calamity is telling: The rank offensiveness of Trump’s horrid comment was clear and unequivocal… until yet another verbal ghost from Biden’s past rattled its chains and blew up the narrative. It has happened before, it will happen again, and the members of the Democratic establishment are finally beginning to figure that out. This begs the question: What’s their ultimate motive?
In a recent meeting of influential Democratic donors, according to the Times, unease over Biden’s lackluster campaigning turned the conversation to some well-worn political retreads who could conceivably be lured into the race: “Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?”
Several of the candidates mentioned in the Times piece seemed unsure their entry would garner much interest, which is at minimum a credit to their clarity of thought. Other old-guard Democrats are more certain in their opinion. “She’s done a great service to our country and public service and I supported her wholeheartedly,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of a possible Clinton candidacy, “but I believe it’s time for another nominee.”
“Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening,” reads the Times piece. “Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in.”
Endeavoring to make sense of the establishment’s line of thinking on this is like trying to see to the bottom of a cowflop. Faced with the possible re-election of a president who represents an existential threat to democracy in the U.S., the Democratic establishment apparently believes the solution lies with a Wall Street billionaire, a man who lost to George W. Bush, or a woman who already lost once to that same existential threat.
This potential scenario sets up a rather dizzying Hobson’s Choice for progressive voters who don’t think Biden, much less any of the others mentioned by the Times, are the cure for what ails us.
If those voters are effective in thwarting Biden’s quest for the nomination, it could invite the entry of any or all of the Times’ anointed trio. If those voters are not effective in thwarting Biden, he could stumble into the nomination by dint of name recognition. Of course, Biden to this point has not needed much assistance in spiking the tires on his own campaign bus, but the situation is frustrating enough to invite despair.
Bernie Sanders is an FDR Democrat straight out of central casting. Elizabeth Warren is an enthusiastic capitalist. Pete Buttigieg has practically taken to wearing a “Yes I Am A Centrist” sign around his neck as he fishes for freaked-out would-be Biden voters. What is it exactly about this wide field of non-Biden candidates that is so terrifying to the Democratic establishment that they would even consider dumping Bloomberg and/or two previously defeated also-rans into an already crowded race?
Guessing is a hazardous undertaking in matters of such grievous import, but I’m going to toss one on the stoop and see if the cat laps it up, because it is starting to feel very 1972 around here… and not in the way establishment Democrats remember it.
In 1972, the Democratic Party was controlled by old-school political bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and AFL-CIO president George Meany. Their preferred candidates that year were Sen. Ed Muskie of Maine or Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, because both Muskie and Humphrey were thoroughly beholden to the party machine.
George McGovern, a liberal senator from South Dakota (yes, such a thing did exist once) blew their plans up by winning the nomination, however, which threatened to end Daley and Meany’s stranglehold on the party. Daley and Meany — the 1972 version of the Democratic establishment — decided four more years of Richard Nixon would be preferable to handing the party over to an antiwar “radical” like McGovern. They sat on their hands for the remainder of the election, and Nixon went on to win by a historic landslide.
Would McGovern have won with Daley and Meany’s help? Probably not, given the massive unforced error he made in choosing Missouri Sen. Tom Eagleton as a running mate before dumping him and throwing a sop to the establishment by tapping Sargent Shriver. But the fact that the Democratic establishment of that day chose a lawless Republican president over a good and decent Democratic senator in order to maintain control of the party gives me cold sweats.
Today’s Democratic establishment hears that story and says, “See? You can’t nominate anyone who is too far to the left!” I see that story and think of the old bulls from the fabled tale, who won’t leave until they get run off.
The old bulls of today’s Democratic establishment are bereft of new ideas, and cling to their vividly failed policies and beaten candidates with frustrating vigor. As in ’72, they seem more focused on maintaining control of the party than in defeating Donald Trump in 2020. If they pull a similar stunt this time around because they fear a party run by someone outside their calcified little circle of power, you may as well hand the election to Trump the November after next.







TRAITOR






Image may contain: text








Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking'







About this website
ECOWATCH.COM
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the contract to fight fake news to an organization that pushes fake news on climate change.




By Andy Rowell
It may not come as a surprise that leading climate denier Donald Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims since he became president, according to fact-checkers at the Washington Post.

As the Post reports, Trump's "tsunami of untruths just keeps looming larger and larger."

Much of this tsunami of untruths will get reposted on Facebook as fact. Those hoping that Facebook will accurately check Trump's statements and clean up the torrent of fake news on its platform will have to think again, especially if you are concerned about climate change.

In what can only be described as verging on the bizarre, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the contract to fight fake news to an organization that pushes fake news on climate change.

According to reports in Think Progress and Grist, Facebook has announced that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com, which is an offshoot of the anti-science media site, The Daily Caller.
The CheckYourFact website brags that: "Our mission is a non-partisan one. We're loyal to neither people nor parties — only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps."
In fact, the opposite seems to be true. As Think Progress outlines:
The Daily Caller, which has published misinformation about climate science for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and David Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation.
Think Progress includes a link back to 2015, when a peer-reviewed paper from scientists at Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute was published in the journal Nature Geoscience. The Daily Caller tried to twist the research to argue that "global warming is nothing new."

It is hardly surprising that leading climate scientists and academics are outspoken about the Facebook fact-check tie up.

One of the world's leading climatologists, professor Michael Mann, whose own work has been distorted by The Daily Caller, told Think Progress"It is appalling that Facebook has teamed up with a Koch-funded organization that promotes climate change denial. Facebook must disassociate itself from this organization."
Mann also tweeted:
Environmental sociologist, professor Robert Brulle, who is an authority on the climate denial network, asked, "Why they are partnering with an organization that is part of the right wing echo chamber?" He added that: "Facebook should cancel this contract."
But as both websites point out this is not the first time Facebook has joined forces with a climate denial website: In the fall of 2017, Facebook named the right-wing, partisan Weekly Standard as a fact-checking partner.
Last year, Tessa Lyons, a product manager for Facebook wrote about the company's actions on Fake News:
False news is a money maker for spammers and a weapon of state actors and agitators around the world … Misinformation is bad for our community and bad for our business. It's why we're investing significant time and resources to fight it.

Fighting fake news with more fake news is a sure recipe for disaster. Especially during a climate emergency.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.