PR Dated March 15 - https://markettactic.com/acme-lithium-extends-potential-lithium-zone-successfully-reaching-total-depth-of-dh-1a-to-1940-feet-at-clayton-valley-nevada-lithium-brine-project/5543308/

Popped up in my yahoo news today -
https://markettactic.com/lithium-supply-crisis-why-its-worse-than-you-think-3/5541232/

Thanks hogsgeteaten. I'm not a fan of Devvy but that article may be spot on. This is what I found at wikipedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

And another article at the ProPublica Blog -

In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K. http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK

This stuff sounds pretty nasty.


*

Sorry, but I can't claim her. Very cute little girl, the picture is from the Pit Bull rescue site. The darker dog does look like Mose. Bella is kind of stocky. She looks more like what most people think all Pits look like. I call her the Walrus of Love on account of she's extremely affectionate.

Unfortunately I don't have any kids who own property in Fiji. I do have a son in Chile. Hmm, chemtrails or earthquakes? Tough to decide.

Nope. I'll blame you for believing and posting nonsense. In the 1980's when Pit Bull hysteria was becoming popular, I remember an article in the Atlantic Monthly in which an investigative journalist actually fact checked all the reported Pit Bull attacks in the MSM. They discovered that NOT EVEN ONE of the attacks had been by a Pit Bull. Pit Bulls are ONLY breed of dog whose aggressive tendencies toward humans has actually been selectively bred out. My veterinarian claims that Pits are the only dogs that won't bite him after they've been hit by a car or seriously injured some other way.

Dog breeds that are considered potentially aggressive.

* Chow Chows
* The Papillon
* Old English Sheepdogs
* Llasa Apso
* Rottweilers
* Chihuahuas
* Toy Poodles
* Dachshunds
* Jack Russell Terriers
* Giant Schnauzers
* Cocker Spaniels often suffer from a dangerous genetic disease known as "rage syndrome." This syndrome causes spontaneous violent action against not strangers, but actual family members. Many Spaniels have been put down because of this unwanted behavior.
* The Pekingese
* Miniature Pinschers

Here's a rundown of breeds that are typically gentle but can't shake off their "bad dog" image.

* Boxers are pretty good with kids.
* Bulldogs are very playful and gentle.
* Great Danes, while considerable in size, happen to be kind and affectionate.
* Mastiffs are especially quiet and docile.
* German Shepherds are great with kids too. These are courageous, fiercely loyal dogs who, if trained properly, will be extremely gentle to family and guests.
* Rottweilers are also capable of tenderness and affection. They have a bad rep, but if they trust you, you'll never have to worry.

In truth, most pit bulls aren't really as aggressive as they're made out to be. They tend to be loving, gentle and playful. But there are some that have been raised and trained to be highly aggressive. Such pit bulls tend to be more aggressive toward other animals than people. Aggressive pit bulls often have a history of being abused or neglected, and getting trained specifically to fight. Pit bulls that have been mistreated are seen as being extremely dangerous, so avoid them. If you own one, treat it gently and lovingly.
http://dogobedienceadvice.com/which_dog_breeds_are_most_aggressive.php

Sortagreen,I assume you're asking about my profile pic. I'm against racism in any guise. I don't consider Pit Bulls to be "violent and vicious" any more than any other breed of dog. 2 of my dogs are Pits and I have really mean Dachshund who beats up the Pits regularly. I've had Pit Bulls since I was a child.

My Pits, Mose and Bella were both seriously abused and then abandoned. I rescued them both. They're loving and loyal companions. The biggest difference between Pits and other breeds is their tenacity...They can be stubborn as Hell! A quality that can be funny, endearing and exasperating.

Most of what you read about them is pure BS. I trust my dogs with my grandchildren and they're reasonably well behaved in public...The dogs that is.

Breed Specific laws should be done away with. You can learn more about these wonderful but terribly maligned animals and BSL laws here at Pit Bull Rescue Central - http://www.pbrc.net/breedspecific.html

bulldzr, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I'm not a big fan of oyster po-boys. Shhh, don't tell or they may deport me. The fact is I spend as little time as possible in NOLA. I take my dogs to the Krew of Barkus Mardi Gras parade, which they enjoy immensely and enthusiastically as Pit Bulls do. Since moving to Slidell and especially since Katrina I only go there if I have to, do my business and then leave. Today was an exception but I wanted to protest against BP and our govt's response to the ongoing disaster.

Here's a link to a little news video of today's protest...
http://www.wwltv.com/news/slideshows/BP-protestors-swarm-Jackson-Square-95228054.html

And here's a picture I found I'm sure many will enjoy...

Hogs and everybody. I spent the day protesting BP and our govt's response at Jackson Square. Regarding that "end of the world" type article I posted. I really couldn't say if it has any validity or not. I do know that Colorexin (think that's how it's spelled) is toxic as hell and it's banned in Europe. I'm sure it's effect on marine life will be devastating but whether or not it could come inland as rain, I have no idea. I will say that if it does, I'll move to my son's place in New Mexico...Fast!

Man, you guys are wearing me down. I need a nap.

Both assertions are true according to the Democratic Underground and I agree. I only partially agree with the third assertion.

I take exception to the part about "all" Democrats being corporatists and that we become politically apathetic. Not all Dems are corporatists. I think Alan Grayson, for example is not a corporatist. Marcy Kaptur is another "good" representative in my book.

But when Dems act like Republicans against the interests of the people, why continue to support them? Because they belong to the Democratic Party? No thanks. It seems to me that generally, the Dem Party has moved to the Right but my political views haven't shifted much at all and I'm not about to lose interest or become apathetic.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't think I was bullshitting, justifying or exalting. Just trying to make my position clear. I admit to being quite taken by the tea party before it was co opted by Koch Industries and the "religious" right. Now I find it as creepy as Stephanie does.

If you saw the video of the Coast Guard taking orders from BP to censor press coverage, why wouldn't you think Obama approved. He is the Commander in Chief and the buck should stop with him.

At the beginning of the spill, I thought Obama was correct in relying on BP to stop it but as soon as it became known that BP was covering up the size of the spill and when BP was then allowed to dump chemical dispersants even more toxic than the oil in the Gulf and when Obama allowed BP to refuse assistance from many qualified and experienced experts....I had to conclude that "our" President gave BP's interests precedence over my interests.

All his talk about holding BP responsible seems like nothing more than talk. BP is still running the show.

I see 2 new posts directed at me have come in while I was typing. Can hardly wait to read them...

Sideeki, I can't respond privately. Why don't you post that here? I think it's very relevant to the Gulf disaster discussion.

What does that mean?

Is Feingold a "progressive"? Just asking. Obama's healthcare bill was written by and for the insurance industry. We could have had real reform with a single payer system modeled after Medicare or any one of the systems adopted by any other country on Earth but that would have stepped on the toes of all those ins. corporations.

I'll stick with my belief that Obama is a corporatist....To our detriment.

You got me there, fuagf. I voted for Ron Paul because of his strong anti war/anti imperialism stance. There are all kinds of Libertarians - Liberal, conservative, there are even socialist libertarians so putting all libertarians in the same box doesn't work.

I'm not against a big government or big government spending as long as the government acts in the interests of society. So far Obama's actions have been to protect his corporate benefactors.

Look at the Gulf disaster, for example. To date Obama has backed BP 100%, including their efforts to cover up the size of the disaster. Hell, he's even allowed the Coast Guard to censor the media on BP's orders.

I agree with Bulldzr that BP's assets should be seized. In fact I've contributed to the Seize PB campaign. There were many actions Obama could have and should have (IMO) taken after the rig blowout but Obama is a corporate president all the way.


*

Oil spill threatens 'total destruction'
Fri, 28 May 2010 17:12:02 GMT

The British Petroleum oil spill is threatening the entire eastern half of the North American continent with "total destruction," reports say.

An ominous report by Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources warned of the impending disaster resulting from the British Petroleum (BP) oil and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico, calling it the worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history, the European Union Times reported.

Russian scientists believe BP is pumping millions of gallons of Corexit 9500, a chemical dispersal agent, under the Gulf of Mexico waters to hide the full extent of the leak, now estimated to be over 2.9 million gallons a day.

Experts say Corexit 9500 is a solvent four times more toxic than oil.

The agent, scientists believe, has a 2.61ppm toxicity level, and when mixed with the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, its molecules will be able to “phase transition.”

This transition involves the change of the liquid into a gaseous state, which can be absorbed by clouds. The gas will then be released as “toxic rain” leading to “unimaginable environmental catastrophe” destroying all life forms from the “bottom of the evolutionary chart to the top,” the report said.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128113§ionid=3510203

My email from Alan Grayson (DEM) -

On May 30, 2010, at 10:06 a.m, the direct cost of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan will hit $1 trillion. And in a few weeks, the House of Representatives will be asked to vote for $33 billion of additional "emergency" supplemental spending to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be the pretense of debate - speeches on the floor of both chambers, stern requests for timetables or metrics or benchmarks - but this war money will get tossed in the wood chipper without difficulty, requested by a President who ran on an anti-war platform. Passing this legislation will mark the breaking of another promise to America, the promise that all war spending would be done through the regular budget process. Not through an off-budget swipe of our Chinese credit card.

The war money could be used for schools, bridges, or paying everyone's mortgage payments for a whole year. It could be used to end federal income taxes on every American's first $35,000 of income, as my bill, the War Is Making You Poor Act, does. It could be used to close the yawning deficit, supply health care to the unemployed, or for any other human and humane purpose.

Instead, it will be used for war. Because, as Orwell predicted in 1984, we've reached the point where everyone thinks that we've always been at war with Eastasia. Why?

Not because Al Qaeda was sheltered in Iraq. It wasn't. And not because Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. It isn't. Bush could never explain why we went to war in Iraq, and Obama can't explain why we are 'escalating' in Afghanistan.

So, why? Why spend $1 trillion on a long, bloody nine-year campaign with no justifiable purpose?

Remember 9/11, the day that changed everything? That was almost a decade ago. Bush's response was to mire us in two bloody wars, wars in which we are still stuck today. Why?

I can't answer that question. But I do have an alternative vision of how the last 10 years could have played out.

Imagine if we had decided after 9/11 to wean ourselves off oil and other carbon-based fuels. We'd be almost ten years into that project by now.

Imagine if George W. Bush had somehow been able to summon the moral strength of Mahatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, or Martin Luther King Jr, and committed the American people to the pursuit of a common goal of a transformed society, a society which meets our own human needs rather than declaring "war" on an emotion, or, as John Quincy Adams put it, going "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy".

Imagine.

Imagine that we chose not to enslave ourselves to a massive military state whose stated goal is "stability" in countries that never have been "stable", and never will be.

Imagine.

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace."

Sign up to end these wars.
http://salsa.mydccc.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Gx19xGZOx2T86BqDXcNsvp8YdQxyCzZa

Alan


*

Is this a progressive liberal board or is it a we all love Obama board?

I think Buldzer's (sorry, I forget how he spells it) suggestion that anyone who doesn't "like" the government should leave the country, is pretty un-American. How much did anyone here "love" the government while Shrub's fascist policies were taking our civil liberties?

How much did anyone here love the Bush wars that have driven the country into financial ruin?

Should we now accept the same policies and the escalation of war spending because Obama is POTUS?

And I really do think Stephanie's response was way over the top. Search my posts all you want - I've never had anything positive to say about Wolfkiller Palin or any other Repug with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

My post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50267665

What is the difference between $arah Palin, and a Mexican Immigrant?

One is dangerous, can't hold a job, has too many kids, and refuses to learn how to speak English.

The other is a Mexican Immigrant.

My post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50105807

If I had to pick the worst POTUS ever, my choice would be Reagan, with Shrub a close second. Can't think of any one person who did more to destroy the economy in Ca and then go on to do even worse to the whole country. It's great to see Jerry Brown making another run for Governor. If I still lived there, he would get my vote for sure.

Why would you post something as nauseating as that to me Stephanie? What have I ever said that would indicate I feel anything other than contempt for Palin and the Repugs?

You're barking up the wrong tree, son. I'm closer to 70 than 60. I think Jimmy Carter was the best POTUS we've had in my lifetime. I despise Bush, Reagan's ghost and wouldn't allow my kids to watch John Wayne movies. Cynthia McKinney is my good friend on facebook and Cindi Sheehan actually writes to me. I'm a firm believer in a woman's right to choose an abortion for any reason at all and I support gay rights...

In other words, I'm a liberal and a progressive liberal at that.

Obama is neither!

Back to the "spill"...I'm well aware that it was Cheney's policies that led to it. I'm also well aware that the Obama administration approved 27 new offshore drilling projects after the BP disaster. I even know that 26 of those projects were approved under the same environmental review exemption that was used to green-light the deadly BP drilling project. The new drilling moratorium doesn't halt approval of drilling plans and environmental exemptions.

Why all the Obama cheer leading here? I don't get it.

What I can't figure out is why someone who (I assume) thinks Bush and Cheney's energy policies were bad, as I do, why would that someone approve of Obama's energy policies? Policies that are even worse than Bush & Cheney's.

I despise Bush with all my heart and soul because of what he did to this country and the world. The wars in the Mid East that have ruined us financially and killed thousands of Americans and millions of humans. Do you approve of those wars since they now belong to Obama?

And the God damned "Patriot Act" with all it's ramifications...Is it now an OK thing since Obama hasn't seen fit to rescind it?

Are we better off now that Bush is gone and Obama is in charge? Is there less unemployment? Are Americans no longer losing their homes to foreclosure? Are we no longer being bankrupted by medical emergencies?

Obama appoints industry insiders to positions of power, just like Bush did. Obama said (Lobbyists) “won't find a job in my White House” and then appointed a Monsanto lobbyist to oversee our food safety.

Sorry but I don't see that we're any better off with Obama than we were with Bush.


*

I agree with that 100% but it's not going to happen. It's "our" government policies that allow multi national oil companies to drill on public property without adequate safety precautions. It's our govt. policies that allow oil companies to destroy our wetlands with no regard for the future or the cost of restoration. Here in Louisiana we lose 1 football field size of our wetlands every 38 minutes! All lost to accommodating the oil producers. All lost forever.

What is it about our government you like so much?


*

Hating the government is American as apple pie, Bulldzr. I don't find much to like about a government that protects the rights and profits of corporations more than the interests and rights of the citizens. I do think the tea baggers are an ignorant bunch, at best. However...."Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence


*

BP oil leak: Fallen Deepwater Horizon was tapping second largest oil deposit in the world



If there is a single aspect to the dangers of the BP oil leak, it lies in the question CEO Tony Hayward and other BP executives have been avoiding since the first drop of oil went rogue: How much oil is leaking?

The real answer is - more than anyone wants to admit, because the well holds enough oil to make Saudi Arabian drillers jealous.

The oil field the Deepwater Horizon had tapped is said to be the second largest deposit in the world. Viewzone.com reports, “The site covers an estimated 25,000 square miles, extending from the inlands of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. “

The oil deposit is so large, it could produce 500,000 barrels of a day for more than a decade.

Part of the reason the well exploded is because the site also contains large deposits of natural gas.

Speculation as to why BP has tried to hide the amount of oil spilling may be two-fold. There are legal issues and lawsuits in the works. The less said by BP now, the better it may play out for them in the future. The other, more alarming aspect, is the event of total wellhead failure before relief wells are completed in August.

Considering the size of the deposit, if BP loses control of the flow completely, the scope of the disaster would be unfathomable.

The New York Times has reported that scientists suspect the leak is thousands of times larger than what BP has been reporting. Some estimates are as high as one million gallons a day.

Rock particles, gas and oil escaping under pressure are pushing against the capstone on the sea floor that surrounds the actual well. If it collapses, the canyon of oil will escape with a vengeance.

Neither BP nor anyone else wants to say what will happen it the wellhead gives way or the sea floor around it caves in. All anyone is certain of is that the worst case scenario is the one everyone wants to avoid.

Go to http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m5d23-BP-oil-leak-Fallen-Deepwater-Horizon-was-tapping-second-largest-oil-deposit-in-the-world for comments and great oil spill widget.


*

Tower of Power: Only so much oil in the ground

Bush Oil Dancing

Has Obama created a Social Security 'death panel'?
ASK THIS | May 21, 2010

If the press doesn't ask tough questions and stand up for the little guy, the powerful interests stacking President Obama’s deficit commission will use it to cut the social programs that most help the middle class and the vulnerable.

By Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson

President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

Who are these powerful people and what are their views?

They are the members of President Obama’s newly-formed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. They lack racial and gender diversity, and more importantly, they lack diversity of opinion. Their mantra is that “everything is on the table,” but their one member who has any expertise with respect to defense spending, for instance, is the CEO of a major defense contractor that devotes millions of dollars each year to lobby Congress for more defense spending.

“Everything is on the table,” they say, but the members appointed by the minority leaders in the House and Senate have made clear that they do not believe that the problems in this country stem from under-taxing, rather from overspending. The one area that they seem to be in agreement on -- and which they are in fact, focusing on like a laser -- involves programs that help the middle class and those Americans who are the most vulnerable. Even liberal Senator Richard Durbin has stated, “the bleeding-heart liberals… have to…make real sacrifices to strengthen our nation.”

The co-chairs, in particular, seem to have a clear agenda. Even before the commission held its first meeting, Erskine Bowles went on record before the North Carolina Bankers' Association saying that if the Commission doesn't "mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ... America is going to be a second-rate power" in his lifetime. (And he is already 64!) Alan Simpson, known for giving ugly voice to harsh, ageist stereotypes, described the future of the fiscal commission: "It'll be a bloodbath. Let me tell you, everything that Bush and Clinton or Obama have suggested with regard to Social Security doesn't affect anyone over 60, and who are the people howling and bitching the most? The people over 60. This makes no sense. You've got to scrub out [of] the equation the AARP, the Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the Pink Panther, the whatever. Those people are lying... [They] don't care a whit about their grandchildren...not a whit." (For more about Alan Simpson, see Trudy Lieberman in CRJ: More Words of Wisdom from Alan Simpson.)

We write to raise questions and encourage press inquiry now, before the commission reports, at which point its recommendations could be on track and moving fast. Here are a few angles to explore:

Q. Have the members of the Commission made up their minds, at least with respect to the broad outlines, making the whole exercise simply an effort by elected officials to escape political accountability?

Q. Why is the Commission apparently working so closely with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who served in the Nixon administration and who has a clear ideological agenda?

Q. Mr. Peterson has been on a decades-long crusade against Social Security. The day after the first meeting of the commission, which focused heavily on the need to cut Social Security, the co-chairs and two other members of the commission participated in a Peterson event that reinforced the same message. A Peterson-funded foundation is supplying commission staff. And Peterson’s foundation is funding America Speaks to develop a series of high-profile town halls across the country to host “a national discussion to find common ground on tough choices about our federal budget.” (For more background about Mr. Peterson, see William Greider in the Nation on Looting Social Security -- Part 2.)

Q. Why the urgent focus on Social Security? In the past, Social Security has always been considered under the normal legislative process, with the opportunity for full amendments. According to the program’s actuaries, it is able to pay all benefits in full and on time for over a quarter of a century. Even its most diehard critics, who try mightily to convince the rest of us that the program is in crisis, can’t mount an argument that there is a problem for another five years or so. So what is the rush? What is the need for such an unaccountable, fast-tracked process when one has never been needed before? Why, in spite of the evidence that Social Security is working as intended and that there is growing need for the kind of broad and reliable protection provided under the program, is it being singled out by Bowles and Simpson and seemingly by the White House for a major trimming?

Q. The American public has stated in a number of polls that they prefer to increase the program’s revenue, even if it means them paying more, rather than reducing the benefits that are so vital to almost all its beneficiaries. (See, for example, this May 2005 Gallup Poll.) So why does the commission seem so determined to ignore the views of the American people, and insist that there must be benefit cuts?

Q. The members of the commission wrap themselves in the mantle of their children and grandchildren. Alan Simpson routinely says that he is a stalking horse for his grandchildren. This is good, but what about everyone else’s grandchildren? Especially those lacking privileged backgrounds; those more likely to need strong retirement, disability and survivorship protections as they grow and raise their own families and hopefully eventually reach retirement age? If these commissioners’ focus is on all grandchildren, shouldn’t they be more focused on investments today to ensure that their parents have good-paying jobs and that they can receive a first rate education? Why do they seem so intent on cutting the benefits of that future generation? As Simpson himself has made clear, he intends to spare today’s elderly, which means it is the benefits of the next generation which will be cut.

Q. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, are there efforts to buy off the press? Just in time for this commission, Mr. Peterson, not content to buy access, has now used his fortune to establish his own news service, so the story gets reported his way. The Fiscal Times is likely to be active in reporting about the commission. Given that Mr. Peterson’s son, Michael, has the power to hire and fire the two top editors, will its reporting be objective? Its first effort did not inspire confidence. (See Trudy Leiberman’s Dust up at the Washington Post and Richard Perez-Pena’s Sourcing of Article Awkward for Paper.)

At a time when the nation has near double-digit unemployment, when many responsible economists believe we could, without additional federal spending, experience a deeper recession, it is imperative for the press to ask the hard questions. Our elected officials should not be given a pass on an austerity approach that could have serious, long-ranging implications for all Americans, and particularly those most vulnerable. They have no one to protect them but an open, inquiring press.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00456


*

Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence?
http://farmwars.info/?p=2927


*

Definitely - Worst President Ever!!!
I can add one more point to Reagan's educational legacy the author left out. When my oldest boy was in high school Reagan ended the SS program that provided funding for the education of orphans beyond the 12th grade. Fortunately (for my son) he couldn't stop the program instantly but had to phase it out over a 4 year period.

As soon as I heard about this I told my boy to quit high school immediately and register in college, which he did. The money wasn't much but it did make a huge difference for thousands of kids who wanted to go to college.

Reagan truly despised poor people as much as he worshiped the rich.



*

The Educational Legacy of Ronald Reagan

©2004 Gary K. Clabaugh
edited 1/24/09

At this writing former President Reagan has just been interned with much pomp, plus hours of nationally televised praise. Some enthusiasts even proposed having the former President's countenance carved into Mt. Rushmore.

History will decide whether or not Mr. Reagan ranks as a great, or even good, president. But the indecorous rush to laud his accomplishments featured a conspicuous omission. No one said anything about Mr. Reagan's educational legacy.

What is Mr. Reagan's educational legacy? Let's begin with a look at his record as governor of California. While running for the governorship, Mr. Reagan shrewdly made the most of disorder on University of California campuses. For instance, he demanded a legislative investigation of alleged Communism and sexual misconduct at the University of California at Berkeley. He insisted on public hearings, claiming "a small minority of hippies, radicals and filthy speech advocates" had caused disorder and that they should "be taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown off campus -- permanently",[1]

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,

b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]

c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses

d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and

e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"

And he certainly did not let up on the criticisms of campus protestors that had aided his election. Mr. Reagan's denunciations of student protesters were both frequent and particularly venomous. He called protesting students "brats," "freaks," and "cowardly fascists." And when it came to "restoring order" on unruly campuses he observed, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement!"

Several days later four Kent State students were shot to death. In the aftermath of this tragedy Mr. Reagan declared his remark was only a "figure of speech." He added that anyone who was upset by it was "neurotic."[4] One wonders if this reveals him as a demagogue or merely unfeeling.

Governor Reagan not only slashed spending on higher education. Throughout his tenure as governor Mr. Reagan consistently and effectively opposed additional funding for basic education. This led to painful increases in local taxes and the deterioration of California's public schools. Los Angeles voters got so fed up picking up the slack that on five separate occasions they refused to support any further increases in local school taxes. The consequent under-funding resulted in overcrowded classrooms, ancient worn-out textbooks, crumbling buildings and badly demoralized teachers. Ultimately half of the Los Angeles Unified School District's teachers walked off the job to protest conditions in their schools.[5] Mr. Reagan was unmoved.

Ronald Reagan left California public education worse than he found it. A system that had been the envy of the nation when he was elected was in decline when he left. Nevertheless, Mr. Reagan's actions had political appeal, particularly to his core conservative constituency, many of whom had no time for public education.

In campaigning for the Presidency, Mr. Reagan called for the total elimination the US Department of Education, severe curtailment of bilingual education, and massive cutbacks in the Federal role in education. Upon his election he tried to do that and more.

Significantly, President Reagan also took steps to increase state power over education at the expense of local school districts. Federal funds that had flowed directly to local districts were redirected to state government. Moreover, federal monies were provided to beef up education staffing at the state level. The result was to seriously erode the power of local school districts.[6]

As in California, Mr. Reagan also made drastic cuts in the federal education budget. Over his eight years in office he diminished it by half. When he was elected the federal share of total education spending was 12%. When he left office it stood at just 6%.

He also advocated amending the Constitution to permit public school prayer, demanded a stronger emphasis on values education and proposed federal tuition tax credits for parents who opted for private schooling. The later two initiatives stalled in Congress. There were desultory efforts to promote greater values education but theyeventually misfired because of an obvious lack of consensus on whose values were to be taught.

Mr. Reagan was far more successful in giving corporate managers unprecedented influence over the future of public education. Reagan's avowed purpose was to make America more competitive in the world economy. But corporate executives dabbling in public education had no discernable influence on America's competitiveness. But the influence of big business did undermine the power of parents and locally elected school board members. It also suggested that it was far more important for schools to turn out good employees than good citizens or decent human beings.

In California Mr. Reagan had made political hay by heaping scorn on college students and their professors. As President his administration's repeatedly issued or encouraged uncommonly bitter denunciations of public education. William Bennett, the President's demagogic Secretary of Education, took the lead in this. He toured the nation making unprecedented and unprincipled attacks on most aspects of public education including teacher certification, teacher's unions and the "multi-layered, self-perpetuating, bureaucracy of administrators that weighs down most school systems." "The Blob" was what Bennett dismissively called them.

Predictably, Mr. Bennett made no mention of Reagan's massive cuts in education spending. Though he did repeatedly assert that public education was not going to be improved "by throwing money at it." He also scoffed at any suggestion that social ills and poverty limited educational possibilities. He characteristically used name-calling to deprecate that reasoning as "sociological flimflammery."[7] But even as Bennett spoke, 11 million children were living in poverty, 275,000 children were in foster homes and some 100,000 children under age sixteen were homeless.[8]

Three years into his first term Mr. Reagan's criticism of public education reached a crescendo when he hand picked a "blue ribbon" commission that wrote a remarkably critical and far-reaching denunciation of public education. Called "A Nation At Risk," this document charged that the US risked losing the economic competition among nations due to a "... rising tide of (educational) mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people." (The commissioners did not consider the possibility that US firms were uncompetitive because of corporate mismanagement, greed and short sightedness.)

After "A Nation At Risk" the nation's public schools were fair game for every ambitious politician or self-important business boss in the country. Its publication prompted a flood of follow-up criticism of public education as "blue ribbon" and "high level" national commissions plus literally hundreds of state panels wrote a flood of reform reports. Most presupposed that the charges made by Mr. Reagan's handpicked panel were true. Oddly though, throughout this entire clamor, parental confidence in the school's their children attended remained remarkably high.[9] Meanwhile Mr. Reagan was quietly halving federal aid to education.

That sums up Mr. Reagan's educational legacy. As governor and president he demagogically fanned discontent with public education, then made political hay of it. As governor and president he bashed educators and slashed education spending while professing to valued it. And as governor and president he left the nation's educators dispirited and demoralized.

Does this sound like a man whose countenance should bless Mt. Rushmore? We'll leave that up to you.

http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html



*

Religious Freaks will be the downfall of the USA. We will be just like the Middle East they all condemn!

Rand Paul Keynoted 2009 Rally for Far-Right Constitution Party

In April of last year, Dr. Rand Paul was the featured guest speaker at an event held by the Constitution Party of Minnesota, whose stated goals include "restor[ing] American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rand-paul-keynoted-2009-r_b_584273.html


*

Rand Paul is a doctor and doctors do have access to some mighty fine pharmaceuticals.



*

What is the difference between $arah Palin, and a Mexican Immigrant?

One is dangerous, can't hold a job, has too many kids, and refuses to learn how to speak English.

The other is a Mexican Immigrant.

I hope you're right and Kagan turns out to be a Liberal but I have serious doubts. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

Look like Slider slid right off the deep end, toddao. Or maybe it was the right end. But thanks for the new word, "Communitarianism". I like it.

You don't like Glenn Greenwald's "slant" so here's another...

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Goes to Bat for Monsanto, Sides With Conservative Justices

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the United States and Monsanto wants to control it. On April 27, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could well write the future of alfalfa production in our country.

Fortunately, for those who are concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is not yet residing on the bench.

For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protection group, and others have litigated against Monsanto and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The coalition has focused their fight against Monsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that the plants could negatively impact biodiversity as well as other non-GE food crops.

In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in a landmark case that the USDA had illegally approved Monsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a proper and full Environmental Impact Statement. The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa could contaminate nearby crops with its genetically manipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with the help of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE crops could be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Monsanto's well-paid legal team appealed the court's decision, but, in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.

"USDA should start over and truly evaluate the contamination of non-GM alfalfa and the potential affects on seed growers, organic and natural meat producers, dairy producers, and conventional and organic honey producers," said farmer and anti-GE advocate Todd Leake shortly after the ruling.

Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.

Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case.

As Kagan's office argued, "The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court."

Despite numerous examples of cross-pollination of GE crops, Monsanto argued during the April 27 court proceedings that this was highly unlikely to occur. CFS and other plaintiffs are concerned that a federal law could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. Courts in Oregon and California have already argued in previous cases that GE seeds must also be studied as to the potential impact on other conventional and organic crops.

Surprisingly, it seems that Kagan does not support a thorough study of GE seeds and their potential impact on environmental and human health. In doing so, Kagan has sided with conservative justices on the court who appeared skeptical that the lower courts had made the right decision in banning GE alfalfa.

During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the Ninth Circuit had the authority to issue a ban on GE alfalfa. Roberts contented that the court ought to have instead remanded the issue back to the USDA. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took his defense of Monsanto even further, stating, "This isn't the contamination of the New York City water supply," he said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."

Apparently Scalia and Roberts aren't up on the latest scientific analysis that Monsanto's GE crops have, in fact, bred new voracious super-weeds, which have forced farmers to "spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand, and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing."

"Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the other biotech companies, our federal agencies approved [GE] corn and cotton without requiring any mandatory testing for environmental impacts," Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the CFS recently wrote. "And the expected happened: a few years later, independent university researchers - again not the government - discovered that this [GE] pesticide was potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and other pollinators ... Without mandatory government testing, we're clueless about the universe of keystone pollinators and other species that are being decimated as the [GE] plants continue to proliferate in our fields."

The Supreme Court's decision on Monsanto's alfalfa ban will likely come early this summer. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because his brother Charles Breyer oversaw the lower court's decision against the company. Unsurprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas, who once worked in the legal department for Monsanto, did not recuse himself from the matter.

While Elena Kagan has no experience on the bench and has provided the public with little to no information about where she stands on some of the most important issues of the day, the fact that she came to bat for Monsanto two months, at a time when the company is reeling from negative press, may shed some light on how she could rule in future GE cases if she's confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.

http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-goes-bat-monsanto-sides-with-conservative-justices59456

Human evolution is on the rise, especially since the industrial age began...

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

There's a series of articles in Discovery Magazine...
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/04-discover-does-darwin



*

If I had to pick the worst POTUS ever, my choice would be Reagan, with Shrub a close second. Can't think of any one person who did more to destroy the economy in Ca and then go on to do even worse to the whole country. It's great to see Jerry Brown making another run for Governor. If I still lived there, he would get my vote for sure.

Excellent reason to NEVER vote for a Republican. Only problem I have is I can no longer see much difference between the major parties. Dems do talk a better line but both work for their corporate puppet masters, to our detriment. Obama may have been a liberal, even a progressive liberal at one time but he seems to have put all that behind him.