“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up
homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Individualism Vs. Chemical Straight Jacket, R. D. Laing 1984
Individualism and Autonomy quashed.
Recorded in 1984 At Ohio State University conference on George Orwell's book "1984"
Creative Commons Licensed
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Green Ontario, Quickly, Ohio, Green Gov. Candidate
Why Not Ohio? Huge Response to Ontario's Feed-in Tariff Launch
Dennis Spisak -
Green Party candidate for Ohio Governor cites a report by Paul Gipe last week about Ontario's Feed-in tariff program becoming a huge success.
"This is the type of government involvement that is needed to make a successful committment to renewable energy programs and to get them off the ground."said Spisak. "This type of program in Ohio would help people save money and begive the drive toa cleaner and greener Ohio in terms of renewable energies" he concluded.
According to the report, Ontario's new feed-in tariff program got off to an attention-grabbing start December 16, 2009 when the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) announced that it had awarded 700 contracts for renewable energy to homeowners under its expedited microFIT program.
Altogether, OPA received 8,000 MW of applications for wind and solar energy contracts under the province's precedent-setting, feed-in tariff policy.
OPA's remarkable press release was well timed to send a signal, if any was intended, to the Canadian delegation in Copenhagen where Canada was singled out as "Fossil of the Year" by climate change activists for its refusal to limit greenhouse gases.
Ontario is acting independently of Canada's federal government and plans to close all its coal-fired power plants by 2014. The province, Canada's most populous, is also aggressively developing its renewable energy industry. OPA's announcement was the first concrete indication of how fast the Ontario market may grow.
OPA estimates that the feed-in tariff program will stimulate more than $5 billion (Canadian) in new manufacturing, design, construction, and engineering investment in the province.
But the news that generated the most media buzz in Canada and elsewhere was the microFIT contracts. Saying the program "literally brings power to the people," Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Gerry Phillips sounded like a 1960s radical. He went on to add that the MicroFIT program "allows homeowners, farmers, schools and mom and pop businesses" to generate their own power "and get paid for it".
Under Ontario's microFIT program, homeowners generating their own electricity from solar PV will be paid $0.80 CAD/kWh ($0.76 USD/kWh) for a period of 20 years.
Indeed, it does sound radical, a program enabling citizens to profit from the renewable energy that falls on their rooftops. And Phillips wasn't alone in embracing the province's accomplishment-or sounding revolutionary.
Colin Anderson, OPA's chief executive, proudly noted that "We've cut the red tape and made it simpler for ordinary Ontarians to become electricity producers."
For Anderson and the OPA this wasn't idle boasting. They delivered North America's most aggressive renewable energy program in record-breaking time.
OPA said it was continuing to process another 500 micoFIT applications. When awarded, OPA will have issued a total 8.6 MW of contracts--nearly all for rooftop solar PV--to generators with projects less than 10 kW. These residential solar systems will generate nearly nine million kilowatt-hours per year under Ontario conditions.
Ontario's microFIT contracts alone will put Ontario close to one of the top ten markets for solar PV in North America. Yet the microFIT contracts represent just the tip of the iceberg.
Of the 8,000 MW of applications for feed-in tariffs, nearly 1,300 MW were for solar PV, and 6,300 MW were for wind energy.
Unfortunately, there is only 2,500 MW of grid capacity available in the first phase of OPA's feed-in tariff program. Another 1,500 MW of grid expansion is currently under construction.
In the meantime, OPA is giving preference to projects that are "shovel-ready" to get as much renewable energy in the ground as quickly as possible.
Within three to five years there could be as much as 4,000 MW of new renewable capacity in Ontario. Under Ontario conditions this would be roughly 3% to 5% of the province's electricity consumption. If achieved, this would be the most rapid growth of renewable energy in North America outside Texas.
For comparison, California--the one-time renewable energy leader in North America--currently generates only slightly more than 2% of its electricity consumption from new renewables.
Ontario has clearly put itself on the renewable energy map. This time next year we can judge the province by what really counts: not by the contracts awarded, but by the hardware installed.
Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/
Dennis Spisak -
Green Party candidate for Ohio Governor cites a report by Paul Gipe last week about Ontario's Feed-in tariff program becoming a huge success.
"This is the type of government involvement that is needed to make a successful committment to renewable energy programs and to get them off the ground."said Spisak. "This type of program in Ohio would help people save money and begive the drive toa cleaner and greener Ohio in terms of renewable energies" he concluded.
According to the report, Ontario's new feed-in tariff program got off to an attention-grabbing start December 16, 2009 when the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) announced that it had awarded 700 contracts for renewable energy to homeowners under its expedited microFIT program.
Altogether, OPA received 8,000 MW of applications for wind and solar energy contracts under the province's precedent-setting, feed-in tariff policy.
OPA's remarkable press release was well timed to send a signal, if any was intended, to the Canadian delegation in Copenhagen where Canada was singled out as "Fossil of the Year" by climate change activists for its refusal to limit greenhouse gases.
Ontario is acting independently of Canada's federal government and plans to close all its coal-fired power plants by 2014. The province, Canada's most populous, is also aggressively developing its renewable energy industry. OPA's announcement was the first concrete indication of how fast the Ontario market may grow.
OPA estimates that the feed-in tariff program will stimulate more than $5 billion (Canadian) in new manufacturing, design, construction, and engineering investment in the province.
But the news that generated the most media buzz in Canada and elsewhere was the microFIT contracts. Saying the program "literally brings power to the people," Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Gerry Phillips sounded like a 1960s radical. He went on to add that the MicroFIT program "allows homeowners, farmers, schools and mom and pop businesses" to generate their own power "and get paid for it".
Under Ontario's microFIT program, homeowners generating their own electricity from solar PV will be paid $0.80 CAD/kWh ($0.76 USD/kWh) for a period of 20 years.
Indeed, it does sound radical, a program enabling citizens to profit from the renewable energy that falls on their rooftops. And Phillips wasn't alone in embracing the province's accomplishment-or sounding revolutionary.
Colin Anderson, OPA's chief executive, proudly noted that "We've cut the red tape and made it simpler for ordinary Ontarians to become electricity producers."
For Anderson and the OPA this wasn't idle boasting. They delivered North America's most aggressive renewable energy program in record-breaking time.
OPA said it was continuing to process another 500 micoFIT applications. When awarded, OPA will have issued a total 8.6 MW of contracts--nearly all for rooftop solar PV--to generators with projects less than 10 kW. These residential solar systems will generate nearly nine million kilowatt-hours per year under Ontario conditions.
Ontario's microFIT contracts alone will put Ontario close to one of the top ten markets for solar PV in North America. Yet the microFIT contracts represent just the tip of the iceberg.
Of the 8,000 MW of applications for feed-in tariffs, nearly 1,300 MW were for solar PV, and 6,300 MW were for wind energy.
Unfortunately, there is only 2,500 MW of grid capacity available in the first phase of OPA's feed-in tariff program. Another 1,500 MW of grid expansion is currently under construction.
In the meantime, OPA is giving preference to projects that are "shovel-ready" to get as much renewable energy in the ground as quickly as possible.
Within three to five years there could be as much as 4,000 MW of new renewable capacity in Ontario. Under Ontario conditions this would be roughly 3% to 5% of the province's electricity consumption. If achieved, this would be the most rapid growth of renewable energy in North America outside Texas.
For comparison, California--the one-time renewable energy leader in North America--currently generates only slightly more than 2% of its electricity consumption from new renewables.
Ontario has clearly put itself on the renewable energy map. This time next year we can judge the province by what really counts: not by the contracts awarded, but by the hardware installed.
Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Reuters: U.N. envoy slams U.S. for unanswered drone questions
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE59Q51220091027
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States must demonstrate that it is not randomly killing people in violation of international law through its use of unmanned drones on the Afghan border, a U.N. rights investigator said on Tuesday.
Philip Alston, a U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, also said the U.S. refusal to respond to U.N. concerns that the use of pilotless drones might result in illegal executions was an "untenable" position.
Alston, who is appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said his concern over drones, or predators, had grown in the past few months as the U.S. military prominently used the weapons in the rugged border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan where fighting against insurgents has been heavy.
"What we need is for the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK we're prepared to discuss some aspects of this program,'" the Australian law professor told reporters.
"Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," he said.
Critics say attacks using drones have resulted in unnecessary civilian deaths.
The killing of civilians, especially during operations by foreign forces, have infuriated Afghans and increased hostility toward the presence of international troops nearly eight years after the Taliban's fall in Afghanistan.
During a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier on Tuesday, Alston stepped up pressure for Washington to answer questions he first raised in June about the drones. He said the United States could well be using the drones legally, but the country needed to be more open about the program.
The United States told the Human Rights Council in June that it has an extensive legal framework to respond to unlawful killings. It also objected to Alston's criticism, saying the U.N. investigator did not have the mandate to cover military and intelligence.
Alston wants to know the legal basis on which the United States is operating the drones, precautions it is taking to ensure these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law, and what mechanisms are in place to review the use of the weapons.
"The response of the United States is simply untenable," Alston said.
"And that (U.S. response) is that the Human Rights Council, and the General Assembly by definition, have no role in relation to killings that take place in relation to an armed conflict," he said. "That would remove a great majority of issues that come before (the United Nations) right now."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States must demonstrate that it is not randomly killing people in violation of international law through its use of unmanned drones on the Afghan border, a U.N. rights investigator said on Tuesday.
Philip Alston, a U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, also said the U.S. refusal to respond to U.N. concerns that the use of pilotless drones might result in illegal executions was an "untenable" position.
Alston, who is appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said his concern over drones, or predators, had grown in the past few months as the U.S. military prominently used the weapons in the rugged border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan where fighting against insurgents has been heavy.
"What we need is for the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK we're prepared to discuss some aspects of this program,'" the Australian law professor told reporters.
"Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," he said.
Critics say attacks using drones have resulted in unnecessary civilian deaths.
The killing of civilians, especially during operations by foreign forces, have infuriated Afghans and increased hostility toward the presence of international troops nearly eight years after the Taliban's fall in Afghanistan.
During a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier on Tuesday, Alston stepped up pressure for Washington to answer questions he first raised in June about the drones. He said the United States could well be using the drones legally, but the country needed to be more open about the program.
The United States told the Human Rights Council in June that it has an extensive legal framework to respond to unlawful killings. It also objected to Alston's criticism, saying the U.N. investigator did not have the mandate to cover military and intelligence.
Alston wants to know the legal basis on which the United States is operating the drones, precautions it is taking to ensure these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law, and what mechanisms are in place to review the use of the weapons.
"The response of the United States is simply untenable," Alston said.
"And that (U.S. response) is that the Human Rights Council, and the General Assembly by definition, have no role in relation to killings that take place in relation to an armed conflict," he said. "That would remove a great majority of issues that come before (the United Nations) right now."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Dr. Weil Threatened by FDA Over Immune-Boosting Supplements
Dr. Weil Threatened by FDA Over Immune-Boosting Supplements
FDA, FTC threaten Dr. Weil over immune-boosting supplements for H1N1 swine flu
By Mike Adams
Natural News, October 22, 2009
Straight to the Source
In working to protect the business interests of vaccine manufactures, both the FDA and FTC have declared all-out war against any products that might offer consumers options other than vaccines. This week, that war against natural remedies reached the shores of Dr. Andrew Weil, who is perhaps the best-known alternative medicine doctor in America. In an intimidating, threatening letter jointly issued by the FTC and the FDA, these rogue government agencies threatened Dr. Weil with criminal prosecution for making true statements about his immune-boosting formula such as, "Astragalus ... is ... used traditionally to ward off colds and flu, and has demonstrated both antiviral and immune-boosting effects in scientific investigation."
This statement, although scientifically valid and true, is a threat to the profits of the vaccine industry, and so Dr. Weil's company is being targeted by the FTC / FDA vaccine racket tag-team for termination.
You can review the FTC threats against Dr. Weil on the FTC's own website: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetter...
FDA, FTC threaten Dr. Weil over immune-boosting supplements for H1N1 swine flu
By Mike Adams
Natural News, October 22, 2009
Straight to the Source
In working to protect the business interests of vaccine manufactures, both the FDA and FTC have declared all-out war against any products that might offer consumers options other than vaccines. This week, that war against natural remedies reached the shores of Dr. Andrew Weil, who is perhaps the best-known alternative medicine doctor in America. In an intimidating, threatening letter jointly issued by the FTC and the FDA, these rogue government agencies threatened Dr. Weil with criminal prosecution for making true statements about his immune-boosting formula such as, "Astragalus ... is ... used traditionally to ward off colds and flu, and has demonstrated both antiviral and immune-boosting effects in scientific investigation."
This statement, although scientifically valid and true, is a threat to the profits of the vaccine industry, and so Dr. Weil's company is being targeted by the FTC / FDA vaccine racket tag-team for termination.
You can review the FTC threats against Dr. Weil on the FTC's own website: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetter...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
R.D. Laing
Speaking on Autonomy