Message by Snowden: Privacy Still Matters

by Stephen Castle

Expatriate (now stateless) Whistle Blower, Edward Snowden

LONDON — In a message broadcast Wednesday on British television, Edward J. Snowden, the former American security contractor, urged an end to mass surveillance, arguing that the electronic monitoring he has exposed surpasses anything imagined by George Orwell in “1984,” a dystopian vision of an all-knowing state.

“A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all,” Mr. Snowden said in a Christmas Day message shown by Channel 4. “They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves — an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought.”

“Privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be,” he said.

Mr. Snowden, 30, remains in Moscow, where the Russian government granted him temporary asylum rather than extraditing him to the United States following his leak of information about the National Security Agency’s extensive electronic surveillance programs. The Justice Department filed a criminal complaint against him in June, alleging that he had violated the United States’ Espionage Act and stolen government property.

This month, Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said the N.S.A.’s mass collection of data was probably unconstitutional. President Obama appointed an advisory committee of outside experts to review the agency’s operations; it issued a report last week that recommended curbing the agency’s data collection.

Britain’s security services, which work closely with their American counterparts, have also been deeply embarrassed by the revelations, and one of Mr. Snowden’s more striking comments in the broadcast refers to “1984,” Orwell’s celebrated novel about a state controlled by an omnipresent Big Brother.

“Great Britain’s George Orwell warned us of the danger of this kind of information,” Mr. Snowden said. “The types of collection in the book — microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us — are nothing compared to what we have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go.”

But he also argued that his actions had set off a debate that could help restore faith in those who regulate electronic communications. “The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it,” Mr. Snowden said. “Together, we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.”

Mr. Snowden has spoken out publicly before, and his latest comments are in line with others he made this week. In a lengthy interview with The Washington Post, he said he had achieved what he set out to do. “For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.”

Channel 4 described Mr. Snowden’s brief appearance on Wednesday, which lasted less than two minutes, as his first television interview since arriving in Moscow, though the format is a televised statement as the station’s alternative Christmas message to the queen’s annual holiday broadcast. In the 20 years since it began its tradition, Channel 4 has commissioned a variety of outspoken public figures, including the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Mr. Snowden’s message was filmed and produced by the documentary maker Laura Poitras, Channel 4 said. In a statement, the channel’s director of news and current affairs, Dorothy Byrne, said the information Mr. Snowden had revealed “raises serious questions for democratic society.” She added that his message was “an opportunity for our viewers to hear from him directly and judge for themselves what he has to say.”

By contrast, and in line with tradition, the Christmas Day message from Queen Elizabeth II kept well away from controversy or politics. Reflecting on the birth of her great-grandson, Prince George, the queen said the arrival of a new baby gave people the chance to think about the future with “renewed hope.”

by Carlos Miller

Acadia Parish, LA —

Just in time for Christmas, the Acadia Parish District Attorneys Office chose not to prosecute Theresa Richard who was arrested after entering a police department while recording with her camera earlier this month.

Now we need to see if the Crowley Police Department returns her camera. And if they do, does it still contain the footage she recorded on December 1, leading to another case of the PINAC Wrath where readers flooded their station with calls, resulting in their city attorney sending out a letter claiming we were trying to “harass and intimidate” them when it was clear that they were the ones harassing and intimidating her.

The truth is, Crowley police never had the right to seize her camera for the trumped-up charge of “remaining after forbidden,” so hopefully, a Louisiana lawyer will take her case to sue them for violating her Constitutional rights.

This is what Richard had to say in a FB message about the letter she received today and about her attempts to get her camera back:

We went to get it today but the holder of the evidence room key is conveniently off until Thursday. I was hoping to have the video uploaded Thursday morning if it still exists. I owe this all to you and your followers, and my husband. Thank you so much for getting me involved. I have participated in every call to action you, and other site like yours, have called for after witnessing the profound effect it has. Merry Christmas to you and yours. I bought myself one of your PINAC shirts for Xmas and I wore it to the station to try and get my cam today!

The letter is embedded below but if it doesn’t come up, click here.

It was a sweet, but humble event–much like our Savior’s birth. Friends, neighbors, and Christians alike gathered in the Hunter Farms barn to celebrate the birth of Christ. The barn had been swept clean and straw bales stacked high for the occasion. The songs of Christmas were unadorned but heart felt as the musicians and celebrants joined their voices in rejoicing. Homemade cookies, coffee, tea, and hot cider were offered after the service. There were many smiles and children that night.

Services were conducted by the New Community Church of Union, WA, an interdenominational Christian fellowship that meets for worship, service, and outreach in the greater Union area.

Pastor Terry R. Olive, 951 E. Dalby Rd, PO Box 232, Union, WA 98592
nccu@hctc.com, www.theNCCU.org, (360)898-7855

Sundays: Worship Services – 8:30 & 10:30 @ the Union Fire Hall (3rd & Seattle St)
(kids’ Sunday School – offered during the 10:30 service)

Tuesdays: Prayer Time – 9:30 (Church Office); Quilting Group – 10:00 am – 1:00 pm

Wednesdays: Study – End Times, 10:00 am, Church Office; NT Characters – 10:30a
AL-Anon Family Group, 10:00 – 11:00 am @ 600 N. Lake Cushman Rd, Hoodsport

Thursdays: Souper Soup, 12:00 – 1:00 pm @ Church Office, 2nd & 4th Thursdays;
AA Meetings, 5:00 pm, Church Office

Saturdays: Call to Prayer, 6:00 pm, Church Office

NCCU Quilters: Tuesdays @ the NCCU office, 10:00 am – 1:00 pm
(No experience or equipment necessary)

Feeding the Hungry (@ St. David’s): 2nd Thursday each month

Souper Soup Lunch: 2nd & 4th Thursdays of each month, noon – 1:00p @ NCCU

Grief Counseling: Contact NCCU office or Pastor Terry

(1/7)

(2/7)

(3/7)

(4/7)

(5/7)

(6/7)

(7/7)

The Newly Invisible Undeserving Poor

Blaming the poor, the spat upon, the sat upon, the ratted on

by Ruth Rosen

While the rest of the world debates America’s role in the Middle East or its use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress is debating just how drastically it should cut food assistance to the 47 million Americans – one out of seven people –  who suffer from “food insecurity,” the popular euphemism for those who go hungry.

The U.S. Government began giving food stamps to the poor during the Great Depression.  Even when I was a student in the 1960’s, I received food stamps while unemployed during the summers.  That concern for the hungry, however, has evaporated. The Republicans – dominated by Tea Party policies – are transforming the United States into a far less compassionate and more mean-spirited society.

The need is great. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the food stamp programme – now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), has doubled from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion in the last year. During 2012, 65 million Americans used SNAP for at least one a month, which means that one out of every five Americans became part of the swelling rolls of “needy families,” most of whom are women and children.

Democrats defend the new debit card program, which can only be used to purchase food, as feeding needy Americans at a time of high unemployment and great poverty. Republicans, for their part, argue that the programme is rife with fraud, that its recipients (who are mostly single mothers) are lazy and shiftless, and that we must make drastic cuts to reduce government spending. Their most Dickensian argument is that if you feed the poor, they won’t want to work.

But as the New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out,welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they also good for the economy.  People who receive such help spend the money immediately. Single mother hold down multiple jobs at minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go shopping and to buy needed groceries. Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting it.

Despite these arguments, the cuts have already begun. On November 1, 2013, Congresscut nearly five billion dollars from SNAP and Republicans now want to cut another $40 billion dollars. The stalemate has resulted in the failure of Congress to pass the farm bill, which provides SNAP subsidies to farms, mostly of which are large agricultural corporations.

Meanwhile, poverty grows, the stock market zooms to new heights, the wealth of the 1% increases, and corporate executives continue to get tax exemptions for business entertainment expenses, which allow corporations to deduct 50% of these costs from theirannual taxes.

In all this discussion, the real face of poverty – single mothers – has strangely disappeared. Welfare policy in America has always favored mothers and children. In a country that values self-sufficiency and glorifies individualism, Americans have viewed men – except war veterans – as capable of caring for themselves, or part of the undeserving poor. Women, by contrast, were always viewed as mothers with dependents, people to be cared for and protected precisely because they are vulnerable and raise the next generation.

As I read dozens of think tank and government reports, and newspaper stories however, I am surprised to notice that even strong opponents of the cuts describe SNAP’s recipients as children, teenagers, seniors or the disabled. Why have single mothers disappeared from such accounts about the poor?  There are plenty of “needy families,” “households,” and “poor Americans,” but the real face of poverty and the actual recipients of food assistance are single mothers, whose faces have been absorbed by the more abstract language of “poor Americans” and “needy households.”

Even the strongest opponents of these cuts don’t focus on women or mothers. Instead they publicize pinched-faced children – a better poster image – staring hungrily at food they cannot eat. Or, they discuss the public health impact these cuts may have on children. According to most reports, even from the Agriculture Department, “children and teenagers” make up almost half of the recipients of food assistance. But they don’t mention the mothers who receive this assistance in order to feed those children and teenagers. From the stories about food stamps, you’d think that only children, teenagers, the elderly and the disabled have gone hungry.

The words “women” or even “mothers” rarely appear. In a powerful column against the cuts, the liberal and compassionate  New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for example, argued that “two-thirds of recipients are children, elderly or disabled” and warned his readers about the long-range impact of malnourished children. He, too, never mentioned women, who are the main adult recipients of the SNAP program and who feed those children, elderly or disabled. Nor did he point out that those who apply for such assistance are the mothers and women who seek to nourish these children. It’s as though women are simply vehicles – not persons – in the reproduction process of the human race.

Yet the reality tells a different story. In 2010, for example, 42 percent of single mothersrelied on SNAP; and in rural areas, the rate often rose as high as one half of all single mothers. What’s missing from this picture – on both sides – is the real faces of hunger, which is not “needy” families, or “poor Americans”, but single mothers with “food insecurity” for themselves and their families. According to the Center for Budget Priorities, women are twice as likely to use food stamps as anyone else in the population. They are the ones who apply for the SNAP debit card, go shopping, takes buses for hours to find discounted food supplies, and try to stretch their food to last throughout the month for their children, teenagers and, less often, husbands. They are the pregnant women with older children whose infants are born malnourished, and the “Americans” who, at the end of the month, make hasty runs to relatives, food banks and even join other dumpster divers.

When journalists do focus on the women who are recipients of food assistance, they discover a nightmare hiding in plain sight.  These women are either unemployed, under-employed or service workers who don’t earn enough to feed themselves and their families. By the end of the month, they and their children frequently often skip meals or eat one meal a day until the next month’s SNAP assistant arrives

So why have women disappeared from a fierce national debate over who deserves food assistance? I’m not actually sure. Perhaps it is because so many adult women, like men, now work in the labour force and are viewed as individuals who should take care of themselves. Perhaps it is because Republicans find women’s appetite, as opposed to that of children, an embarrassment, hinting of sexual desire. Perhaps it is because this is part of the Republican war on women’s reproductive freedom: a single mother with children is somehow guilty of bringing on her own poverty.

Whatever the reason, the rhetoric does not match the reality. Once in while, the media publishes or broadcasts a “human interest” story that gives poor women a face” “It is late October,” one reporter begins, “so Adrianne Flowers is out of money to buy food for her family. Feeding five kids is expensive, and the roughly $600 in food stamps she gets from the federal government never lasts the whole month. “I’m barely making it,” said the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident and single mother.” End of story. On to weather and the sports.

For the most part, however, poor women remain invisible, even as the mothers who feed the children, teenagers, elderly and disable who live with them. They do not elicit compassion. If anything, they are ignored or regarded with contempt.

Whatever the reason, Americans are having a national debate about poor and needy Americans without addressing the very group whose poverty is the greatest. The result is that we are turning poor, single mothers, who are 85% of all single parents, into a newly invisible and undeserving group of recipients.

Republicans may view single mothers as sinful parasites who don’t deserve food assistance. But behind every hungry child, teenager and elderly person is a hungry mother who is exhausted from trying to keep her family together. Women who receive food assistance are neither invisible nor undeserving. They are working-class heroes who work hard -often at several minimal wage jobs – to keep their families nourished and together.

Ruth Rosen, a journalist and historian, is professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis and a visiting professor of public policy and history at UC Berkeley. For 11 years, she wrote op-ed columns for the Los Angeles Times, and from 2000-2004 she worked full-time as a political columnist and editorial page writer at the San Francisco Chronicle.

An open letter to the people of Brazil

The following letter was published today in the Brazilian newspaper A Folha in Portuguese and this original text was provided via the Facebook page of Glenn Greenwald’s husband David Miranda:

Six months ago, I stepped out from the shadows of the United States Government’s National Security Agency to stand in front of a journalist’s camera. I shared with the world evidence proving some governments are building a world-wide surveillance system to secretly track how we live, who we talk to, and what we say. I went in front of that camera with open eyes, knowing that the decision would cost me family and my home, and would risk my life. I was motivated by a belief that the citizens of the world deserve to understand the system in which they live.

In Harm’s Way

My greatest fear was that no one would listen to my warning. Never have I been so glad to have been so wrong. The reaction in certain countries has been particularly inspiring to me, and Brazil is certainly one of those.

At the NSA, I witnessed with growing alarm the surveillance of whole populations without any suspicion of wrongdoing, and it threatens to become the greatest human rights challenge of our time. The NSA and other spying agencies tell us that for our own “safety”—for Dilma’s “safety,” for Petrobras’ “safety”—they have revoked our right to privacy and broken into our lives. And they did it without asking the public in any country, even their own.

Today, if you carry a cell phone in Sao Paolo, the NSA can and does keep track of your location: they do this 5 billion times a day to people around the world. When someone in Florianopolis visits a website, the NSA keeps a record of when it happened and what you did there. If a mother in Porto Alegre calls her son to wish him luck on his university exam, NSA can keep that call log for five years or more. They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target’s reputation.

American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not “surveillance,” it’s “data collection.” They say it is done to keep you safe. They’re wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement — where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion — and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.

Many Brazilian senators agree, and have asked for my assistance with their investigations of suspected crimes against Brazilian citizens. I have expressed my willingness to assist wherever appropriate and lawful, but unfortunately the United States government has worked very hard to limit my ability to do so — going so far as to force down the Presidential Plane of Evo Morales to prevent me from traveling to Latin America! Until a country grants permanent political asylum, the US government will continue to interfere with my ability to speak.

Six months ago, I revealed that the NSA wanted to listen to the whole world. Now, the whole world is listening back, and speaking out, too. And the NSA doesn’t like what it’s hearing. The culture of indiscriminate worldwide surveillance, exposed to public debates and real investigations on every continent, is collapsing. Only three weeks ago, Brazil led the United Nations Human Rights Committee to recognize for the first time in history that privacy does not stop where the digital network starts, and that the mass surveillance of innocents is a violation of human rights.

“These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.“

The tide has turned, and we can finally see a future where we can enjoy security without sacrificing our privacy. Our rights cannot be limited by a secret organization, and American officials should never decide the freedoms of Brazilian citizens. Even the defenders of mass surveillance, those who may not be persuaded that our surveillance technologies have dangerously outpaced democratic controls, now agree that in democracies, surveillance of the public must be debated by the public.

My act of conscience began with a statement: “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice.

If Brazil hears only one thing from me, let it be this: when all of us band together against injustices and in defense of privacy and basic human rights, we can defend ourselves from even the most powerful systems.

(Whistle blower Edward Joseph Snowden is a US former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who leaked details of top-secret US and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.)

LA Corvette Pursuit ends in death Brian Beaird Military Vet Wild Police Chase Investigation. Police in Los Angeles are investigating whether officers shot and killed an unarmed man live on television because they mistakenly thought they heard “unfriendly” gunfire.

Brian Beaird was shot by officers after an hour-long car chase through LA on Friday night. He died in hospital shortly afterwards.

The shooting was broadcast live by one of the local TV stations which had been airing helicopter images of the pursuit of Beaird’s silver Corvette.

The chase only came to an end when the 51-year-old military veteran broke a red light and ploughed into another car.

The LAPD is now investigating claims that, when one officer fired a non-lethal “bean bag” round, another mistook it for gunfire and opened fire with a real weapon.

Chief of police Charlie Beck has promised a thorough investigation to establish what happened. Beaird’s family is taking legal advice. They say he phoned his brother in a panic during the chase, wondering why he was being pursued.

John Beaird said: “We’re pretty angry. There didn’t seem to be justification for what happened.”
Neighbours of Mr Beaird, in Oceanside, near San Diego, have spoken of their shock.

Yolanda Orozco said: “It is really surprising and shocking. I was born and raised in LA so I know back in the 70s, when I moved away, what used to go on. It is sad.”

Flowers and candles have been placed at the scene of the incident. A handmade poster carries the message: “Shame on LAPD. Unnecessary use of deadly force.”

A few hours after Mr Beaird’s death, four people died when their vehicle overturned during a police chase in the Compton area of Los Angeles.

Officer Charles Broaderick is seen on video slamming DUI suspect James Duckworth’s head against concrete wall at Marion County Jail, Florida. [Knowing they are on camera, one must imagine what the LEOs are capable of off camera!]

USN Sax Section

US Navy Band

Sarah Reasner

The luck of the angels was with Shelton Friday night as the US Navy Band put on a delightful Christmas program in Shelton’s High School auditorium. Admission was free, but toy donations were appreciated. Handsomely uniformed US Marines collected them at the door. The musicians were stunningly talented and professional. The US Navy Band Northwest is under the operational command of Rear Admiral Bette Bolivar, Commander, Navy Region Northwest. The performance was directed by Lt. Robert J. Coats. Navy Band Northwest is one of 13 official US Navy Bands located throughout the continental US, Hawaii, Italy, and Japan. For those professional musicians who’d like a shot at auditioning for this extremely select group, their contact info is:

Navy Band Northwest

1103A Hunley Road, Silverdale, WA 98315

Phone: (360)315-3448, Fax: (360)315-3457

navybandnw.cnrnw@navy.mil

SOUNDS

Web Address:

http:www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrnw/about/navy_band.html

Facebook:

facebook.com/navybandnorthwest

While members receive full military pay and benefits, promotions tend to be slow. Their assigned duty consists of performing at musical venues and continual work on their art form as a full time job. The Navy, however, doesn’t train musicians. It only trains already fully accomplished professional grade musicians to be military musicians. The competition, as one might imagine, at the time of auditioning is as tough as it gets. Opportunities to attend one of their performances is a real treat, as it was last Friday the 13th.

ROSTER

Director: Lt Robert Coats – Albuquerque, NM Assistant Director: MUCS(SW) Dereck Werner – Jacksonville, AR Leading Chief Petty Officer: MUC(SW) Nathan Bissell – Chepachet, RI Operations Coordinator: MU1(SW) David Baine – Lake St. Louis, MO Leading Petty Officer: MU1 Robert Taylor – Stuarts Draft, VA

Flute: MU3 Shelly Sgroi – Minster, OH Oboe: MU3 Rachel Mortenson – St. Louis, MO

Clarinet: MUC(SW) Nathan Bissell – Chepachet, RI; MU1 Luke Cox – Denver, CO: MU3 Aaron Schmid – Dayton, OH; MUSN Justin Laukat – Draper, UT

Saxophone: MU2 Leeland Rothrock – Charlotte, NC; MU2 Jason Stark – Augusta, GA; MU3 Holly Carlton – Holyoke, MA; MU3 Nicholas Pool – Salina, KS

Bassoon: MU3 Sam Rumpak, Fullerton, CA

French Horn: MU1(SW) David Baine – Lake St. Louis, MO; MU3 Blake Yarbrough – Dallas, TX

Trumpet: MU1 Robert Taylor – Stuarts Draft, VA; MU3 Eric Nielsen – Portland, OR; MU3 Ian Wheeler – Newport News, VA; MU3 Zachary Conway – Atlanta, GA

Trombone: MU2 James Choate – Mangum, OK; MU3 Ben Dixon – Colorado Springs, CO; MU3 Doug Sgroi – Wheeling, WV; MU3 Andrea Smith – Palm Beach, FL

Euphnium: MU1(SW) Chris Eddlemon – Paris, TX

Tuba: MUSN Collin Moos – Parrish, FL

Piano: MU2(SW) Drew Williams – Carmel, IN

Bass: MU3 Hector Garcia – Chicago, IL

Percussion:

MU3 John Head – Humble, TX; MU3 Sarah Reasner (soloist singer)- Palmer, AK;

MU3 Camelia Akhamie – Woodbridge, VA; MU3 Michael Kramer – Washington, DC;

MU3 Hunt Gibson – Kinston, NC; MU3 Christopher McGann – Burlington, MA

[LT – Lieutenant; MUCS – Senior Chief Musician; MUC – Chief Musician; MU1 – Musician First Class; MU2 – Musician Second Class; MU3 – Musician Third Class; MUSN – Musician Seaman; (SW) – Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist]

PROGRAM

Miniature Overture – P.I. Tchaikovsky Overture – Duke Ellington
Have a Holly Jolly Christmas – Johnny Marks (Arranged by Harry Connick Jr. featuring MU3 Sarah Reasner)

Peanut Brittle Brigade – Duke Ellington
Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies – P.I. Tchaikovsky
Russian Dance (Trepak) – P.I. Tchaikovsky
O Magnum Mysterium – Morton Lauridsen (Arranged by H. Robert Reynolds)
Raisins and Almonds – Abraham Goldfaden (Arranged by MU3 Michael Kramer)
You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch – Theodor “Dr. Seuss” Geisel/Albert Hague (Arranged by Dwayne S. Milburn, Featuring MU2(SW) Drew Williams)

What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve? – Frank Loesser (Featuring “Cascade” Protocol Combo)

Funky Frosty – Bayou Brass Band (Featuring “Deception Brass”)
2000 Miles – The Pretenders (Featuring “passage” Popular Music Group)
Heaven Everywhere – Francesca Battistelli (Featuring “Passage” Popular Music Group)
Slumber, My Darling – Stephen Foster (Arranged by Edgar Meyer; Adapted by MU3 Nicholas Pool; Featuring MU3 Sarah Reasner)

Let There Be Peace on Earth – Sy Miller/Jill Jackson (Arranged by TSgt Larry MacTaggert; Featuring MU3 Sarah Reasner)
Waltz of the Flowers – P.I. Tchaikovsky

(1/13)

(2/13)

(3/13)

(4/13)

(5/13)

(6/13)

(7/13)

(8/13)

(9/13)

(10/13)

(11/13)

(12/13)

(13/13)

China has taken the extraordinary and unprecedented move of banning the importation of all shellfish from the US West Coast as shared in this story from ENENews. Meanwhile, the still sleeping MSM & Californians celebrate the remaining sea life in the ocean approaching their doorsteps while 145 miles off the shore of California, 98% of the seafloor is covered in Fuku death sea creatures. Is it any wonder China is taking these measures to protect their population and WHY isn’t the US govt doing the same thing? The ban continues indefinitely and for some reason, does not include the shell fish from Southern California as shared from ENENews with a video also below from BeautifulGirlByDana: Fukushima Pacific Ocean 6 Year Countdown To Extinction.:

‘Unprecedented’: China bans all imports of shellfish from U.S. West Coast — Official: “They’ve never done anything like that that I’ve ever seen” — Includes Washington, Oregon, Alaska and N. California — Gov’t says it will continue indefinitely

KUOW, Dec. 13, 2013: China Imposes First-Ever West Coast Shellfish Ban […] China has suspended imports of shellfish from the west coast of the United States — an unprecedented move […] China said it decided to impose the ban after recent shipments of geoduck clams from Northwest waters were found by its own government inspectors to have high levels of arsenic and a toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning. The restriction took effect last week and China’s government says it will continue indefinitely. It applies to clams, oysters and all other two-shelled bivalves harvested from the waters of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Northern California.

Northwest Public Radio, Dec. 13, 2013: China has closed its doors to all imports of West coast shellfish. Chinese officials tested samples of geoduck clams and found elevated levels of arsenic and a toxin that causes Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning. […] Jerry Borchert is in charge of monitoring toxins in shellfish for the Washington Department of Health. He says China’s actions are unusual. […] “They’ve never done anything like that that I’ve ever seen since I’ve been here where they would not allow shellfish from this entire area based on potentially two areas or maybe just one area, we don’t really know yet.” Last year the U.S. exported more than half a billion dollars worth of shellfish – with China as its biggest customer. […] There’s no telling when China will lift its import ban, but shellfish on the market in the U.S. are safe to eat.

The Olympian, Nov. 24, 2013:  In response to questions from diggers, the state said that in tests done to date, no fish or shellfish off the Pacific coast have radioactive contamination that would pose a risk to people who eat them.

Yoram Bauman, Ph.D. (economics) came to The Evergreen State College (TEST) on 10/30/13 in Olympia, WA to lecture as a proponent for carbon taxes in an effort to save the planet from global climate collapse.

Yoram bills himself as the world’s first and only stand-up economist with over 1 million hits on YouTube. He performs at colleges, corporations, and comedy clubs around the world. His PhD in economics is from the University of Washington and he teaches part-time at UW, at Lakeside High School in Seattle, and at Bainbridge Graduate Institute. He studies the economics of climate change and thinks carbon taxes can save the world.

He grew up in San Francisco, received an undergraduate degree in mathematics at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, then attended graduate school at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, receiving his Ph.D. in Economics in 2003.

Gar W. Lipow

Gar W. Lipow

Arrived & left early

Professor Larry Mosqueda on right

Unidentified Videographer

Yoram Bauman (left), Larry Mosqueda (right)

Yoram Bauman

Larry Mosqueda (left), Yoram Bauman (right)

Yoram Bauman reveals logo

Professors Peter Bohmer (left) & Larry Mosqueda (right)

Peter Bohmer, Larry Mosqueda, Yoram Bauman

Yoram Bauman

Peter Bohmer (left), Larry Mosqueda (right)

Unidentified Videographer w/Sony camcorder

Larry Mosqueda (left), Yoram Bauman (right)

Gar W. Lipow

Gar W. Lipow

Larry Mosqueda (left), Yoram Bauman (right)

Professors Peter Bohmer (left), Larry Mosqueda (right)

unidentified attendees

Mary ‘Spokane’ Hathaway (left), et ux

Bauman is an ‘environmental economist’, working as a teacher at the University of Washington, in the Program on the Environment, Bainbridge Graduate School, and Lakeside School. He is the co-author of the 1998 book, Tax Shift, which advocates switching taxation from income and property to resource consumption.

Bauman proved brittle for a ‘comedienne’ when challenged on the morality of applying a ‘tax’ to CO2 emissions as the critic compared it to tax dioxin emissions or any other catastrophic environmental pollutant. A shift from taxing income and property for resource consumption might prove attractive to those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, but appears to fly in the face of the primary argument in favor of capitalism’s existence as the dominant current form of economies the world over. Mr. Bauman didn’t provide an opportunity for a follow up question regarding whether taxing bad/destructive behavior doesn’t constitute tacit approval for those who can afford to indulge in it. Capitalism currently affords rewards and protections for the most conspicuous/gluttonous consumption despite some taxation on accumulated wealth/property. His proposal would remove even that limited barrier to insufferable displays of consumption at the expense of the dispossessed with a system designed to increase privilege by allowing those most favored capitalists to deplete the world’s resources, pollute the environment, and letting the Devil take the hindmost for want of them keeping up with the more financially secure Jones. The ‘diamond lane’ perversity of allowing single occupant vehicles whose drivers can afford it to utilize what the rest must refrain from doing under penalty of law would be visited in a far more pernicious form to how resources, including activities like air/water/environmental pollution, would be distributed. Once again, the wealthy would find themselves in the catbird seat while those with less wherewithal would be relegated to subsisting on ever fewer scraps, gasping for a breath of clean air and fighting debilitating illnesses from unclean water.

Mr. Bauman freely admitted his approach to the science of economics was amoral. His co-lecturer, Nobel Laureate Gar W. Lipow, who has authored Cooling A Fevered Planet, defended his colleague’s position on the subject of permitting continued emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere through a scheme of taxes, cap & trade, and those machination within existing financial empires planning on taking full advantage of such schemes.

(1/5)

(2/5)

(3/5)

(4/5)

(5/5)

In defense of his carbon tax scheme for Washington State (which he hinted was already a ‘done deal’), Yoram says, “I spend a lot of free time working on carbon taxes, especially revenue-neutral carbon taxes (where the revenue from the carbon tax goes to reduce existing taxes). I even talk about it in my comedy routines, and to some extent I do comedy so that I can talk to people about carbon pricing. So… why? Three reasons. One, climate change has the potential to be a huge huge issue this century: I’m not convinced that a climate catastrophe is looming, but I think the threat of a climate catastrophe should be taken seriously. Two, economics has a lot to add to this discussion: the theory of externalities, cost-benefit analysis, economic instruments like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade… all of these and more make economics a crucial part of the discussion; people who wonder what economists have to say about environmental issues couldn’t be more wrong. Three, economists more or less agree on what should be done. This is very different than, say, many questions in macroeconomics, which everyone agrees are important but which elicit wildly different opinions from experts. In contrast, just about all economists think that putting a price on carbon (with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, but especially with a revenue-neutral carbon tax) is necessary if not sufficient in tackling climate change. Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, arguably even Milton Friedman, the list goes on.

In short, I’m hoping I can add an economist’s voice (and to a great extent the voice of almost all economists) to the discussion of a major policy issue. That seems like a good way to spend part of my life.”