Senate Republicans ignore the pollution of CAFOS

LANSING – The Gulf oil disaster demonstrated less regulation and oversight is not a good thing. Someone better tell that to the Michigan Senate Republicans.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved resolution 158 that urges “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to rescind rules that would require dairy farms to have oil spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks.” It passed – unfortunately, with bipartisan support – by a vote of 24-10.

Eric Barren at Michigan Liberal had a good on this a few days before Wednesday’s vote:

“The definition of oil is not "petroleum." Oils are substances that at room temperature are viscous liquids that don't mix with water. Alas, the critical, illuminating piece of science is buried under reverse Ripperisms ("Ice cream, Mandrake, childrens' ice cream?"), accusations of government run amok and the standard objection of seemingly insensitive environmental lobbyists.
Those objections, incidentally, make a good deal more sense if you highlight the -- you know -- fundamental science of the issue rather than descending into the same lousy environmental reporting that has helped slow our collective response to global warming for two decades. Instead, we get some tired old narrative about gummint bureaucrats run amok, and policy direction that pretends that calling something an oil is the same thing as calling it petroleum, which itself places policy at odds with basic science definitions.”

The sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, said if the EPA does not act to rescind the rules, we should ignore the law.

Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, noted the irony of that position. Kuipers is running for Congress in the seat vacated by “Twitter” Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland.

“I find it ironic that the previous speaker says we should disregard federal law, yet he is on a mission to go there and make it,” Whitmer said. “With regard to this resolution in front of us, this is a resolution and I think it is odd timing to ask that the EPA not require prevention plans for oil spills; anyone watching C-SPAN around here?”

Whitmer said milk is a wholesome product in a child’s body but not in Michigan’s waterways. Milk can have very serious environmental consequences once released into our surface waters.

Whitmer said according the University of Wisconsin Extension Service, milk has a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). BOD measures the amount of oxygen consumed when organic matter, such as milk, is broken down by bacteria. In streams and lakes, bacteria would need the dissolved oxygen from 1,600 gallons of water to break down the organic matter in one pint of milk. Because it depletes oxygen, discharging milk into surface waters can upset biological communities and kill fish. The minimum tank size of 1,320 gallons would be enough to deplete the oxygen in almost 17 million gallons of water.

“Milk also has a high concentration of phosphorus, a nutrient that causes the growth of algae and aquatic plants which can deplete oxygen levels in our lakes and streams, exacerbating an existing problem with excess phosphorus in our waterways,” she said. “In today’s world, it’s especially true that it is not unreasonable to ask that emergency plans be in place in case of milk spills or the failure of bulk milk storage tanks.”

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) have been cited for polluting rivers and streams in Michigan with runoff from manure, and these are huge factory farms. A small CAFO would have 1,000 cows that would result in, at the rate of 20 gallons a day per cow, a volume of milk reaching 20,000 gallons a day. But the largest CAFO in this state hosts 3,000. So we are talking about 60,000 gallons of milk a day.

“Now just to put this in perspective, we are not talking about a few cows and a pretty red barn with a dairy maid sitting on a stool with a little bucket milking a cow,” said Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor. “That is not what happens on these farms these days. We have, unfortunately, in this state made it all too easy for CAFOs to operate in this state after they were expelled by the country of the Netherlands.”

A guest essay on perhaps one of the most controversial issues in the world

There is nothing more complex and volatile than the situation in the Middle East, especially the situation with Israel and the Gaza strip. However, in the world of right-wingers, any one who questions the actions of the United State's great friend, Israel, is anti-Semitic and hates Israel. Simply not true. It’s amazing that in such a complex situation, they have a black and white answer with no gray areas.

I have been to Israel a few times on deployment, and it is simply one of the best places in visit on a Mediterranean cruise. I have a ton of respect for the Israeli people, and I am frankly in awe of them. However, their government is not perfect, nor is every thing it does above reproach.

A couple of events have put the situation in the news. On May 31 Israeli commandos boarded six ships from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla that was attempting to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies to the Gaza strip. Nine people onboard were killed. At the very least, there should be a United Nations investigation.

In addition to that, respected veteran journalist and Wayne State University graduate Helen Thomas stirred enough controversy with her remarks that Israel should “Get the hell out of Palestine,” that it led to her retirement. Another respected veteran journalist, Jack Lessenberry, has an excellent essay on Thomas. In no way were her remarks anti-Semitic, nor do they question Israel’s right to exist. Another former journalist turned blogger like me, Eric Baerren at Michigan Liberal, has the right’s reaction; or at least reaction from an alleged journalist.

One thing I learned as a journalist is that there are two sides to every story. I’m going to present the other side with an essay from a friend of mine, Mares Hirchert of Hartland. These are her opinions, and I do not necessarily share them.

Whenever Israel commits yet another atrocity, its defenders are quick to redirect public attention away from the grisly crime scene.

Currently, there are headlines about allegedly anti-Semitic comments made by senior White House correspondent Helen Thomas. Pundits across the land evince outrage at her off-the-cuff 25-second statement made to a man who appears to be holding a camera right in her face.

Thomas issued a public apology for her words, but this was insufficient to assuage the wounded feelings of powerful antagonists, and she has now retired from a long and distinguished career.

Before we examine her comments and evaluate their possible validity, let's look at other recent events having to do with Israel.

On May 31st Israeli commandos killed at least nine unarmed volunteers attempting to take humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

According to eyewitness reports and forensic evidence, many of these aid volunteers were shot at close range, including a 19-year-old American citizen killed by four bullets to the head and one to the chest fired from 18 inches away.

Israel immediately imprisoned eyewitnesses and hundreds of other aid participants, confiscated their cameras, laptops, and other possessions, and prevented them from speaking to the press for days. Among the incarcerated were decorated U.S. veterans and an 80-year-old former ambassador who had been deputy director of Reagan's Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism.

When they finally emerged and were able to tell their stories, many described horrific scenes of Israeli commandos shooting people in the head, of those tending the injured being shot in the stomach, of people bleeding to death while flotilla participants waved white flags and pled for help.

They also described being beaten brutally by Israeli forces, again and again - including those on ships that, in the U.S. media's judgment, experienced "no violence." A 64-year-old piano tuner from California, Paul Larudee, described hundreds of Israeli commandos boarding his ship. When he refused to cooperate with them, soldiers then beat him numerous times both on board the ship and after he was imprisoned on land.

Eventually he was taken by ambulance to an Israeli hospital. He wasn't treated, however, and Larudee believes he was taken there because Israel didn't want media to see his black eye, pronated joints, bruised jaw and body contusions.

Marine veteran Ken O'Keefe described similar beatings while in Israeli custody. In his case, the public was able to see his bloodied, battered face in video clips and still images - but only on the Internet, since American mainstream media failed to report on his press conference or to publish the many still photos of his injuries.

Other gruesome photos available to the American public only on the Internet are of Emily Henochowicz, a 21-year-old American student whose eye and eye socket were recently shattered by Israeli forces. She has since had her eyeball removed, three metal plates inserted in her face, and her jaw wired shut.

Henochowicz was not on the flotilla; she was taking part in a nonviolent demonstration against the Israeli assault when an Israeli soldier shot a high-velocity teargas canister into her face.

A Swedish citizen standing with Henochowicz said, "They clearly saw us. They clearly saw that we were internationals and it really looked as though they were trying to hit us. They fired many canisters at us in rapid succession. One landed on either side of Emily, and then the third one hit her in the face."

Henochowicz is not the first to have been shot by such a canister.

Thirty-year-old Basem Ibrahim Abu Rahmeh died when an Israeli soldier shot one at him at close range while Abu Rahmeh participated in a demonstration against Israeli confiscation of Palestinian farmland. A video of this is also available on You Tube; U.S. networks have also chosen not to broadcast this.

Californian Tristan Anderson was shot in the head by a similar canister while he was taking photographs following another demonstration. Part of Anderson’s brain was removed and he was in a "minimally responsive state" for 6-7 months.

He is now in a wheelchair, has almost no movement in his left arm and leg, is blind in one eye, and his mental functioning is significantly reduced. Photos of the shooting are also available on the Internet.

Since at least 2006 Israeli forces have closed off Gaza to the outside world, essentially imprisoning 1.5 million men, women, and children, and denying them foodstuffs, medicines, and building materials, as documented by such agencies as Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Christian Aid, which said that Israel was using food and medicine as weapons.

One of the multitudinous victims of this illegal siege is five-year-old Taysir Al Burai, who suffers from an acute neurological disorder and requires round-the-clock care. According to the UK Guardian, he could be cured if Israel would allow him to leave Gaza, but to date his parents' repeated requests have been denied.

Another victim is 7-month-old Mohammad Khader, whose swelling in the brain required specialized treatment unavailable in Gazan hospitals depleted by the Israeli siege. His distraught parents' applications asking Israel to allow them to travel abroad were similarly denied. Their tiny son died a few days ago.

Such stories go on and on.

Yet, the rage we see in the U.S. media is directed against none of this. People shot in the head, eyes and brain parts destroyed, the elderly beaten, small children and infants caused to suffer and die, parents to grieve - none of this has caused a hint of anger. In fact, most of it has been considered of too little importance even to report.

Instead, media reports are filled with outrage at "anti-Israel" words spoken by 89-year-old Helen Thomas.

In Thomas's lifetime Israel has ethnically cleansed over a million people, replaced them with colonists from around the world, committed dozens of massacres, tortured thousands of people, killed and maimed untold numbers of children, mangled limbs, and committed outrages on women, old people, the weak and the infirm.

It has assassinated people throughout the world, invaded numerous countries, spied on the U.S. , killed and injured 200 American servicemen (the anniversary is this week), and tortured and imprisoned Americans. All while receiving more American money than any other country on earth.

For years, long before her recent words, Thomas has been the target of Israel's vicious American volunteers, the Zionist blogosphere abounding with nasty slurs on her looks and her Lebanese ancestry, this latter also consistently emphasized by the media, despite her Kentucky birth and upbringing.

One of the reasons for the ferocious animosity toward her is the fact that Thomas is one of the very few mainstream reporters to challenge the neocon engendered lies that led the U.S. into wars that have caused massive death, destruction and tragedy and to continue to expose ongoing policies of violence and cruelty.

As the same groups and individuals who pushed the US into attacking Iraq have in recent years been escalating their efforts to push the U.S. to now similarly decimate Iranians under the pretext that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons, Thomas's questioning attempted to elicit from Obama the fact that Israel already posses nuclear weapons. While the rest of the press corps has conspired in the cover-up of this fact and others, Thomas worked to expose them.

Not surprisingly, the many people complicit in these manipulations, such as former Bush spokesperson Ari Fleischer, have led the charge against her.

It is useful to examine the video and context of Thomas's allegedly "anti-Semitic" comment.

A man, apparently holding a camera right in her face, asks for her comments about Israel. She says, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine . Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land..." He interrupts her and asks where they should go. She responds, "They should go home. To Germany, Poland , America , and everywhere else."

While Thomas has since apologized for her hasty words and many Israelis have the right to continue living where they are, the reality is that Israeli settlers did, indeed, come from elsewhere; they are, in fact, illegally occupying Palestinian land (a fact acknowledged even by the U.S. State Department); and international law does require that they leave.

Many commentators evince particular anger at Thomas's inclusion of Germany and Poland as places to which Israeli colonists should return, suggesting that Hitler is still in control and waiting to pounce.

The happy fact is, however, that World War II and the Nazi holocaust ended well over half a century ago. In Poland today there is a vibrant Jewish revival with a 10-foot tall Menorah being lit in the center of Warsaw during Hanukah, and Germany has become, according to the New York Times, "a country where Jews want to live." In fact, in recent years more Jews have chosen to immigrate to Germany than to Israel.

Thomas's call for colonists to return to America (this destination was left out of many articles) is far from outrageous given that a great many West Bank settlers are from the U.S.

Overall, reporting on the incident has largely departed from the standard journalistic practice of quoting people from both sides of an issue. Quotes from Thomas supporters are missing, even though the You Tube page featuring the infamous video contains a large number of comments supporting her. In contrast, quotes from Thomas's detractors, almost all of them Zionists, are ubiquitous, but generally fail to divulge the speakers' frequent conflicts of interest.

For example, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz quotes Jeffrey Goldberg without mentioning that Goldberg is an Israeli citizen who served as a prison guard at an Israeli prison that held hundreds of Palestinians without charge, some killed in cold blood by the prison commander.

Mainstream media organizations do not seem to have investigated reports that the man who videotaped Thomas, Rabbi David Nesenoff, also made an offensive video featuring himself and another man impersonating a buffoonish Catholic priest and Mexican immigrant.

Similarly, news reports that a high school had disinvited Thomas as a graduation speaker almost never inform readers that many of the school's parents and students wished Thomas to remain, even though this unreferenced group may represent a majority of the school. Members of this group have created a Facebook page, "Helen Thomas should have been our graduation speaker," that states:

"The purpose of this group is to quietly but firmly protest the ability of a small minority to impose its will on the larger group through engaging or threatening to engage in disruptive discourse. This group affirms a belief in reasonable discussion and feel that in this scenario, a clear minority was able to override a larger majority by distorting the issues and discussion."

Replacing Thomas at the upcoming graduation ceremony will be CBS's Bob Schiefer, who has close family ties to George W. Bush and has rarely, if ever, challenged administration falsehoods that sent the nation to war and that keep it there still.

Regarding his reporting on Israel-Palestine, media watchdog Fairness and Accurate In Reporting (FAIR) issued an alert in 2006 objecting to Schiefer's "shallow, dismissive coverage of complicated and tragic events."

It is not known who will take over Thomas's front-row seat at White House briefings. Given the record of the current press corps, it is likely that Israel partisans are breathing a sign of relief.

One more obstacle to the Zionist juggernaut has just been removed.

Petition fraud is nothing new to Drolet and company

To quote a sage hall of fame former New York Yankee catcher, the recall farce against Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon is "It's deja vu all over again.”

Despite mounting evidence of fraud and deceit to collect signatures, out of state money, illegal petition gathers, cash for signatures and illegal campaign contributions by Republican Macomb County Commissioner Leon Drolet and company, they are assuring the mainstream press that the recall will get on the ballot. Michigan Liberal and Eric Baerren have done an excellent job of documenting and presenting some of this fraud.

As evidence of the expected success of the Dillon recall, they point to the success of the racist Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) that went on the November 2006 ballot that did away with affirmative action. Despite proof of the same deceptive tactics used on both petition drives – even by some of the same players involved in this recall, including Drolet – the petitions were certified and it went on the ballot and was approved by voters.

You may recall that the California group headed by Ward Connerly came to Michigan to push the initiative, and the group illegally lied to people and misrepresented themselves to get signatures. In fact, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission adopted a resolution against the racist initiative. Following a six-month investigation that concluded on June 12, 2006, it released the results that found “…that efforts to place the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) on the ballot appeared to be based upon a massive campaign of fraud and deceit.”

“The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is a shameful attempt to confuse and manipulate unsuspecting Michigan voters, was what one member of the Civil Rights Commission said about the effort.

Sounds very familiar doesn’t it? Kind of like deja vu all over again.

Drolet and company submitted the signatures just before the deadline, but we have not heard much about their failures. It started recalls against Reps. Robert Dean, D-Grand Rapids, Marie Donigan, D-Royal Oak; Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores; Rep. Mary Valentine, D-Muskegon; Rep. Marc Corriveau, D-Northville; Rep. Ed Gaffney, R-Grosse Pointe Farms; Rep. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, and Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, but all have failed. It seems sad that they are crowing about 1 out of 9. That’s a pretty crappy success rate, especially when you consider it’s the Michigan voters who are the losers.

Recalls should be reserved for officeholders who commit a crime, commit fraud or deceit or are dishonest. The kind of things that Drolet has done in this witch-hunt. It is not for a politician for simply doing their job, for casting one vote and keeping the state open. If you disagree, you vote for his opponent in the election, and you can do that in August or November, just three and six months.

Anti-union ad prompts discussion of advertising polices for bloggers

Some small cracks have been revealed in Michigan’s strong progressive/liberal blogging community when the leading liberal blog, Michigan Liberal, ran an anti-union blog ad.

The ad takes you to an anti-union blog called “Labor Pains,” which is part of the larger anti-union group called “Union Facts.” The ad copy says, “It's no longer Unions vs. Management. Now it's Unions vs. Employees: Union "leaders" embezzle and waste dues dollars. Union "leaders" use members' money on their own political agenda. Union "leaders" are trying to suppress an employee's right to secret ballot elections. Read more...”

Aside from the operators of the Michigan Liberal getting some angry emails from readers and posters, Michael Huerta, a member of the United Auto Workers (UAW) from Perry who operates the blog FARLEFTFIELD, took the symbolic step of taking the link to Michigan Liberal off of his blogroll. He said with the attack on labor unions in Michigan with so-called right to work laws pending in the state Legislature and the UAW strike against General Motors running the ad is bad timing, at best.

“Obviously, reasonable minds can differ,” he said. “It just seems like you work so hard for something good, and you get stuff like that.”

Huerta said he has had contact with Eric Baerren at Michigan Liberal, who is acting as the blog’s quasi-managing editor, and although Huerta disagrees with the e reasoning for running the ad, he remains cordial and supportive of Michigan Liberal.

“I don’t want to get in a flap over this, and it’s hard to say anything bad about the site,” Huerta said. “Michigan Liberal is one of the best sources for organizing and finding out about events in the state.”

Baerren says he has gotten a few angry emails, but once he explained the ad policy people understood his position.

“Michigan Liberal is pro-labor; it has been pro-labor in the past, and it will be pro-labor in the future,” he said. “If the right to work proposal gets off the ground we will be fighting against it.”

Mainstream media outlets have dealt with the problem of running questionable ads and conflicts of interest by adopting a consistent policy and keeping the sales and editorial departments segregated and independent as possible. But with the new medium of blogs there come new problems, and accepting ads from political opponents is one of them. Most blogs are just platforms for people’s opinions, but because some of the more popular blogs have such high traffic counts, advertisers are turning to blogs to reach a younger, targeted audience. The problem can be especially acute when the blog is operated by just one person, or in the case of Michigan Liberal by a quasi-board of four people, as well as many contributing writers and diarists.

“It’s kind of a big tent when you are talking about progressives,” Baerren said. “Obviously, you are going to get a lot of differing opinions.”

Baerren said he has adopted the same basic policy for advertising used by Daily Kos and The Nation Magazine. The policy gives him the discretion to reject ads that are plainly false, obscene or libelous, or ads that come with an overt attempt to influence editorial content. The policy also says running an ad does not imply endorsement of the product or cause, but if an ad is rejected for content then it leads to the danger that an advertisement that does run has an implied endorsement.

“You don’t endorse advertising, but you can’t condemn advertising either,” Baerren said. “When you start vetting ads for content you can have problems.
“I think it’s a bad idea when you start to vet for content,” he said.

The ad comes from a type of syndicate called Blogads that bloggers with at least an average of 1,000 hits a day can subscribe to. An advertiser contracts with the company, and he can choose a blog based on the number of hits, the content of the blog and their target audience. Blogads sends the ad to the blog, and the operator can accept the ad, reject it or do nothing and in three days it runs automatically, all for a small fee. Baerren said there was plenty of internal debate before deciding to do nothing and allowing it to run. That gave him time to post an explanation on the reason for running the ad.

“I wanted the blog post to run before the ad ran,” he said. “Most of the comments we got from the post were that they understood once they understood why we did it.”

Michigan Liberal was started in March of 2005 by Matt Ferguson, a former radio reporter, a former Democratic candidate for the U.S. House from the 8th Congressional District and a political consultant. It quickly became the leading liberal blog, but Ferguson stepped away from daily operations and posting on the blog when he took a job with The State of Michigan following the November elections.

In addition to Baerren, the blog is now operated by co-owners Laura Packard and Jon Koller and outreach coordinator Julielyn Gibbons. Both Packard and Gibbons have worked very hard to establish a cohesive liberal “blogosphere” by organizing various meet-and-greets with bloggers and elected Democratic officials, introducing other bloggers to each other, encouraging bloggers to carry each other’s links, organizing a blogger picnic this past summer, organizing a bloggers caucus at the Michigan Democratic Party convention last winter and they put together a guide to blogging they make available to new liberal and progressive bloggers.

(For full disclosure, Kevin Shopshire is a former diarist on Michigan Liberal under the screen name kjbas58.)