Category Archives: Politics

Japan to Start Exporting Fukushima Rice to Singapore / “Singapore Was Convinced to Lift Import Restriction”

Rice produced in Fukushima is going to be exported to Singapore.

JA Zen-Noh (The National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations) announced on 8/18/2014.

Since 311, the government of Singapore banned importing Fukushima rice. JA Zen-Noh comments they have convinced the government of Singapore to deregulate the safety level of rice.

Currently the press release is removed from the website of JA Zen-Noh for some reason.

 

http://search.zennoh.or.jp/bizsearch_asp/search?corpId=atc130002&vc=1&layout=1&hits=10&q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%80%80%E8%BC%B8%E5%87%BA&p=1&t%5B%5D=1

 

http://maguro.2ch.sc/test/read.cgi/poverty/1408364601/l50

 

 

You read this now because we’ve been surviving until today.

_____

Français :

Le Japon va commencer à exporter du riz de Fukushima sur Singapour / “Singapour a été convaincu pour lever les restrictions d’importation”

 

Le riz produit à Fukushima va être exporté sur Singapour.

JA Zen-Noh (la Fédération Nationale des Associations de Coopératives Agricoles Japonaises) l’a annoncé ce 18 août 2014.
Le gouvernement de Singapour avait interdit l’importation du riz de Fukushima depuis le 11-3. JA Zen-Noh déclare qu’ils ont convaincu le gouvernement de Singapour de déréguler le niveau de sécurité du riz.

Actuellement, le communiqué de presse a été retiré du site web de la JA Zen-Noh.

http://search.zennoh.or.jp/bizsearch_asp/search?corpId=atc130002&vc=1&layout=1&hits=10&q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%80%80%E8%BC%B8%E5%87%BA&p=1&t%5B%5D=1

http://maguro.2ch.sc/test/read.cgi/poverty/1408364601/l50

Vous pouvez lire ceci parce que nous avons survécu jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

 

***Note from Anna: If that radioactive rice spreads and mixes with Monsanto crops farms worldwide will be contaminated.

CDPHE Meeting on Retail Marijuana Surveillance – Thursday 8/14/2014-Patients and Press *Not* Invited

For immediate release: Aug. 13, 2014

Cannabis Press Association
http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/
888-EAT-HEMP

{Denver} — The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) will be holding an all-day meeting on Thursday, Aug. 14, concerning
their expanding roles in “retail marijuana surveillance” and other areas.

*PHYSICAL LOCATION OF MEETING*
Courtyard Marriott Cherry Creek
Skyline Ballroom
1475 South Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80222
Workshop begins at 8:30 am

The CDPHE had previously only regulated medical marijuana. Their new roles in retail marijuana involve at least 6 different departments within the CDPHE. (See page 10 of “Marijuana and CDPHE” presentation below.)

The meeting will be held at the Courtyard Marriott in Denver, but there
will also be a live webinar available (See below for details.)

According to the CDPHE, “no media” will be allowed to attend the meeting,
and the agenda shows that “no patients” have been invited to share their
views in any manner, even though the subject matter directly concerns them.

The Cannabis Press Association (CPA), working with the Patient and
Caregivers Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP), discovered the meeting, after
several patients received an email invitation asking them to register for
the meeting, which was apparently sent accidentally by the CDPHE to the
wrong email distribution list.

In the email, Elyse Contreras, Programs Coordinator for the Retail
Marijuana Program & Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program at the CDPHE,
stated that the purpose of the Aug. 14 meeting is “to update our local
partners on latest information regarding marijuana surveillance, prevention
efforts, medical research, lab regulations, infused product safety and
more!”

Contreras’ invitation stated that “no media” would be allowed to attend.

When the CDPHE discovered they had sent the email invitation to patients in
error, they immediately removed the online registration form from their
website.

The Cannabis Press Association filed a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)
request last week, asking for the location and webinar login information
for the meeting, as well as a request for the list of invitees to the
meeting.

The CDPHE ignored the CORA requests. However, CPA was able to obtain the
information from reliable sources. (See below.)

*SURVEILLANCE OF PREGNANT WOMEN*
Many topics will be covered at the all-day meeting. A primary focus will be
how the CDPHE will be performing “surveillance” on pregnant women to
determine whether cannabis used during pregnancy is harmful to children.

According to a “Marijuana and Pregnancy” presentation on the CDPHE website,
one of the new CDPHE programs includes “Birth Registry Surveillance”, which
is defined as “surveillance to determine if marijuana could be a factor in
the development of adverse birth outcomes” and includes a “thorough review
of maternal medical records” (See page 9 of “Marijuana and Pregnancy”
presentation below.)

Kathleen Chippi of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project sees
this as another attack on patients. “This secret meeting is just another
attack on medical marijuana patients. They want to screen all birth mothers
for cannabis? The CDPHE doesn’t test new moms for GMOs, pesticides,
fracking fluids, caffeine, sugar, or pharmaceutical chemicals, so why focus
on THC, which has been used safely by humans for over 10,000 years?
Cannabis was actually prescribed commonly to ease pregnancy and the
birthing process before it was made illegal in 1937. Natural cannabinoids
(endocannabinoids) are actually abundant in all breast milk and research
has shown that they are essential to a newborn’s development.”

See: Cannabinoids, like those found in marijuana, occur naturally in human
breast milk
http://www.naturalnews.com/036526_cannabinoids_breast_milk_THC.html#ixzz3AKr2v8PH

===================================================================

*MEETING AGENDA*
Click here for agenda for the Aug. 14, 2014 CDPHE/DOR meeting:
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Agenda.for.State.Local.Workshop-8.14.14.pdf

NOTE: The CDPHE claims that this is not a public meeting, but have refused
to provide a list of the official invitees. If you want to attend in
person, it is recommended to arrive early to try to cajole a seat out of
your public officials.

===================================================================
*WEBINAR LOGIN INFORMATION*
From: “Contreras – CDPHE, Elyse” <elyse.contreras@state.co.us>
Date: August 13, 2014 10:51:24 AM MDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 8/14 Marijuana Webinar Details
Marijuana Workshop for State and Local Public Health

Follow the directions below to join the webinar beginning at 8:30 am
Thursday, August 14th. This is an all day work shop, the agenda is
attached.

This meeting is intended to allow local public health agency
representatives the opportunity to learn more abut marijuana regulation in Colorado.  No public comment or questions will be taken as the meeting is not considered an open meeting as defined in the Colorado Open Meetings Law, Section 24-6-401 et seq. 

Questions on the topics discussed can be
sent to medical.marijuana@state.co.us.

To join the meeting:
https://cdphe.adobeconnect.com/r6e3dlu1pg2/
—————-
If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:

Test your connection:
https://cdphe.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm

Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html

Elyse Contreras
Programs Coordinator
Retail Marijuana Program & Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program
P 303.692.6455  |  F 303.782.0904
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246
elyse.contreras@state.co.us
===================================================================

*RELATED CDPHE PRESENTATIONS*
“Marijuana and CDPHE” presentation
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Marijuana.and.CDPHE.Presentation.CORA4.pdf

“Marijuana and Pregnancy” presentation
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Marijuana.Pregnancy.Presentation.pdf

===================================================================
NOTE: This information was obtained as a public service by volunteers
working with the Cannabis Press Association (CPA), working with the Patient
and Caregivers Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP). Please be generous and
make a donation today.

===================================================================

For immediate release: Aug. 13, 2014

Cannabis Press Association
http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/
888-EAT-HEMP


Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Press Association
“Fighting over 77 years of lies and mis-information
with over 10,000 years of history and fact.”
Web: http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/
Email: info@cannabispressassociation.com

***Note from Anna: I wish the DEA officers went after legal (and illegal) methamphetamine,steroid, and Prozac abusers with the same intensity used for illegally profiling legal medical marijuana patients.

Colorado has sold out to big pharmaceutical companies and their petty political lobbyists. It’s disturbing to watch how easy it is for judges and cops to abuse the weakest among them while running like their asses are on fire away from violent offenders on legally-distributed methamphetamines.

Stats on Meth in Colorado:

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs4/4300/meth.htm

National Drug Intelligence Center
Colorado Drug Threat Assessment
May 2003

“…Methamphetamine abuse is increasingly prevalent in Colorado. The number of methamphetamine-related treatment admissions to publicly funded facilities in the state increased from 1,748 in 1997 to 2,037 in 2001, according to data from ADAD. (See Table 1 in Overview section.) Since 1999 treatment admissions for methamphetamine abuse have increased each year, while admissions for cocaine, heroin, and marijuana have declined. According to ADAD, more than 83 percent of patients treated for methamphetamine abuse in 2001 were Caucasian, 54 percent were male, and nearly 33 percent were 35 or older. Nearly 43 percent of methamphetamine abusers treated during 2001 smoked the drug, 32 percent injected it, 19 percent snorted it, and 6 percent used some other method or multiple methods of administration.”

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/colorado-drug-addiction.html

From Narconon International:

“…Colorado is crossed by eight Interstates: I-15, I-25, I-70, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-90 and I-94. The central location and high ethnic population of Denver and its suburbs makes it a perfect distribution center for drugs coming into the U.S. across the Canadian border, or for drugs being trafficked north from the Southwest border. Fifteen Ports of Entry (POE) from Canada exist in Montana, and Interstates 15 and 90 link these POEs with Denver and Salt Lake City, both major drug distribution points.

…The most dangerous aspect of the drug scene in Colorado and its cities is that drug trafficking and use is on the increase. The biggest threat is the highly addictive and physically damaging ice methamphetamine. Recent supplies of meth have been more pure and lower cost than earlier supplies.”

From Johnny Green at the Weed Blog April 3, 2013:

http://www.theweedblog.com/marijuana-patents-us-patents-on-medical-procedures-involving-cannabinoids/

Spain Study Confirms Hemp Oil Cures Cancer
http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-st…

Federal Government Reports that Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51148243/ns…

US Patent 4837228
Cannabichromene (CBC)
http://www.google.com/patents/US4837228

US Patent 4189491
Glaucoma Treatment
http://www.google.com/patents/US4189491

US Patent 5631297
Anandamide Compounds
http://www.google.com/patents/US5631297

US Patent 6132762
Pain, inflammation and arthritis
http://www.google.com/patents/US6132762

US Patent 6410588
Cannabidiol and inflammatory diseases
http://www.google.com/patents/US6410588

US Patent 6974568
Treatment for coughs
http://www.google.com/patents/US6974568

US Patent 6630507
Inflammatory and autoimmune diseases
Strokes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

US Patent 7741365
Novel polycyclic cannabinoid analogs
http://www.google.com/patents/US7741365

US Patent 7597910
Prostate cancer and prostatitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US7597910

US Patent 7977107
Detecting traces of cannabinoids
http://www.google.com/patents/US7977107

US Patent 8071641
Diabetes and insulitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US8071641

US Patent 8242178
Cannabidiol and autoimmune hepatitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US8242178

US Patent 8034843
Nausea, vomiting and motion sickness
http://www.google.com/patents/US8034843

US Patent Application 20100292345
Cannabigerol (CBG)
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

US Patent Application 20080181942
Multiple sclerosis and MS relapse
http://www.google.com/patents/US20080…

US Patent Application 20090197941
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090…

US Patent Application 20100204312
Treating cell proliferation and cancers
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

US Patent Application 20080262099
Inhibition of tumour cell migration
http://www.google.com/patents/US20080…

US Patent Application 20100222437
Gastrointestinal inflammatory and cancers
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Studies…

Scientific Proof Cannabinoids Kill Cancer Cells :

http://youtu.be/mFBBTnv5Xbs

http://redd.it/18qiwn
http://phoenixtears.ca
http://www.phoenixtearsfoundation.com…

Copy and paste links into address bar (one at a time) :

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16682966
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19015962
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787257
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996

 

Oil Companies Fracking Into Drinking Water Sources, New Research Shows

Energy companies are fracking for oil and gas at far shallower depths than widely believed, sometimes through underground sources of drinking water, according to research released Tuesday by Stanford University scientists.

Though researchers cautioned their study of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, employed at two Wyoming geological formations showed no direct evidence of water-supply contamination, their work is certain to roil the public health debate over the risks of the controversial oil and gas production process.

Fracking involves high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to crack geological formations and tap previously unreachable oil and gas reserves. Fracking fluids contain a host of chemicals, including known carcinogens and neurotoxins.

Fears about possible water contamination and air pollution have fed resistance in communities around the country, threatening to slow the oil and gas boom made possible by fracking.

Fracking into underground drinking water sources is not prohibited by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted the practice from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. But the industry has long held that it does not hydraulically fracture into underground sources of drinking water because oil and gas deposits sit far deeper than aquifers.

The study, however, found that energy companies used acid stimulation, a production method, and hydraulic fracturing in the Wind River and Fort Union geological formations that make up the Pavillion gas field and that contain both natural gas and sources of drinking water.

“Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and millions of gallons of fluids containing numerous inorganic and organic additives were injected directly into these two formations during hundreds of stimulation events,” concluded Dominic DiGiulio and Robert Jackson of Stanford’s School of Earth Sciences in a presentation Tuesday at the American Chemical Society conference in San Francisco.

The scientists cautioned that their research, which is ongoing and has yet to be peer-reviewed, “does not say that drinking water has been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.”

Rather, they point out that there is no way of knowing the effects of fracking into groundwater resources because regulators have not assessed the scope and impact of the activity.

“The extent and consequences of these activities are poorly documented, hindering assessments of potential resource damage and human exposure,” DiGiulio wrote.

Underground sources of drinking water, or USDWs, are a category of aquifers under the Safe Drinking Water Act that could provide water for human consumption.

“If the water isn’t being used now, it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in the future,” said DiGiulio, a Stanford research associate who recently retired from the Environmental Protection Agency. “That was the intent of identifying underground sources of drinking water: to safeguard them.”

The EPA documented in 2004 that fracking into drinking water sources had occurred when companies extracted natural gas from coal seams. But industry officials have long denied that the current oil and gas boom has resulted in fracking into drinking water sources because the hydrocarbon deposits are located in deeper geological formations.

“Thankfully, the formations where hydraulic fracturing actually is occurring…are isolated from USDWs by multiple layers and often billions of tons of impenetrable rock,” said Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry group.

Industry officials had not seen the Stanford research.

DiGiulio and Jackson plotted the depths of fracked wells, as well as domestic drinking water wells in the Pavillion area. They found that companies used acid stimulation and hydraulic fracturing at depths of the deepest water wells near the Pavillion gas field, at 700 to 750 feet, far shallower than fracking was previously thought to occur in the area.

“It’s true that fracking often occurs miles below the surface,” said Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford. “People don’t realize, though, that it’s sometimes happening less than a thousand feet underground in sources of drinking water.”

Companies say that fracking has never contaminated drinking water. The EPA launched three investigations over the last six years into possible drinking water contamination by oil and gas activity in Dimock, Pa.; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyo. After initially finding evidence of contamination at the three sites, the EPA shelved the investigations amid allegations by environmentalists and local residents that the regulator succumbed to political pressure.

Jackson said the Stanford study’s findings underscore the need for better monitoring of fracking at shallower depths. “You can’t test the consequences of an activity if you don’t know how common it is,” he said. “We think that any fracking within a thousand feet of the surface should be more clearly documented and face greater scrutiny.”

The Stanford study focuses on Pavillion, in part because of DiGiulio’s familiarity with the area when he served as an EPA researcher in the latter stages of the Pavillion water study. Industry and the state of Wyoming questioned the EPA’s methodology after its 2011 draft report found the presence of chemicals associated with gas production in residents’ well water. In June 2013, the EPA turned over the study to Wyoming regulators, whose work is being funded by EnCana, the company accused of polluting the water in Pavillion.

The EPA study looked at whether chemicals migrated upward from fracked geological zones into people’s well water. The Stanford research does not explore the possibility of migration, focusing instead on the injection of fracking chemicals directly into geological formations that contain groundwater.

The EPA does not keep track of whether underground sources of drinking water have been hydraulically fractured as part of oil and gas development, said Alisha Johnson, a spokeswoman. “EPA does not maintain a database of all the wells being hydraulically fractured across the country,” she said in an email.

In their presentation, DiGiulio and Jackson noted that the EPA considers the Wind River formation and the Fort Union stratum below it to be underground sources of drinking water. The conventional image of tight geological formations where fracking occurs is that they are monolithic stretches of rock. But the scientists say the geology of the two formations is mostly sandstone of varying permeability and water.

“People think these formations are impermeable, and so they wonder, ‘Why are you worrying about water?’” DiGiulio said. “But it is an extremely heterogeneous environment, with areas of low and high permeability mixed together and with many lenses conducting water.”

Follow @neelaeast for energy and environmental news.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

***Note from Anna; Big pharma wastes combined with nuke storage wastes combined with Monsanto wastes equals a full-on disaster to the environment, keeps the citizens trapped in a toxic economy, and will create a public health hazard nightmare by Winter 2015.The U.S. budget is not stable. Obamacare is not stable. Fracking causes immune system disorders.

From By | Jan 31, 2014 at Medical Daily:

…According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, babies born near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have birth defects.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/birth-defects-result-fracking-natural-gas-wells-put-fetus-risk-congenital-heart-neural-tube-problems

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdf

Fracking is absolutely unnecessary. There is an entirely new generation of scientists emerging that can better handle the challenges associated with sustainable energy creation. They are much better suited to effectively managing multicultural global infrastructure issues than their predecessors.

 

 

New Study Says U.S. Underestimated Keystone XL Emissions

By ,  August 13, 2014

By Nick Cunningham for Oilprice.com

A new report says the U.S. government dramatically underestimated the level of greenhouse gas emissions that would result if the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline becomes a reality.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_KEYSTONE_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The study, by the Stockholm Environmental Institute,http://www.sei-us.org/, found that building the pipeline, which would connect Canada’s oil-rich tar sands to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, would produce greenhouse gas emissions at least four times higher than the U.S. State Department’s official estimate.

The study’s authors said that the U.S. officials did not take into account the fact that, by providing an outlet for Canada’s tar sands to reach international buyers, global oil supplies would increase, resulting in a moderate price decline of about $3 per barrel, according to the study. Basic economic theory dictates that lower prices would lead to greater consumption.

More specifically, the study estimates that global oil consumption increases by 0.6 barrels for every barrel http://www.climatecentral.org/news/keystone-xl-will-spike-oil-demand-and-co2-17884

of oil added to global supply. The study finds that global greenhouse gas emissions would increase by 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.http://phys.org/news/2014-08-keystone-carbon-pollution-figured.html

There are a couple of interesting things about the findings. First, 121 million tons of carbon dioxide is barely a rounding error, considering that the world emits 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. And the impact pales in comparison to what’s produced by the hundreds of coal plants in the U.S. and world.

Nevertheless, the emissions are not trivial. The 121 million added tons of annual CO2 emissions is like building an additional 31 average-sized coal-fired power plants. (That figure assumes EPA’s estimate of 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per power plant, per year.)

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

Keystone XL pipeline supporters like to play down the environmental impact of the project, but since the U.S. is implementing new regulations to reduce the climate impact from its existing inventory of coal-fired power plants, choosing to add the equivalent emissions of 31 new coal plants seems a little odd.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said he would approve Keystone only if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Given the figures from the latest study, the pressure on him to reject the pipeline is certain to increase.

And it is important to note that it is not at all clear the extent to which the Canadian tar sands will be developed if Keystone XL isn’t built. Some oil will certainly be transported by rail — as the American Petroleum Institute noted in its response to this study — but there is no way that rail will be able to move the equivalent amount of oil that the pipeline would handle, or at least, not without a monumental effort to expand rail capacity.

The Keystone XL would have a capacity to carry 830,000 barrels per day, which is roughly how much oil the entire rail system carried on average in 2013.

The capacity to carry oil by rail would thus need to approximately double from 2013 levels in order to handle the same amount of oil that Keystone XL will carry. While possible, shipping oil by rail adds about $5 to $10 to the cost of moving each barrel of crude oil. That would likely force tar sands producers to cut back on production because the marginal barrel would no longer be profitable. Thus, fewer emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/us/rail-transport-of-crude-oil-increases-as-pipeline-falls-short.html?_r=1

Moreover, the industry wouldn’t be fighting so hard for the pipeline if the tar sands were going to be produced and exported anyway. Other pipeline routes could get the tar sands out, but those have also run into trouble. A proposed route to the east coast just recently hit a wall in Maine,

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Another-Export-Route-for-Oil-Sands-Blocked.html

and a pipeline to Canada’s west coast is also facing some serious hurdles. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Canadian-Supreme-Court-Ruling-Throws-Major-Pipeline-into-Doubt.html

(For a great depiction of all the major oil pipelines in North America, the organization Frac Tracker has put together an excellent map, which you can see here).

http://maps.fractracker.org/latest/?appid=606e1b991ddf45369a30a8216848f038

There are other reasons to approve the pipeline – it could add to North American energy security, for example, or it could simply be an important source of additional global supply – but with this latest study, it will be much harder for the White House to argue that Keystone XL would have a minimal impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Study-Says-U.S.-Underestimated-Keystone-XL-Emissions.html

 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/new-study-says-us-underestimated-keystone-xl-emissions-cm379592The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

Overcoming the Hurdles of Big Data in Education

Place your vote/comment here: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/36416
 
With the rise of digital technology has come the opportunity for educators to enhance students’ learning experiences by personalizing content based on insights revealed from analysis of learning data. While this paradigm offers tremendous benefits, parents are raising serious concerns about the issue of data privacy. In this session, we’ll explore an approach that tries to strike a balance between using data analytics to improve learning outcomes and mitigating the concerns around data privacy. – See more at: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/36416#sthash.A5QHhydH.dpuf
 

Questions Answered

  1. Discuss the legitimate concerns that parents have about data privacy in education
  2. Illustrate specific ways in which student data, if expanded, might be used to help improve outcomes for those particular students and others
  3. Describe a possible approach to addressing privacy concerns and making some of these learning benefits possible

Speakers

Organizer

Rhean Westerlund Kidaptive

University of Arizona Drops Researcher Studying Medical Marijuana for Veterans

Brittny Mejia, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:49 a.m. MST July 2, 2014

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/2014/07/02/ua-drops-researcher-studying-medical-marijuana-vets/11956323/

The University of Arizona has abruptly ended its support of a researcher who was leading a controversial and first-of-its kind study on medical marijuana use for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Sue Sisley, the principal investigator, had approval from the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Public Health Service, as well as conditional approval from the UA Institutional Review Board for the study of marijuana’s effect on PTSD. Her goal was to start the study this summer.

Late last week, university officials told her they wouldn’t renew her contract, essentially stopping the study before it started.

She said she believes that action occurred because the study became too controversial, at one point creating backlash in the Legislature.

“What they’ve done is harm the veterans by delaying this very crucial research by possibly a year or more when (veterans) really needed this research to be done,” Sisley said. “We were right on the cusp of being able to implement this research and the UofA just cut it off at the knees and hurt the veteran community in Arizona more than they’ll ever realize.”

The study, which was to include 70 veterans suffering from PTSD, would have been the first and only randomized controlled trial in the country looking at marijuana in treating post-traumatic stress disorder, Sisley said.

Sisley, who works at the UA’s Phoenix medical school, said university officials e-mailed her on Friday saying they would not renew her appointment as assistant director in the Arizona Telemedicine Program and as coordinator of special projects in research administration at the Phoenix medical school, effective Sept. 26.

On Monday afternoon, she said she also received a letter saying that her academic appointment as clinical assistant professor in the Psychiatry Department would end, meaning she can no longer perform her research at the UA.

“It’d be different if it was just one of the three positions,” she said. “But this is an across-the-board termination, so it suggests that this is a direct attack on the fact that I was at the forefront of very controversial research.”

George Humphrey, assistant vice president for public affairs for the Arizona Health Sciences Center, said in an e-mail that the university would not comment on personnel matters.

But he said that the university has policies and procedures that would allow for faculty who are departing the university to continue to pursue their research projects elsewhere.

In May, the UA signed a contract with Sisley and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a non-profit research and educational organization, to enable Sisley to conduct the randomized controlled trial at the university. The non-profit sponsored the study, and committed to providing the funding, which would total nearly $1 million.

Sisley, who has spent five years trying to bring the medical-marijuana study to fruition, said she believes the decision not to renew her contracts resulted from her education and advocacy on the barriers to marijuana research, which include finding a home and funding for the research.

She said she plans to appeal and has reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations.

While Sisley said her primary focus is on scientific and academic pursuits, she added that she has become politically active because of the barriers on federally regulated marijuana research.

Earlier this year, when state Sen. Kimberly Yee blocked a hearing of a bill that could have helped fund Sisley’s study, some residents launched a recall effort and the UA logo became affiliated with the effort to recall her, Sisley said.

In April, Sisley said she received a phone call from Joe Garcia, senior vice president for Health Sciences, regarding her political activism.

He instructed her to provide a letter for the UA administration team, wherein she explained she did not participate in the recall effort or link the university to it. She also stated in the e-mail that she never used university resources to participate in activism. Garcia was unavailable for comment.

Sisley said she never received a response to her e-mail.

“They can call it a non-renewal, they can say I wasn’t fired, but when you strip a faculty member of 100 percent of their salary support, it’s pretty clear what they’re doing,” she said. “I think that this is retaliation for trying to provide the public with knowledge about the barriers to marijuana research.”

The university has not received any political pressure to terminate any employees, said Chris Sigurdson, senior associate vice president of university relations. Sigurdson said the university has been supportive of medical-marijuana research and had gone to the Legislature in the past to voice that support.

Some reasons for non-renewal include funding changes and changes within a unit, according to Helena Rodrigues, director of human resources, strategy and planning at the UA.

“Any individual employee should not have an expectation of continued employment past the end of an employment-contract period,” Rodrigues said.

While the FDA approved Sisley’s study three years ago, she was awaiting a permit from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which she couldn’t receive until the UA gave her a location to house the study. The study would have measured how specific doses could treat PTSD symptoms.

Sisley said if she were forced to take her research to another university, she would have to go through a new review process, which could take another year.

State Rep. Ethan Orr, R-Tucson,who earlier this year introduced the bill in the Legislature that would help fund Sisley’s study, said the research would have been useful in understanding medical marijuana.

“I think if she does not do the study at the UofA, I hope that another university would pick her up and pick this research up because it’s very valuable to us,” Orr said. “I hope that the UofA will continue to look at this type of research as well.”

Ricardo Pereyda, a former UA student and combat veteran with PTSD, said cannabis works better for treating his symptoms than prescription medication.

But Pereyda, 32, said he believes it’s essential to conduct a study like Sisley’s to provide concrete answers to whether marijuana works in treating PTSD.

“Thousands of veterans have committed suicide in the time that this study has been delayed,” Pereyda said. “How many more are going to continue to commit suicide? This could potentially be something that could see a reduction in those numbers.”

 

****Note from Anna: How many more mentally ill people have to die to please big pharmaceutical companies? When are the citizens, whose tax dollars are used to employ and maintain the lifestyles of *all* city,state, end federal politicians, going to have their needs put first? Obama should immediately fully legalize hemp and medical marijuana for nationwide(as well as global) medical and retail purposes. 

It would give millions of citizens the freedom to grow their medicines, improve their health conditions, and become financially stable through farming. It would rebuild America’s economy.

‘Chemical Threat': Disaster Looms as Kiev Shells Fall Near Donetsk Plant

http://rt.com/news/179336-chemical-disaster-donetsk-plant/

Rt.com August 11, 2014

Photo from www.stirol.net

Ukraine is at risk of an environmental disaster as Kiev’s army continues to bomb the Donestk region, nearly hitting its largest chemical plant that stores lethal agents, the plant’s spokesperson warned. The minimum impact zone would be at least 300 km.

READ MORE: ‘Spreading the truth’: Spanish volunteers join fight against Kiev in E. Ukraine (VIDEO)

For the past three weeks, the Ukrainian army has been intensely shelling Gorlovka, located in Ukraine’s Donetsk region — home to the nation’s largest chemical plant, Stirol.

“Due to the irresponsible actions of the Ukrainian army, citizens of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are exposed to a deadly threat from an ecological disaster on a daily basis, the size of which cannot be predicted,” Pavel Brykov, a spokesman for the plant, said in a YouTube message on Sunday.

A still from YouTube video by SputnikTV allegedly showing remains of a shell at the territory of Gorlovka chemical plant in eastern Ukraine

According to Brykov, an accident at the plant could cause a toxic leak of nitrochlorobenzene – a lethal substance which, if it enters the human body, affects the liver, heart, and bone marrow, causing death.

The minimum impact of the accident would be at least 300 kilometers, Brykov said, adding that the risks of the accident are being silenced in the Ukrainian media.

Stirol is part of the OSTCHEM holding company that belongs to Ukrainian businessman Dmitry Firtash.

Earlier, Firtash claimed there is no risk of a catastrophe since there are no lethal agents stored at the plant. He added that back in May, when the shelling of the region began to intensify, the plant stopped the synthesis and processing of the colorless gas ammonia and evacuated all of its workers.

A still from YouTube video by SputnikTV allegedly shows remains of a shell near the facilities of Gorlovka chemical plant in eastern Ukraine

In their offensive against the eastern Ukrainian militia, Kiev troops have been using multiple-rocket launchers, such as Grad and Uragan – highly indiscriminate weapons designed for destroying enemy forces in the field. If fired at a city, their lack of precision would likely lead to multiple civilian casualties, increasing the risk of a chemical catastrophe.

Just on Thursday, a unique wooden Orthodox church burned to the ground after being hit by an artillery shell in Gorlovka.STIROL chemical plant in the town of Gorlovka in the Donetsk region (Reuters / Valery Belokryl)

The ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine has already led to more than 1,300 people – both civilians and military troops – being killed in the conflict, and over 4,000 others being wounded. At the same time, around 118,000 people have been internally displaced and 740,000 others have fled to Russia.

The Stirol plant was involved in an accident that killed six people and injured 26 others a year ago, when a colorless gas ammonia was released into the air during repair work. The incident was one of the biggest in the country’s recent history.

Ukraine is also the site of the world’s worst nuclear power plant accident in history. The catastrophic nuclear disaster happened on April 26, 1986 at reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which was then one of the USSR republics. The plant is located near the city of Pripyat, some 100 km north of the capital Kiev.

As a result of the explosion and fire, a huge radioactive cloud was spread into the atmosphere, covering thousands of miles of Soviet and European territories. Approximately 100,000 square kilometers of land were significantly contaminated.

Thirty-one out of the 237 people diagnosed with acute radiation sickness died within the first three months of the accident. Overall, up to 985,000 people have died as a result of the incident, mainly from cancer due caused by the radiation, according to Global Research.

FDA Eases Restrictions on Experimental Ebola Drug as CDC Warns of ‘Inevitable’ Spread to U.S.

http://rt.com/usa/179100-ebola-fda-drug-cdc-spread/

RT.com August 08, 2014

While Ebola, the deadly disease spreading through parts of West Africa, has no cure, specific treatment or vaccine, there are several experimental drugs being tested in US labs. Now the FDA has lifted its hold on one of those drugs.

The US Food and Drug Administration gave Tekmira Pharmaceuticals verbal confirmation that they modified the full clinical hold the regulatory agency had placed on the company’s experimental TKM-Ebola drug, enabling the potential use on Ebola patients, Tekmira said in a statement.

“We are pleased that the FDA has considered the risk-reward of TKM-Ebola for infected patients. We have been closely watching the Ebola virus outbreak and its consequences, and we are willing to assist with any responsible use of TKM-Ebola. The foresight shown by the FDA removes one potential roadblock to doing so,” said Dr. Mark Murray, CEO and president of Tekmira.

“This current outbreak underscores the critical need for effective therapeutic agents to treat the Ebola virus. We recognize the heightened urgency of this situation, and are carefully evaluating options for use of our investigational drug within accepted clinical and regulatory protocols.”

The company, in collaboration with infectious disease researchers from Boston University and the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, showed the drug’s ability to protect non-human primates from Ebola in preclinical trials in May 2010, Tekmira said.

A Phase I clinical trial ‒ the first step towards FDA approval ‒ began on humans in January. The agency then approved a fast-track designation for the drug in March, around the same time the Ebola outbreak began in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It has since spread to Nigeria. According to World Health Organization figures published on Wednesday, there are over 1,700 suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola in the four countries, and 932 of those patients have died from the disease.

A different drug, ZMapp by Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., was used to treat two American aid workers who had contracted Ebola in Liberia. ZMapp, previously only known as “a secret serum,” has not been given the go-ahead to begin human trials yet, Forbes reported. It works by boosting the immune system to battle against Ebola. The treatment consists of antibodies from lab animals exposed to the virus.

After receiving a dose of the serum, both Nancy Writebol and Dr. Kent Brantly were transferred to Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital, near the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brantly, 33, who is an employee of the international group Samaritan’s Purse, also received a blood transfusion from a 14-year-old Ebola survivor, who had been under his care before. Both American patients appear to be improving, officials have said.

With the arrival of Ebola in the US via the two aid workers ‒ who remain in isolation in Atlanta ‒ CDC Director Tom Frieden told Congress that the disease will “inevitably” spread around the world due to global air travel, but that any outbreak in the US would not be large.

Frieden testified on the epidemic in front of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations on Thursday. “It is certainly possible that we could have ill people in the US who develop Ebola after having been exposed elsewhere,” he said in his testimony. “But we are confident that there will not be a large Ebola outbreak in the US.”

As people who have traveled to West Africa and then return to or continue on to other destinations develop Ebola-like symptoms, such as fever and gastrointestinal distress, other nations have begun testing for the disease. On Tuesday, Great Britain announced a person in Wales was being monitored by health officials following a potential exposure to the virus.

On Monday, the US experienced its first scare. Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan performed tests on a male patient with high fever and gastrointestinal symptoms, the hospital said in a statement. He arrived in the emergency room Monday morning, and had previously traveled to one of the West African countries where Ebola has been reported. However, by the end of the day, officials confirmed the patient had not contracted the deadly disease.

“We are all connected and inevitably there will be travelers, American citizens and others who go from these three countries ‒ or from Lagos if it doesn’t get it under control ‒ and are here with symptoms,” Frieden said.

But that does not mean that the US will become the next battlefront against the disease, a CDC spokesman clarified after Frieden’s testimony.

“It is inevitable that people are going to show up with symptoms. It is possible that some of them are going to have Ebola,” CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said, according to AFP.

****Note from Anna: The government has just made the entire nation’s citizens research test subjects for the plague. Ebola spreads faster in people with weakened immune systems. The only substance on the planet that can make the immune system strong enough to fight it is cannabis. Obama knows this. Why hasn’t the President legalized cannabis nationwide?

Authors:

Pharmacol Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC Feb 24, 2011.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3044336
NIHMSID: NIHMS182272

“Cannabinoid pharmacology has made important advances in recent years after the discovery of the cannabinoid receptors. These discoveries have added to our understanding of exogenous and endogenous cannabinoid signaling along with exploring the various pathways of their biosynthesis, molecular structure, inactivation, and anatomical distribution of their receptors throughout the body. The endocannabinoid system is involved in immunoregulation and neuroprotection. In this article, we have reviewed the possible mechanisms of the regulation of the immune response by endocannabinoids which include modulation of immune response in different cell types, effect on cytokine network, induction of apoptosis in immune cells and downregulation of innate and adaptive immune response.

Studies from our laboratory have suggested that administration of endocannabinoids or use of inhibitors of enzymes that breakdown the endocannabinoids, leads to immunosuppression and recovery from immune-mediated injury to organs such as the liver. Thus, manipulation of endocannabinoids in vivo may constitute a novel treatment modality against inflammatory disorders.”

Endocannabinoids and immune regulation

Info about Ebola: Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever

Washington State Department of Health Medical Marijuana Authorization Practice Guidelines Public Hearing August 8, 2014

Repost for , July 31, 2014

From: Washington State Department of Health
Date:07/25/2014 6:09 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: MEDICALCANNABIS@LISTSERV.WA.GOV
Subject: Medical Marijuana Authorization Practice Guidelines

July 25, 2014
Medical Marijuana Authorization Practice Guidelines
The Department of Health is facilitating a workgroup of representatives from the boards and commissions whose health care professionals can authorize the medical use of marijuana.•  Nursing Care Quality Assurance Commission
•  Board of Naturopathy
•  Medical Quality Assurance Commission
•  Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery

The workgroup will develop draft guidelines to describe the professional practice standards for health care professionals who authorize the medical use of marijuana under chapter 69.51A RCW.

Where:

Department of Health
Point Plaza East
Room 152/153
310 Israel Road SE
Tumwater, WA 98501
360-236-4700

When
August 8, 2014
8:30 a.m.

The public is invited to attend. Thirty minutes have been allotted for public testimony. If you are unable to attend this workgroup meeting, please submit written comments by close of business Thursday, August 7, 2014, at medicalmarijuana@doh.wa.gov.

Agreement on the guidelines may require additional effort by the workgroup, in which case future meetings will be scheduled and notice will be sent to interested persons.

Once completed, the draft guidelines will be shared with each board and commission at regularly scheduled business meetings for review and possible adoption.

***Note from Anna: I am only going to say this once more: If Washington State dispensaries, businesses, and patients don’t unite to put these politicians in line they will be micromanaging your medicines, and taxes in relation to them, from now on. You’ll never be free of the political posturing and bullshit.
If you cannot go please send a proxy to speak for you.
 
If you would like me to write a letter on your behalf use this email address: annajaya67@yahoo.com.
If I get any nonsense, SPAM, or negativity you’ll get blocked and/or your info will be turned over to whoever is necessary.
Activists you can email me for my phone number. I am not certain I will be able to attend the meeting in person because I’m in California on the 7th but if I can make it on a late flight I will.

How Should Marijuana Legalizers Vote For President? Pragmatically-Dr.Jill Stein 2016

http://www.theweedblog.com/how-should-marijuana-legalizers-vote-for-president-pragmatically/

August 19, 2012

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate for President

I attempted to make this point in a previous post, but I didn’t convey it very well. Today I received a tweet from a listener who suggested I consider Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who won the nomination of her party recently, fending off a challenge from Roseanne Barr. (You may not have taken her seriously, but I never thought the guy from Hercules in New York would be governor of California, so I didn’t count her out.)

So I’m considering it. And I’m considering just who we in the marijuana nation should vote for in the presidential race, especially since LZ Granderson thinks we’re all “idiots”. I think it’s quite rational to factor in whether the man who wants your vote for president would continue to allow body-armored law enforcers with automatic weapons and grenades to break down your door, shoot your dog, terrify your kid, seize your assets, end your scholarship, ruin your career, imprison your family, murder your grandma, and stuff you in a cage for decades for the flower they think you’re growing in the basement.

Whether legalization should be your only consideration, however, is what LZ was critiquing, and I tend to agree that it is simplistic to base one’s vote on just one issue. I’ll say that to one-issue reproductive-rights, gun-rights, and Evangelical voters, too. It’s a big complex world out there and you have to consider how issues are networked. For instance, if I voted for a candidate who’d legalize weed but end net neutrality, I’d be worse off, overall. If I voted for a guy, say, a long-time representative from Texas who’d let Oregon legalize pot farming but also would have no qualms with my home state of Idaho re-criminalizing abortion, my nieces would be worse off. See what I mean?

MITT-ROMNEY-RMONEY

So let’s start with who not to vote for, and that’s Mitt “R-Money” Romney. Besides his recently admitting marijuana isn’t “an issue of significance” to him, and turning his back on wheelchair-bound patients who use cannabis, I just can’t fathom a vote for a guy who bullies the gay kids and ties his dog to the roof of the car on 12-hour trips. That’s enough for me, but I’m willing to listen to arguments for him. I just don’t see how R-Money helps our cause at all, and if you think Obama’s gone hogwild with the medical marijuana crackdown, consider that’s US Attorneys acting with a wink and a nod from the president; imagine them with an outright go-ahead.

There still stands Rep. Ron Paul, raising money and campaigning when his chance of winning the Republican nomination is worse than the chance of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signing a law tomorrow to legalize mescaline. Oh, how the RevoLutionaries are going to crash my comments section, telling me how much he supports marijuana legalization. He doesn’t – he supports states rights to do such things and that the federal government has no jurisdiction in drug policy. I guess a President Paul would work out well for me in Oregon. but I would weep for my friends in the Red States..”

Ron Paul

Sorry, Paulbots, he’s another guy I have to put in the not to vote for column. If you can explain to me why I want to live in a country with no federal minimum wage, no occupational safety and health standards, no labor unions, no anti-trust enforcement, no estate tax, no tax credits for elderly or child care, no birth citizenship, no funding of family planning, no flag burning, and support of state abortion bans, gay marriage bans, offshore drilling, weakened Social Security, school prayer, teaching creationism, guns everywhere and anywhere, and zygotes defined as citizens in exchange for my state and a few others having the opportunity to legalize weed, I’ll listen.

So then we’re left with President Obama and the major third-party challengers, Libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson and Green Dr. Jill Stein. Given that you can’t vote for Romney, Obama’s been terrible for the marijuana nation, and a third party candidate is not going to win, what do you do?

My friend Cheyanne helping Gov. Gary Johnson get from the hotel parking lot to the event we were both appearing at in Austin, as I take the photo from her car.

 

Yes, Libertarians and Greens, you must face up to the fact that your candidate is not going to become president. All the fervent wishing and desperate hoping will not change the electoral and financial math. That does not diminish the importance of these parties and their candidates running for president. We desperately need more voices than just Republicans and Democrats. (Full disclosure: I’ve appeared at a number of events with Governor Johnson, including moderating a panel including him and former Alaska Senator and presidential candidate, Mike Gravel.)

The fact they are called “third parties” should tell you something. If we lived in a parliamentary system, like Canada or England, multiple parties would exist and coalitions would form and our politics would look very different. But we have a “winner takes all” system and when you research game theory, you’ll find such a system guarantees the kind of duopoly we find in Republicans and Democrats, or an outright monopoly, like we find in Republicans and Democrats on quite a few issues.

Learn how the math of our electoral process demands that we adopt “range voting” and where it’s completely safe to vote third party for president in 2012 by continuing the rant at RadicalRuss.com…