Can This Facebook Status Share Widely Enough To Reach Obama’s Job Czar?

GE used to “bring good things to life”. Now, they just bring good jobs to China.

COPY and PASTE the text below in your status when you share this link on Facebook!

2010: GE paid $0 in taxes when profits soared and U.S. revenue suffered.
2011: GE is spending $2 billion to create jobs in China when U.S. unemployment is at 9.1%. For GE, “imagination is at work” but Americans sure aren’t! REPOST IF YOU WANT MORE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA!

This is quite clear.


Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

Move to Amend Header

The national campaign to Abolish Corporate Personhood and Defend Democracy.
Sign the Petition: http://MoveToAmend.org/motion-to-amend

* * *

Great work to our team at Boulder Move to Amend!

Special shout outs to Carolyn Bninski, Judy Lubow, Rick Casey, Scott Silber, Dan Gould, Regina
Cowles, Elena Nunez, all the volunteers who phonebanked to turn out the crowd, and to the folks
who gave public comment at the meetings. Thanks also to Councilman Macon Cowles for
introducing the measure.

Stay tuned: Missoula, Montana is up next - on Monday their City Council will consider placing a
similar resolution on their November ballot as well.

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

BOULDER, CO - Just days after Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney angered attendees
at the Iowa State Fair by declaring that “corporations are people
,” the court-created doctrine of
“corporate personhood” is once again making headlines.

On Tuesday evening the City Council of Boulder, Colorado voted to place a referendum on the
November ballot calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that corporations are
not people and money is not speech. Boulder’s decision came after months of grassroots
organizing by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood.

“This is a very important development at exactly the right time,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a
national spokesperson for Move to Amend. “Americans are fed up with corporate dominance of our
political system. The people of Boulder have an opportunity to lead the way for other communities
throughout the country by taking a strong stand.”

Boulder’s decision comes just months after voters in Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin
overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood
and the legal
status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively.

"Wow. What an outpouring of emotion and feeling and sincere interest in making changes, which
I don't think anybody in the room would deny we need at the highest level," Councilman Ken Wilson
told the crowd before he voted in favor of putting the referendum on the ballot. "My family and I were
very, very disappointed in the Citizens United decision. I think it's a real threat to our government,
and whatever we can do to change that, I think we should."

Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also
been introduced in the state legislatures of Vermont, Washington, Montana, and New Mexico. The City
Council of Missoula, Montana will be considering placing such a measure on the ballot next week.

“We are excited to be a part of this rapidly growing national effort,” said Carolyn Bninksi, a local
organizer with Boulder Move to Amend. “The strength of Move to Amend’s strategy is that it is based
on grassroots work at the local level. This is the only way to build a movement powerful enough to take
on entrenched corporate interests.”

Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and 130,000 individuals. The group
is committed to building a grassroots movement to demand corporate accountability to the public by
abolishing corporate personhood through an amendment to the US Constitution.

For more information visit http://www.MoveToAmend.org.



Move to Amend
P.O. Box 260217

, WI 53726-0217
United States

End Corporate Rule. Legalize Democracy. Move to Amend.

We're on Facebook & Twitter!

About Us | Move to Amend

“Today the business once transacted by individuals in every community is in the control of corporations, and many of the men who once conducted an independent business are gathered into the organization, and all personal identity, and all individualities lost. Each man has become a mere cog in one of the wheels of a complicated mechanism. It is the business of the corporations to get money. It exacts but one thing of its employees: Obedience to orders. It cares not about their relations to the community, the church, society, or the family. It wants full hours and faithful service, and when they die, wear out or are discharged, it quickly replaces them with new material.

The corporation is a machine for making money, but it reduces men to the insignificance of mere numerical figures, as certainly as the private ranks of the regular army.

~ Fighting Bob La Follette, speech on the Dangers Threatening Representative Government, Mineral Point, Wisconsin, July 4, 1897

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for. - YouTube


USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”

August 15, 2011
The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service today released new regulations on livestock handling, which for the first time defines “egregious cruelties”: Here’s the USDA’s brand new list of no-nos.
1. Making cuts on or skinning conscious animals;
2. Excessive beating or prodding of ambulatory or nonambulatory disabled animals or dragging of conscious animals;
3. Driving animals off semi-trailers over a drop off without providing adequate unloading facilities (animals are falling to the ground);
4. Running equipment over conscious animals;
5. Stunning of animals and then allowing them to regain consciousness;
6. Multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an animal immediately unconscious;
7. Dismembering conscious animals, for example, cutting off ears or removing feet;
8. Leaving disabled livestock exposed to adverse climate conditions while awaiting disposition, or
9. Otherwise causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, including situations on trucks.
Remember, everyone: no more “excessive beating,” or skinning animals alive.
Worth noting that none of these items were pulled out of thin air. Each of these items is known to happen or it would not have made the list. And the reason for the list is that, without being explicitly told these actions are unacceptably cruel, slaughterhouse inspectors couldn’t be counted on to report them. (Via Jolley and AMI.) Link [PDF].
Mixed feelings. Glad that the USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”. Truly pissed off that it had to be defined. http://bit.ly/nM2uNh

Crosspost: Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | updated 15 Aug 2011

Being the pain I usually am, I've provided some "emphasis" for some of the text. George has stopped short of making some comments that he's almost GOT to be thinking, so I'm going to provide a few of my own in the stream of the article. You'll know it when you see it. lwo   :)

George Monbiot blog banner

Why is Top Gear apparently exempt from the BBC's editorial guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts?

• Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race
• The Nissan Leaf electric car – review

Jeremy Clarkson test drives the Tesla electric car
Jeremy "Lying sack of bantha poodoo" Clarkson sabotages 
a test drive of the Leaf electric car  Photograph: BBC

What distinguishes the BBC from the rest of this country's media? There's the lack of advertising, and the lack of a proprietor with specific business interests to defend.

(lwo Note: I now watch Top Gear on BBC America, which does indeed produce revenue for BBC Worldwide; perhaps I should now assume that BBC has no standards for the BBC America services?)

But perhaps the most important factor is its editorial guidelines, which are supposed to ensure that the corporation achieves "the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive[s] to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences."

Here's a few of the things they say:
"Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest."

"We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live."

"We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them."
Vehicles by Hummer are among the most prominen...
Top Gear Paradise?
Image via Wikipedia
Woe betide the producer or presenter who breaches these guidelines. Unless, that is, they work for Top Gear. If so, they are permitted to drive a coach and horses – or a Hummer H3 - through them whenever they please.

Take, for example, Top Gear's line on electric cars. Casting aside any pretence of impartiality or rigour, it has set out to show that electric cars are useless. If the facts don't fit, it bends them until they do.

Tesla Roadster
Tesla Roadster
Image via Wikipedia

It's currently being sued by electric car maker Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster's true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), and that it unexpectedly ran out of charge. Tesla says "the breakdowns were staged and the statements are untrue". But the BBC keeps syndicating the episode to other networks. So much for "acknowledging mistakes when they are made".

Now it's been caught red-handed faking another trial, in this case of the Nissan LEAF.

Nissan Leaf exhibited at the 2010 Washington A...
Nissan Leaf
Image via Wikipedia

Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy "We're only entertainment so our recommendations are as full of exrement as I am" Clarkson and James "time for me to drink my way across the UK May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car "unexpectedly" ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future".

(lwo Note: But it's clear from Clarkson's Lists that he will whore out his reputation just to get a self serving edge with whomever he fancies at the moment. Here's a recent and from what I can tell, fairly accurate review of Clarkson's abilities found out on the "Ultimate Car" forum:
People enjoy Clarkson's hard opinions and dry sense of humour. However, they seem to forget that he knows nothing about how cars handle, nor has after 20 years of driving supercars has any skills behind the wheel. A good example is when he put the current ZR1 against an Audi R8 and constantly said that the ZR1 was impossible to drive faster than the R8. Then in the hands of the stig it blitzed the R8.
I also remember him slagging off the Carrera GT calling it bland and uninteresting, reviewing it against the Enzo Ferrari.

AND Clarkson's comments are about getting readers/viewers attention and to sell his column, mag, book, video, tv show.
This guy has driven every major badass ultimately exotic supercar on this planet and he puts a Mazda CX7 on his top 25? Nothing against the CX7, is a nice SUV or crossover, or whatever, I drove it myself when I was checking them out a few months ago while considering one for my wife, but come on... Jeremy Clarkson's top 25?
In short, Jeremy Clarkson seems to emerge as the combined Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of the automotive


Too subtle?

I don't think most of the Texans agree with the "End of Days" schtick. They've been roughed up pretty thoroughly by drought already, enough to get their dander up. A real Texan is one tough hombre. A guy calling himself a preacher, sipping from his coffee mug and shouting into a camera on You Tube isn't enough to make them quit struggling, give up hope, drop to their knees and pray.

Texas Lake Turns Blood-Red - Texas - Fox Nation http://bit.ly/o68IlO

That doesn't seem to extend to Indiana however.

And now for the not so 'subtle' part.

The Deluge - Image via Wikipedia

There once was an old man who had great faith
. He lived in a flood-plain. One day after a particularly hard rain, a Ranger pulls up in front of the house in a 4x4. The Ranger tells the old man that a great flood is coming, that he needs to evacuate. The old man insists on staying saying, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" The Ranger argues, but to no avail, and finally leaves to save more sensible people.

Rescue work, Dayton (LOC)
Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr
The next day, the floodwaters have covered the old man's yard, and are lapping at his porch. The same Ranger pulls up in a john-boat and begs the old man once more to evacuate. The old man remains firm, saying, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" The Ranger argues to no avail, and finally leaves.

Helicopter Rescue
Helicopter Rescue - Image by SixFourG via Flickr

The next day, the floodwaters have covered the 1st and 2nd stories, and a helicopter flies in to hover over the old man perched upon the roof. The Ranger yells to the old man, "Climb up! We need to get you out of here!" Once again, the old man replies, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" As they argue, a wave sweeps the old man off the roof and he drowns.

The old man arrives at the gates of Heaven, and is greeted by the Angel Gabriel. The old man says, "I want to speak with God." Gabriel smiles and says that God wants to talk to him, too. The old man is ushered into the presence of God, and says, "Lord, I don't understand! I had faith that you would save me! What happened?"

God looks at him, sighs, and says, "I sent you a 4x4, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want???"

Could it be that the messages for the last 30 years were sent to save us? 

This story is usually paired with something crisp like, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." Life isn't about passively standing around, waiting for the big guy in the sky to take care of you. You've got to participate.

"I sent you a scientist, a group of scientists, and an international coalition of scientists to tell you how to avoid this, what more did you want???"

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri Chair, IPCC
Image by UNclimatechange via Flickr

Related articles