One Sky. One Climate. One Future. One Chance.

My partner saw 1 Sky listed on a lawn sign at a neighbor's house today and I like what I see. Global warming/climate change/"the greenhouse effect" is not JUST a serious risk and challenge to us all, but also an incredible opportunity to recognize and reach out as global neighbors all under that.... 1 sky.

Check it out.

American Empire Building Disguised As Legit Aid to Third World Countries

Robb Kidd at Evolving Peace (another blog from my neck of the Vermont woods, Montpelier, still the only state capitol without a McDonald's) has a very solid piece up about the World Bank and the whole new horrific levels of corrupt behavior thanks to President Bush's appointment of neocon-man Paul "He puts the wolf in..." Wolfowitz. Wolfie, of course, was allowed to resign when indictment would be much more appropriate - and not just because Wolfie couldn't control his penis or his penis' playmate.

There seems to be a mood of ecstatic joy in regards to the downfall of Paul Wolfowitz from heading of the World Bank and while many may have noticed that Mr. Wolfowitz had been a chief architect of the Neo-Cons disastrous implantation of the war in Iraq, they now celebrate with glee his down fall with little discussion revolving around the harsh reality that he was perfect for the World Bank position.
The World Bank has nothing to do about raising the quality of living for “the undeveloped world” but for the mere purpose of creating further markets of development. While to the mere outsider the World Bank produces an imagery of wholesome concern; however that is far from the real truth of the matter. The World Bank has been a tool for venture capitalists in further procuring their desires of developing and exploiting the undeveloped world. Instead of using military force the World Bank goes into the “undeveloped world” and installs loans to spur economic development that perpetuates them into system of subservience.

On paper it sounds nice, but in reality these loans subject the population to dramatic changes to their environment and create an environment of greater poverty. In Mexico farmers were discouraged from growing corn due to the abundance of US corn and now with the greater demand for ethanol corn prices have skyrocketed and many Mexicans are left without their most basic staple for food. Mexican peasantry who had left the farms for the promises of greater economic freedom are now in a pinch since corn is no longer cheap to them. Now they are unable to support themselves and are in need of work, so left with little options the opportunities north of the border look good to them.

Catch the rest here.

Karl Rove Should Only Hope Sheryl Crowe Would Molest Him

Also posted at All Things Democrat:

All too often, fat men are portrayed as thick-skinned AND jolly. Apparently neither is the case with Bush's (none too brilliant) "brain", Karl Rove.

Read this at Huffington Post about how songstress Sheryl Crowe and "Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David (wife of Seinfeld co-creator, Larry David) approached Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday night only to have Rove freak because they - oh my! - touched his arm, suggested he's supposed to work (since he's paid from our tax dollars) for the American people, and that he needs to take a much smarter look at the issue of global warming.

Hey, maybe Global Warming will be good to Karl: let him sweat off the 100 or so extra pounds and three additional chins he currently sports.

No ass like a righteous Republican ass.

Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Spewings

From The New York Times:

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court found today that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention.

However, the Mediocres among the Supremes also voted against an appeal by Guantanamo detainees:

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want to challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. These individuals were seized as potential terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and only 10 have been charged with a crime.

Despite the earlier rulings, none of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as enemy combatants.

A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

The detainees' core argument is that no matter where they are held by American authorities, they are entitled to access to U.S. courts. They want the court to strike down the new law as unconstitutional.

Explain to me how these detainees can be faulted for WHERE they are held when it's the Bushies, rather than the detainees, who decide where they will be held. This is fucked up behond any possible sense.

More On Gas Prices

If you note at the topmost right sidebar, one of the items I've added (as of late last night) is a report on state-by-state gasoline prices. And as I posted yesterday, one must look to the Bush-Cheney Administration for why the prices have skyrocketed.

However, let me add a couple of points here.

First, while the fuel reserve is an issue - one Bush and Cheney manipulate wildly - I failed to mention probably the biggest reason for the average 14 cent per gallon gas rise in the last week: Bush's drumbeat toward war in Iran.

Second, here's another issue I noticed. Check out the prices as they go by, alphabetically by state, and you might notice the same pattern I did. Blue states are paying MORE for gas, on average, than red states. Now, sure, blue states are more likely to impose gas taxes for environmental causes, etc. But up until the time of Bush, we rarely saw such a difference in gas prices, dependent on how voters in a state cast ballots.

Hmmm...