Daryl Crouse, CI, CT

The Wall Street Journal published a front page story on June 24, 2010 stating that BP relied, per regulatory requirements, on faulty government models of the potential impact of deep water oil drilling accidents. That may be true but the important thing to note is that George W. Bush took the oath of office January 20, 2001.

In 2001, the then-head of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) wrote a paper warning “the oil spill trajectory models currently used by the oil industry for the preparation of oil spill response plans may not be adequate for deep water.”

Since the day George W. Bush took office an abundance of evidence shows he supported oil and gas companies while neglecting his promise made to the American people when he took the oath of office. The most relevant example is that from 2001 to 2005 the Bush administration and the MMS that it installed ignored the warning of outdated models. In 2005, MMS researchers issued a castrated warning calling for “upgraded” response plans. The lack of real teeth or determination behind the second warning is indicative of the support the Bush administration gave the oil industry.

“By early 2002, the Bush administration had tapped a new head of MMS, a former GOP state legislator from Dick Cheney’s home state of Wyoming named Rejane “Johnnie” Burton. Burton, you’ll be shocked to learn, was in the energy industry and in her announcement touted the fact that she “began her career in the oil and gas industry.” It was under her leadership that MMS began to rapidly deteriorate, failing to address even the most basic safety issues for new offshore drilling.” Daily Kos

To further support the oil industry by requiring the industry to prepare response plans according to known outdated models the president gave them a proverbial “get out of jail” card because they could push blame for lack of response back to the government. The harsh truth of this hypothesis is now seeing the light of day.

CNN created a heart-breaking infographic memorializing coalition troops who’ve fallen during the Iraq/Afghanistan war.

Up top, side-by-side time lapse videos reveal where those troops died–and, just as important, where they’re from.

But perhaps more moving–and unique among the various Iraq and Afghanistan infographics we’ve seen–is that the site isn’t meant to be taken in passively: It’s an interactive monument. You can click for details on every soldier that died–and those who knew them can leave notes and messages, so that the entire site can function as a communal memorial.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html

Vote No on Prop 16

Proposition 16 is an attempt to fool the voters. It does NOT protect taxpayers. It DOES create a monopoly for huge for-profit utilities and protects their profits. Prop. 16 blocks communities from creating their own municipal, non-profit power authorities. That means less choice and less competition.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is California’s largest for-profit utility. They have committed to spending between $25 and $35 million of ratepayer money to trick voters into protecting PG&E’s monopoly. So far, PG&E is the ONLY contributor to the Yes side.

If PG&E eliminates competition with Proposition 16, it will mean higher electric bills for Californians, costing us billions of dollars a year

By spending tens of millions of dollars on a slick political campaign, PG&E can protect their monopoly with an unachievable two-thirds vote. With no competition, they can charge higher
rates. In fact, PG&E already charges higher rates than municipal, non-profit utilities.

The monopoly created by Proposition 16 eliminates your ability to choose who provides your power, so that dissatisfied customers no longer have the right to seek out other options.

PG&E just asked for ten new rate hikes worth five billion dollars. Like Wall Street, PG&E paid huge bonuses to its executives even after it went bankrupt and made ratepayers bail it out. No wonder that PG&E does not want new competition. Voting NO stops PG&E’s deceptive plan to protect its monopoly.

Proposition 16 kills competition, reduces customer choices, and locks in higher electric bills. It also makes it harder for customers to choose green energy. Voting Yes means higher electric bills and poorer service. A No vote means lower electric bills, more electricity choices, and more green energy for California.