Friday, June 25, 2010

Obama's K Street connections

K Street.
Yeah, so what about it? you might ask.
Geographically; K Street is a major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C.. Universally; K Street known as a center for numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups.

K Street lobbyists and advocacy groups.
Hmmm ... hasn't Pres. Obama said they were nasty people?
Why yes, he did. A number of times. One time was January 2006, at the Lobbying Reform Summit where he was making it a point to name Republicans for having dealings with lobbyists and special interest groups..

In his speech, Obama was extolling the virtues of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt as he "put party and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an open, honest government that would fight for their interests and uphold their values."

Obama continued with, "The American people are tired of a Washington that's only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They're tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you can do. And they're tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways.
It's not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of corruption and they know it has worn the face of both Republicans and Democrats over the years."

Later in the speech, he says, "The well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who've helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists and don't want to break the law are wondering, "When is it our turn? When will someone in Washington stand up for me?"
http://obamaspeeches.com/047-Lobbying-Reform-Summit-National-Press-Club-Obama-Speech.htm

After he was elected, it seemed as if Obama was going to really walk the talk. But a reporter in 2009 noticing White House senior adviser David Axelrod meeting with Fox News chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes privately in Manhattan for 'a cup of coffee', started some to take notice of what was going on. This was about the time that the White House was beginning the rhetoric on how Fox News wasn't playing nice in the Obama sand box.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27982.html

Reports of certain visitors using side door entrances to the White House began to surface. The presence of a military guard who would then take post at that door, told the reporters that the President was nearby or in the room. In 2009, Judicial Watch, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20, 2009 forward. The Secret Service claimed that the records belong to the Obama White House and denied Judicial Watch access to them. A federal district court has ruled twice that all visitor records belong to the Secret Service and therefore should be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
An October 8 letter from the Department of Homeland Security related to Judicial Watch's request: "It is the government's position that the categories of records that you requested are not agency records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are governed by the Presidential Records Act…". Funny, Obama's first Executive Order was was to squelch what would be released and defined as Presidential papers.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/oct/obama-administration-denies-judicial-watch-foia-request-white-house-visitor-logs

Remember , "When will someone in Washington stand up for me?" Well, don't hold your breath waiting for it and don't be naive enough to think that Obama is all that invested in 'truth, openess and transparency'.

In his report, New York Times’s Eric Lichtblau blows the lid off the whole pot of coffee being shared by the White House and lobbyists. Geographically, White House administration, with Secret service agents in tow, are not meeting with lobbyists in the White House. Technically, they don't have to be listed in White House visitors’ logs and lobbying registration records.

Lichtblau report covers a lot of area as to how and where the White House administration and lobbyists are meeting. Do I hear 'plausible deniability' floating around in Obama's lawyer mind? Or maybe as a senior White House official said, “We don’t believe there’s anything untoward about these meetings, and we don’t think that represents any special access for lobbyists.” Adding that “folks are allowed to get a cup of coffee, and we’re not going to bar patronage at any of the area’s fine coffeehouses.”

I'm waiting to find out who is Obama's Abramoff.

Read Lichtblau report
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/politics/25caribou.html?sq=caribou coffee&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

Obama's K Street connections

K Street.
Yeah, so what about it? you might ask.
Geographically; K Street is a major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C.. Universally; K Street known as a center for numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups.

K Street lobbyists and advocacy groups.
Hmmm ... hasn't Pres. Obama said they were nasty people?
Why yes, he did. A number of times. One time was January 2006, at the Lobbying Reform Summit where he was making it a point to name Republicans for having dealings with lobbyists and special interest groups..

In his speech, Obama was extolling the virtues of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt as he "put party and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an open, honest government that would fight for their interests and uphold their values."

Obama continued with, "The American people are tired of a Washington that's only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They're tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you can do. And they're tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways.
It's not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of corruption and they know it has worn the face of both Republicans and Democrats over the years."

Later in the speech, he says, "The well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who've helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists and don't want to break the law are wondering, "When is it our turn? When will someone in Washington stand up for me?"
http://obamaspeeches.com/047-Lobbying-Reform-Summit-National-Press-Club-Obama-Speech.htm

After he was elected, it seemed as if Obama was going to really walk the talk. But a reporter in 2009 noticing White House senior adviser David Axelrod meeting with Fox News chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes privately in Manhattan for 'a cup of coffee', started some to take notice of what was going on. This was about the time that the White House was beginning the rhetoric on how Fox News wasn't playing nice in the Obama sand box.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27982.html

Reports of certain visitors using side door entrances to the White House began to surface. The presence of a military guard who would then take post at that door, told the reporters that the President was nearby or in the room. In 2009, Judicial Watch, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20, 2009 forward. The Secret Service claimed that the records belong to the Obama White House and denied Judicial Watch access to them. A federal district court has ruled twice that all visitor records belong to the Secret Service and therefore should be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
An October 8 letter from the Department of Homeland Security related to Judicial Watch's request: "It is the government's position that the categories of records that you requested are not agency records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are governed by the Presidential Records Act…". Funny, Obama's first Executive Order was was to squelch what would be released and defined as Presidential papers.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/oct/obama-administration-denies-judicial-watch-foia-request-white-house-visitor-logs

Remember , "When will someone in Washington stand up for me?" Well, don't hold your breath waiting for it and don't be naive enough to think that Obama is all that invested in 'truth, openess and transparency'.

In his report, New York Times’s Eric Lichtblau blows the lid off the whole pot of coffee being shared by the White House and lobbyists. Geographically, White House administration, with Secret service agents in tow, are not meeting with lobbyists in the White House. Technically, they don't have to be listed in White House visitors’ logs and lobbying registration records.

Lichtblau report covers a lot of area as to how and where the White House administration and lobbyists are meeting. Do I hear 'plausible deniability' floating around in Obama's lawyer mind? Or maybe as a senior White House official said, “We don’t believe there’s anything untoward about these meetings, and we don’t think that represents any special access for lobbyists.” Adding that “folks are allowed to get a cup of coffee, and we’re not going to bar patronage at any of the area’s fine coffeehouses.”

I'm waiting to find out who is Obama's Abramoff.

Read Lichtblau report
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/politics/25caribou.html?sq=caribou coffee&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Is Obama and MSM telling all about BP efforts?

If you have been following news about the oil leak in the Gulf, do you think you have been getting the real information of what occurs? I think if you want to know about a neighborhood; you ask the people who live there. So, I read the news sites from the states surrounding the Gulf.
Press-Register Mobile Real-time News http://www.al.com/news/mobile/
Baton Rouge Business Report http://www.businessreport.com/
Gambit Weekly http://bestofneworleans.com/gyrobase/
Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/
Sun-Herald http://www.sunherald.com/
The Mississippi Press http://www.gulflive.com/mississippipress/
I've added a few other reports I have read below.


I am not being an apologist for BP when I say it doesn't seem as if the main stream media is giving out the full reports of what is happening. And Obama now wants to know who ass he is going to kick.

While we are all outraged and frustrated at BP's failed attempts to cap the well, or at least significantly slow the flow; the reality of it is BP's executives didn't cut and run. BP has been quick to admit its responsibility and has been writing checks to business owners affected by the spill and hiring out of work fishermen for cleaning up and other related oil spill work. They are paying 'Loss of Income' claims to the fishermen. They are paying for the cleanup. It estimates its costs for the cleanup at almost $1 billion so far.

They also have been open to and trying different methods to cleanup the oil. An unidentified BP worker said that a number of new and unconventional methods have been looked at but that they have to receive the go-ahead from federal officials in charge. The BP worker said they were trying to get the federal officials to look at the methods, and then get approval to at least do a testing area.

If they determined the method was successful in the test area, then they would implement it on a larger scale. Since some of the methods would require immediate stepup in production to aquire enough material or product for a large area, it was necessary for the federal officials to quickly review the methods and approve them. However, the worker said just getting the federal officials to look at the methods was proving to be a task in itself. It seems the federal officials are stuck on the 'experimental' aspects of the methods.

Go ahead - say it, because I did.
Duh!
We have never had a leak at the depth of a mile down, it's never happened before. Of course everything that is being done is experimental.

BP has an ugly track record, a history of worker deaths, previous fines and other safety violations. Plus, it's spokespeople have terminal foot in mouth disease. And after all is said and done; they will probably be the most government monitored oil company in the World. But why is the MSM not reporting the truth of what is happening? And why is Obama trying to come off like Jesse Ventura?
He keeps repeating that BP will be held responsible for the spill and its aftermath. It looks as if BP is taking, and has taken, responsibility to get the job done. I keep hearing Emanuel's adage, 'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste'. It would be an extremely sad human being who would use this oil spill to put a feather in their cap.

Well near Deepwater Horizon has leaked since at least April 30
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/another_gulf_oil_spill_well_ne.html
A nearby drilling rig, the Ocean Saratoga, has been leaking since at least April 30, according to a federal document

Calm no more, Obama lashes out at BP on Gulf visit
Dogged for being too calm in crisis, President Barack Obama unleashed frustration for all to see Friday, warning BP it had better do right by the people whose lives it has wrecked.
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12594279

BP to pay a second month of 'Loss of Income' claims
Updated: Jun 04, 2010 4:01 PM CDT Businesses and individuals who have lost income due to the Gulf oil leak will soon receive a second advance payment from BP. The company said in Mississippi about 1900 individuals and businesses will have received about $10 million once these latest checks are sent.
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12597464

BP gave Florida $50 million
BP last month gave Florida $25 million for advertising to get that message out to the rest of the country, as well as another $25 million for spill preparedness..
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1994640,00.html#ixzz0qEY4c71V

Ocean Springs prepping new product to fight oil
Updated: Jun 03, 2010 8:47 AM CDT Instead of boom, Ocean Springs is relying on a new line of defense to keep the oil out. Krystal Allan reports on how it works and how it will be used along Ocean Springs' shoreline.
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12586178

BP Announces First Payment on Barrier Islands Project for State of Louisiana
BP: $60 Million Payment To Louisiana Is First Installment Of Six
HOUSTON -- As part of the previously announced commitment to fund the entire $360 million cost of six berms in the Louisiana barrier islands project, BP today announced that it will make an immediate payment of $60 million to the State of Louisiana. In a letter to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and as previously announced, BP detailed its plans to make payments in stages based on the project’s completion milestones
http://www.tradesignalonline.com/Markets/Story.aspx?id=637063&cat=18

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/category.asp?C=186625

Deepwater Horizon Response
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

Monday, May 17, 2010

Support H.R.5137 - Girls Protection Act of 2010'

Democrat Joseph Crowley of New York and Republican Mary Bono of California, on April 26, 2010, introduced legislation, Girls Protection Act of 2010, H.R. 5137, on 4/26/2010 that would make it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the United States out of the country for the purpose of female genital mutilation.

The Girls Protection Act of 2010 amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine or five-year prison term, or both, on any U.S. citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who knowingly transports in foreign commerce a girl under the age of 18 for the purposes of female genital mutilation.

The bill reads:


H.R. 5137
Girls Protection Act of 2010

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female genital mutilation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Girls Protection Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.

Section 116 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Whoever, being a United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, knowingly transports a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of conduct with regard to that person that would be a violation of subsection (a) if the conduct occurred within the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.


END

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5137ih.txt.pdf


PLEASE EMAIL, or CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO IMMEDIATELY VOTE TO PASS H.R.5137 - Girls Protection Act of 2010'

Sunday, May 16, 2010

American Association of Pediatricians amend opposition to Female Genital Mutilation

I was listening to the House Judiciary Committee question Attorney General Holder this past week. One of the Representatives questioning him brought up the one common thing shared by the Christmas bomber in Detroit, the Fort Hood mass murderer, and the Times Square bomber. The Rep said in all three terrorist attempts in the last year, one of which was successful, the individuals had ties to radical Islam. Did Holder think that was a factor?

AG Holder stumbled around for an answer as the Representative asked him another 4 or 5 times if that connection with Islam might have been the reason, or one of the reasons, these terrorist did what they did.

All Holder could form as an answer was to say he thought those people who espouse a ... a version of Islam... you say radical Islam... .

The representative finally ended with "You uncomfortable attributing any actions to Islam? Because it sounds like it.”

After 9/11 we, the American people of the U.S, began getting crash courses on Islam and its followers. We had a basic idea of the religion, and as we are generally tolerant of most religions in this country, we bought into thinking we could tolerate Islam. Big mistake. We were lead around by our noses to think that only the radical form of Islam would allow such horrific actions.

In 9 short years we have seen what we thought was just another religion in the World be shown to manifesting itself as something quite different. When are we going to see that the horrific acts commited in country after country that follow Islam are santioned by the teachings and practice of Islam? While the President is working to improve and promote relations with Muslim countries, the Muslim nations want that a global silence on denouncing Islam become law. If the theocracy of countries espousing Islam as their politcal, religious and mundane life hasn't shown us the true reachings of Islam; then how dumb are we?

We really, really need to wake up quick. Their reach has become so wide that the American Association of Pediatricians is suggesting a change in U.S. law to allow Female Genital Mutilation. There is no healthy or medical reason for it. Quite the reverse; it can cause death. Have we become so tolerant that we would lawfully allow girls to be severely mutilated to appease a religion?

The practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), or Clitoridectomies openly continues today in Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, and communities in Asia. Immigrants from these countries have brought the practice with them to Europe and North America. While some romanticize it as a 'rite of passage'; it is mutilation, no matter how you try to spin it. However, it is now being recommended that we extend culturally sensitivity and call it female genital cutting (FGC), This culturally sensitivity recommendation comes from the American Association of Pediatricians. On April 26, the AAP even suggested that laws be changed to allow pediatricians to mutilate girls. They’re not yet advocating full-scale clitoridectomies: just a milder form of child abuse or a less-severe ritual cutting they term as 'nicking'.

http://withfairnessandwithjusticeforall.aimoo.com/url.cfm?link=pttjAt7z/hk/MLf9CVKU6pKhuS$9xqffreiSU5bqegwavdJn9rH0xrf9y3w2FH054x6Z4t71PRLvCLlqq6qpqiMCK9brI6Xu

Full text with graphics download (mature material graphics)- http://withfairnessandwithjusticeforall.aimoo.com/url.cfm?link=pttjAt7z/hk/MLf9CVKU6pKhuS$9xqffreiSU5bqegwVIgJTx9LbCC4lZjU3MJzpga7RHHUlW50iGS9kh7hpkQ==

http://withfairnessandwithjusticeforall.aimoo.com/url.cfm?link=fzc$ssuuf/8ndJ3iOaEo20e61oV0gx4DIrZRKbCUC0Nl2m7X0fc5ehG1Kh6nR9EV0uXliVe616I=

From the AAP:
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM - let's call it what it really is) is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution in several countries, including Sweden, Norway, Australia, and the United Kingdom. In the United States, federal legislation in 1996 criminalized the performance of FGC by practitioners on female infants and children or adolescents younger than 18 years and mandated development of educational programs at the community level and for physicians about the harmful consequences of the practice. Various state laws exist as well.

Some physicians, including pediatricians who work closely with immigrant populations in which FGC is the norm, have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts.32 These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. A legitimate concern is that parents who are denied the cooperation of a physician will send their girls back to their home country for a much more severe and dangerous procedure or use the services of a non–medically trained person in North America. In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual “nicks” for more severe forms.2 In contrast, there is also evidence that medicalizing FGC can prolong the custom among middle-class families (eg, in Egypt)

The option of offering a “ritual nick” is currently precluded by US federal law, which makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals of a female minor.

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and lifethreatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

Efforts should be made to use all available educational and counseling resources to dissuade parents from seeking a ritual genital procedure for their daughter. For circumstances in which an infant, child, or adolescent seems to be at risk of FGC, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that its members educate and counsel the family about the detrimental health effects of FGC. Parents should be reminded that performing FGC is illegal and constitutes child abuse in the United States.

It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

What happened to the Bunning Amendment

I watched as Senator Bunning spoke on the Senate floor on Tuesday. He repeatedly presented a way to pay for the Temporary Extension Act. He also had in the amendment a longer extension time. As it is, the Senate will be back in the same place in about a month - having to authorize, and borrow more money for the same extensions again.

Bunning's amendment was not voted on. It was shoved under the rug when Mrs. Boxer said, "I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act."

It was Bunning's motion to to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act that was voted on. Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 3355
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S955&position=all
rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 43 - 53.; that put Bunning's amendment out of order and off the floor.



Temporary Extension Act: By 78 yeas to 19 nays (Vote No. 32), Senate agreed to H.R. 4691, to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, after taking action on the following amendment proposed thereto, clearing the measure for the President:

H.R. 4691
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+4691:

Pages S926-34
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgiposition=all&page=S926&dbname=2010_record

During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action:
By 43 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 31), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to waive pursuant to section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, with respect to Bunning Amendment No. 3355, in the nature of a substitute. Subsequently, the point of order that the amendment was in violation of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was sustained, and the amendment was ruled out of order.

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 53

Pages S933
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgiposition=all&page=S933&dbname=2010_record

The record states:

SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today’s session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 55 seconds remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say, on behalf of many of us on this side of the aisle, how glad we are that Senator BUNNING has changed his mind and taken the option he was presented with on Thursday; that is, to offer an amendment and then for us to get this done. Too much pain is out there with the unemployed.
A lot of workers in my State and in States all across this Nation who are unemployed suffered a great deal of anxiety over this long weekend.
Mr. President, 2,000 Department of Transportation inspectors were furloughed. That led to stoppage of work on bridge and highway construction in 17 States, because Senator BUNNING didn’t take the deal he is taking now.
I am glad he is taking it.
I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am sorry. I wasn’t on the floor. Could the Senator make her point of order.

Mrs. BOXER. I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.


The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG) are necessarily absent.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mrs. HUTCHISON) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?


The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

YEAS—43
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker


NAYS—53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—4
Byrd
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lautenberg

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The "Bloom Box"

No..it's not a gardening fixture.

It's a new power source technology that will blow you away. An inexpensive,clean and with no emissions power source. The Sunnyvale, Calif. based company has heavyweight customers such as eBay, Wal-Mart Stores, FedEx and others in California which already have been testing and using it to power their company headquarters. And the companies are reporting major savings over what they were paying the standard utility power companies. It was made by Shachar Bar-on. It's a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVZAT3U_Jls&feature=player_embedded#

Now, what are the problems with it?

Well, one thing is the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies we, as U.S. taxpayers, have given, and set to give, to energy companies for Research and Development. What are G.E., BP and Siemens suppose to do without the U.S. taxpayers funding R&D money to them?

Naysayers state there's nothing that they can see that is that unique about it. The Bloom Energy fuel cell is designed to be stacked into small blocks. It's estimated that 4 or 5 blocks will power a U.S. home. Larger units, such as those with 100kW units, are housed in a unit about the size of a large side-by-side refrigerator. The "Bloom boxes" already in use by companies are costing between $700,000 and $800,000 each. Bloom Energy's CEO K.R Sridhar says it can be made inexpensive enough for everyone to afford.The $3,000 home version is estimated to be ten years away. If adopted by local power companies, this product could result in a huge decrease in homeowners energy bills

Inexpensive, clean and developed technology.
Already produced, being tested and in use.
No huge amounts of taxpayer money appropriated to R&D.
New factories or refitting current factories would be a boon for the jobs market.
Could it be fitted to an auto to totally run it on natural gas?
Oh my Goddess! What will Gore do with no carbon footprints?
What will the politicians do with no energy lobbyists for oil funding them?

Remember Bloom Energy and the "Bloom Box"; lest it be covered over and hidden by the Powers-That-Be.