By prohibiting further mining in the Grand Canyon, the U.S. government is effectively protecting more than 1,300 acres from surface disturbance and preventing the diversion and potential pollution of over 300 million gallons of precious fresh water from the region’s aquifers.Dear EarthTalk: I understand that mining was just banned in the Grand Canyon and environs. Why is that an important victory for the environment?— Michael McAllister, Reno, NVYes, in January 2012 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the federal government was prohibiting new mining claims for the next two decades across more than a million acres of public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.In the face of increased uranium mining in the area, environmental advocates have been pushing for the prohibition to stave off the industrialization of the iconic wild lands flanking the park, fearing that new roads, mines, exploratory drilling, power lines and truck traffic would compromise the natural experience most visitors seek, let alone directly pollute and alter the region’s fragile ecology. Pre-existing claims can continue to operate in the parcels in question, but they will have only about a tenth of the surface impacts and a third of the water usage of what mining in the area would cause without the ban on new claims.“The Grand Canyon’s watershed is a complex groundwater flow system that extends miles north and south of the National Park’s boundary,” reports the non-profit Wilderness Society. “If contaminated by uranium mining, those aquifers would be impossible to clean up—a point acknowledged by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.” The group adds that the aquifers in question feed the Grand Canyon’s springs and creeks, which provide habitat for up to 500 times more species than adjacent uplands, including threatened, endangered and even endemic species found only in the national park.“By industrializing the Grand Canyon region and risking permanent pollution of its soil and water resources, uranium mining would also threaten the Southwest’s robust tourism economy—for which Grand Canyon National Park is the primary economic engine,” says the Wilderness Society, adding that the outdoor recreation business in Arizona each year supports 82,000 jobs, generates some $350 million in state tax revenue, and stimulates about $5 billion in retail sales and services.As far as environmentalists are concerned, the Interior Department’s decision couldn’t have come any sooner, with mining companies chomping at the bit to open up over 700 new uranium mining sites and exploration projects on the disputed lands. By halting this development, the U.S. government is effectively protecting more than 1,300 acres from surface disturbance and preventing the diversion and potential pollution of over 300 million gallons of precious fresh water from the region’s aquifers.“The Interior Department’s decision on this ban reinforces the role the agency should play in managing our public lands by evaluating the various uses in the region and safeguarding fragile lands from permanent damage,” concludes the Wilderness Society.Of course, the mining and uranium industries in the U.S. are not lying down so easily. In February the National Mining Association, a trade group representing the interests of the U.S. mining industry, filed suit in federal court to try to overturn the prohibition. While the challenge works its way through the legal system, environmentalists can breathe easy as the ban remains in effect. But only time will tell how long they can keep resource extractors at bay in and around our national parks, especially in light of the lucrative revenues that can be made from uranium mining, logging and other destructive practices.CONTACTS: Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org; National Mining Association, www.nma.org.EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E – The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected] Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
Get fit for adventure this spring with Chaco!Enter below to win a pair of Chaco sandals, either the Men’s Mighty Sandal or the Women’s Fantasia Sandal.This giveaway is now closed, but sign up for more free giveaways here.Rules and Regulations: Package must be redeemed within 1 year of winning date. Entries must be received by mail or through the www.blueridgeoutdoors.com contest sign-up page by 12:00 noon EST on May 15th, 2013. One entry per person. One winner per household. Sweepstakes open only to legal residents of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia, who are 18 years of age or older. Void wherever prohibited by law. Families and employees of Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine and participating sponsors are not eligible. No liability is assumed for lost, late, incomplete, inaccurate, non-delivered or misdirected mail, or misdirected e-mail, garbled, mistranscribed, faulty or incomplete telephone transmissions, for technical hardware or software failures of any kind, lost or unavailable network connection, or failed, incomplete or delayed computer transmission or any human error which may occur in the receipt of processing of the entries in this Sweepstakes. By entering the sweepstakes, entrants agree that Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine and Chaco USA reserve the right to contact entrants multiple times with special information and offers. Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine reserves the right, at their sole discretion, to disqualify any individual who tampers with the entry process and to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend the Sweepstakes. Winners agree that Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine and participating sponsors, their subsidiaries, affiliates, agents and promotion agencies shall not be liable for injuries or losses of any kind resulting from acceptance of or use of prizes. No substitutions or redemption of cash, or transfer of prize permitted. Any taxes associated with winning any of the prizes detailed below will be paid by the winner. Winners agree to allow sponsors to use their name and pictures for purposes of promotion. Sponsors reserve the right to substitute a prize of equal or greater value. All Federal, State and local laws and regulations apply. Selection of winner will be chosen at random at the Blue Ridge Outdoors office on or before May 30th, 6:00 PM EST 2013. Winners will be contacted by the information they provided in the contest sign-up field and have 7 days to claim their prize before another winner will be picked. Odds of winning will be determined by the total number of eligible entries received.
October 1, 2002 Letters Lawyers Who Rock As a litigator/rock musician myself, I read with great interest the “Lawyers Who Rock” article in the September 15 News. For the past 12 years, the all-attorney band “The Learned Hands” has rocked Central Florida. As recently as August, the quintet of Steve Ball (Holland & Knight, LLP/guitar), Dave Cannella (Carlton Fields, P.A./guitar), Dave Jones (Holland & Knight, LLP/vocals), Richard Wright (The Wright Firm, P.A./bass) and Richard Whitaker (Motes & Carr, P.A./drums) played before 500 people at the Seventh Annual 1970s Party Fundraiser to Benefit the Buoniconti Fund to Cure Paralysis. The fall promises to be a busy time for us as well.In the last 12 years, we have played at numerous events that have raised tens of thousands of dollars for causes such as spinal cord injury research, cancer research/treatment, and for the Orange County Bar Foundation. In addition to these events, we also play out regularly at clubs in Winter Park and Orlando. I wholeheartedly agree with the lawyer/musicians profiled in the article. Music is a great release from the daily grind of the practice and our clients love seeing us play in our musical roles (it’s more fun than seeing us in a deposition!). Plus, the music has given us another vehicle to give back to the Central Florida community. Fortunately, our real partners (respective wives and significant others) understand and don’t object to our once-a-week practices.I enjoyed the article. Long live lawyers who rock!Dave Cannella Orlando Dignity in Law Forgive me for lumping all of my brethren into this criticism, for I know there still remain many upstanding lawyers in the community. In fact, I commend newly installed President Tod Aronovitz for his efforts at restoring and upholding dignity. However, far too many of my opposing counsel fulfill the stereotype that has served as the butt of countless jokes and fueled the public’s maligning of the profession. Thus, it seemed quite appropriate, although ironically, that the cover of this year’s new Bar Journal Directory portrays the words “Dignity in Law” scratched in the sand amid the rolling tide. the end of the day, all dignity is washed away.Christopher L. Esco MiamiAt the risk of being politically incorrect, I would like to know why the Bar has to seek money from its members to launch a campaign to make the public love us? We already are asked to keep a record of how many hours of services we give away so that the public will know that we are caring individuals. Similarly, we feel obliged at the local level to teach lay persons how to obtain their own divorces so they will not need our services. Now the Bar News tells us that a Bar committee is preparing a manual to teach lay persons how to handle their own appeals, and we are told that this will not result in a reduction of work for attorneys. Bologna!I would suggest that those persons interested in doing their own legal work will never love us and will always feel we are earning way too much, and those who are willing to hire us and pay us to do a good job for them will be forever grateful for our presence. Let’s stop giving away our services. Let’s stop campaigning to have people love us, and instead let’s get out the word that we spent years being educated, that we are continually upgrading our education, that we are the experts, and that we do a good job. The people who want our good work for nothing will never appreciate us anyway!Paul E. Blade Deerfield Beach Words to Live By Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. Assume arguendo that “Church/State” properly proscribes hanging the Ten Commandments in our schools. Is there then nothing we can do in the realm of morality in that setting?I proposed hanging the six commandments. You may recognize them:1. Have respect for your elders.2. Don’t maim, murder, or torture.3. Don’t sleep around.4. Don’t take someone else’s stuff.5. Don’t lie to get someone else in trouble.6. Don’t be overcome with greed.Note the following: (a) The word “God” is nowhere mentioned, (b) No one could seriously charge plagiarism so God does not even have to be “acknowledged” as the source. (c) Anyone could come up with these or similar maxims, regardless of religious heritage. In short, these rules cannot reasonably be objected to as religious interference in public life.Will this plan be palliative to the ACLU? I hope so, because all kids I know need some type of guidance, as all of us parents can verify. If the ACLU won’t allow assistance from God, how about some from just good old morality? Can the fact that God said it first disqualify it?Thomas F. Harkins, Jr. Ft. Worth, Texas Justice for All Regardless of what one state attorney asserts is the impeccable adherence to the law by state attorneys in seeking acquiescence of criminal defendants to plea bargains, the fact remains that the advantages are so overwhelming on the side of the state, that a majority of the people on death row in Illinois were proved to be innocent when the crimes were thoroughly investigated by college students.To help even the scales of justice, it would seem to be only fair that when a defendant rejects a plea bargain, and goes to trial for the crime alleged, the defendant should be allowed to introduce the plea that was offered, and the rejection of it when the defendant chooses to go to trial rather than to accept the plea offered by the state.Recently I have learned of a case where a woman was charged with first-degree murder, and, after rejecting one offered plea after another, for two years, while she was kept in jail without the right to be bonded out, she was told that if she did not accept a plea where she pleaded no contest to a charge of attempted armed robbery, she would be tried for first-degree murder and was told that the state attorney was so persuasive that the chances were very good that she would be convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, so she accepted the totally inappropriate plea of guilty of attempted armed robbery and was sentenced to five to 15 years in prison.Case cleared for the sheriff and the state attorney, but total injustice for the accused.Is that what “with liberty and justice for all” in the pledge of allegiance means? Should that accused not have been permitted to let the jury know what the state attorney was willing to plea bargain for and the defendant rejected?David B. Higginbottom Frostproof October 1, 2002 Regular News
The parallels between Donald Trump’s despicable claims of election fraud and the Dolchstoßlegende are real, but there is one important difference: Whenever one talks about 20th century German history and the rise of the Nazis, of course anti-Semitism must be front and center. I want to make clear Trump’s war on the truth of his defeat—unlike the German phenomenon under discussion here—has not included anti-Semitic language or targeted Jews as a group in any direct way. Nevertheless, it is clear that Trump is blowing racist dogwhistles when he talks about illegal voting and other “bad things” relating to election integrity that “happen in Philadelphia.” We know that when he brings up Philadelphia, he means “Black people.”Now let’s explore the parallels. The most basic one—as well as the most dangerous—is that both phenomena represent a denial of reality aimed at destabilizing a democracy. Rather than rehash the manifold examples of Trump’s despicable post-election deeds—widely derided as echoing those of strongmen for whom he has—for years—expressed a downright creepy level of admiration—I’ll instead cite the damning assessment of their long-term impact leveled by Michael J. Abramowitz, the president of Freedom House—“an organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world.” Abramowitz states: “by convincing a large part of the population that there was widespread fraud, [Trump] is seeding a myth that could endure for years and contribute to an erosion of public confidence in our electoral system.”- Advertisement – Even after the votes had been cast, that belief was still out there. According to an Axios poll done over the two days following Election Day, 37% of people who voted for Trump thought he had defeated Biden. Politico found that 70% of Republican respondents polled after the race was called for Biden didn’t think the election was “free and fair.” Another YouGov poll found that 86% of Trump voters rejected the notion that Biden had won the election fairly. As Charles Blow pointed out, that represents over 62 million voters.- Advertisement – Just as Trump refuses to accept his defeat in the recent election, in the years after World War I, many on the right refused to accept their country’s defeat on the battlefield. In the case of Germany, that refusal helped to fatally weaken the democracy that emerged after 1918. Fourteen years after World War I ended, Adolf Hitler became Germany’s Fuhrer. But where did the “stab in the back” myth come from in the first place?By the fall of 1918, thanks in large part to the arrival of hundreds of thousands of fresh, well-equipped American troops, the military position of the German empire and its allies began to collapse. After the German army’s Hindenburg Line along the Western Front was broken in late September and early October, Berlin requested negotiations for an armistice, which was signed and famously went into effect at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. (Absurdly, 3,000 soldiers were killed in the six hours after the agreement to end hostilities was signed but before it took effect, including Henry Gunther, the last American.) The war came to an end, and Germany lost. Sounds fairly straightforward. But there was one problem: Some Germans didn’t want to believe it.One of the most important reasons for this disbelief is that the defeat directly contradicted the information most Germans had been fed throughout the war about their prospects for victory. Alan Kramer, professor of history at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, explains why the news of defeat engendered such a broad rejection of what really happened.Knowledge of the perilous condition of the front had been kept secret from the German people. Strict censorship and the army’s daily false news bulletins meant that news of the armistice came as a shock.This too was important to bear in mind. With minor exceptions in 1914, the war had not been fought on German territory. Unlike the devastation visited on its enemies, the German population was spared direct violence and destruction, and had the benefit of the exploitation of the resources of occupied northern France, Belgium, Poland, Serbia, Romania, northern Italy and the Ukraine, though most of that was enjoyed by the army. The German people had no “ocular proof” of defeat.This cognitive dissonance produced the “repressed defeat”: the denial of the fact of the military debacle.- Advertisement – Here we see another striking parallel between the Dolchstoßlegende and Trump’s current campaign of lies: deceptive propaganda. Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, the current occupant of the White House and his sycophants in the right-wing media kept saying Trump was winning, that the real polls were showing him in the lead, and that other polls were “fake news.” He incredulously—to anyone seeing things objectively at least—claimed that polls showing Joe Biden in the lead were the real voter “suppression”—as opposed to the actions his Republican Party were taking before the election all over America to actually suppress votes.On the eve of the election, a YouGov poll found that half of all Republican voters believed Trump would “definitely win,” and another quarter of them believed he would “probably win.” Right-wing media are still—over a week after Election Day—declaring that Trump is in the lead. For example, on Monday, the Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft hyperventilated the following: “Overall right now President Trump is leading in the Presidential race. The fact that the media will not report this and will call the race for senile Joe Biden tells you all you need to know about today’s really evil media. Have faith, trust your eyes not their lies.” Hoft added: “This race is not close to being over and the media’s coordinated effort to steal this election and their collusion in calling the election for Joe Biden is a lie.” Then there’s the Orange Julius Caesar himself:xI am pleased to announce that I have given my full support and endorsement to Ronna McDaniel to continue heading the Republican National Committee (RNC). With 72 MILLION votes, we received more votes than any sitting President in U.S. history – and we will win!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2020If the only information providers these people trust promise that Trump is going to win, and then insist that he really did win, then why would they believe any different? Large swaths of Trump supporters exist within what amounts to a self-reinforcing media echo chamber. The same goes for the German people and what they were told about who was winning World War I prior to its conclusion.Not long after the war, an “alternative fact” emerged out of hard-line right-wing circles. The army was actually never defeated—and in fact when combat ended, no foreign troops stood on German soil. Of course, this was because the German high command had recognized that continued resistance to the Allied offensive would be unsuccessful, so better to ask for peace right away without any more bloodshed. Nevertheless, those looking to peddle a lie took advantage, claiming that the valiant forces who had fought so well for so long had been sold out by those who wanted to turn Germany into a democracy.In the very last days before the war ended, a revolution broke out in Germany. It started in late October, when sailors refused to carry out orders from the Imperial Navy’s High Command to prepare for a final, clearly futile attack on the British Navy. This mutiny quickly spread outside the bounds of the armed forces, and by Nov. 9—two days before the war officially ended—the German empire became the German Republic. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated his throne and the leader of the Social Democratic Party, the largest party in the parliament, became the head of the government. It was this civilian government, headed by representatives of left-leaning, socialist, and/or democratic parties, that ultimately signed the armistice and, later on, the treaties of surrender as well as the Versailles Treaty, so hated by Germans for its supposedly harsh terms—which were not that harsh in reality. Even though it was military personnel who started the revolution, those leftist politicians who took power two days before the war ended—and who founded the democracy known as Weimar Germany—somehow became the ones to blame for losing the war. Never mind that Germany had been led for the first 1,568 days of the war by a monarchy that had, by the end, become almost a military dictatorship. Those unelected leaders managed to escape blame.That military dictatorship was effectively run by General Erich Ludendorff. If any one individual should bear responsibility for Germany losing World War I, it’s him. Ironically, he is perhaps most responsible for spreading the key phrase at the heart of the Dolchstoßlegende. A few months after the war ended, while eating with a British general, Ludendorff was going off on one of his well-practiced rants about how the army had been undercut by a political revolution on the “home front.” His counterpart cut in, asking, “Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back?” As one historian put it: “Ludendorff’s eyes lit up and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone. ‘Stabbed in the back?’ he repeated. ‘Yes, that’s it, exactly, we were stabbed in the back.’ And thus was born a legend.” This bald-faced calumny essentially became the official right-wing history of the war, particularly among reactionary conservatives like Ludendorff, who never accepted the legitimacy of Weimar democracy and sought to use the “stab in the back” myth to justify its overthrow. The former Kaiser published his memoirs just a few years later, and wrote of how the army had been “forced to collapse by the stab-in-the-back.” Nazi propaganda used the phrase repeatedly in official statements and publications, and argued that Weimar German democracy only came into being because of the supposed betrayal committed in November 1918. Lies became the truth, and tens of millions died.Now think about Donald Trump. No matter what actually happens in the remaining weeks of his term, or how nonexistent the evidence is to support his claims of election theft, think about how many millions of Americans are going to believe that the Biden presidency is illegitimate—a belief that could well lead to violence, as Daily Kos’ own Hunter pointed out. Some of them may feel that way just as strongly as did the millions of Germans who rejected the post-1918 democratic system. No responsible leader would act as Ludendorff did, or as Trump is doing. That’s no surprise when it comes to the latter, given his refusal to take responsibility for, well, anything.Think about how Trump, some members of his family, and anyone else looking to remain in his favor will fuel those feelings even after he leaves office. Think about how right-wing media will monetize those feelings, pouring gasoline on the fire. Breitbart, OAN, Fox News opinion hosts, Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh, and other media figures will keep on repeating Trump’s lies about Democrats and socialists stealing what was rightfully his. Think about what that could do to our country. You might be asking how things could have turned out differently in post-WWI Germany and, by extension, how we can combat the destabilizing impact on our democracy of what Trump is doing. In Germany, the “stab in the back” myth on its own might not have been enough to topple the Weimar democratic system. But once the Great Depression was ravaging the country, the questions the myth had already raised about that system’s legitimacy had prepared the ground for the Nazi overthrow of Weimar Germany. In our country, I hope that the truth, combined with the far stronger roots of our constitutional democracy and our tradition of press freedoms, will be enough to counteract any potential impact of Trumpian lies. What it comes down to is this: Once we get through the next few weeks, will one of the two major political parties continue to prioritize riling up its base over the good of the country? Will Republicans continue to shred democratic norms in a single-minded pursuit of power—something they’ve been doing so much under Trump that they now look much more like the parties led by autocratic leaders in Turkey and Hungary than they do parties in functioning democracies? If the answer is yes, then America is in for a difficult future. I would nonetheless remain cautiously optimistic regarding the survival of our democracy in such a scenario, although if another Great Depression befell us as well, then all bets would truly be off.Since Election Day, President-Elect Joe Biden has handled this situation beautifully. He has been measured in his reaction to Trump’s words and actions, but rightly called them an “embarrassment.” They are more than that: They present a clear and present threat to our democracy. The day before the election, Paul Krugman warned that large numbers might well buy into “an American version” of the Dolchstoßlegende. Krugman didn’t know for sure exactly how things would play out, whether Trump would truly go all-in on the lies if he lost. But for anyone who has watched the impeached president with open eyes, was there really ever any doubt?Ian Reifowitz is the author of The Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh’s Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump (Foreword by Markos Moulitsas) – Advertisement –
Amid rising populism and identity politics around the globe, the formation of a regional identity must strike the right balance between integration and regulations, European and ASEAN experts and officials have recently noted.In a webinar hosted by the German embassies in Jakarta and Singapore last week, policymakers from ASEAN and the European Union compared notes on how the two groups established a regional identity among their people, despite the differences the two have.As an intergovernmental organization, ASEAN consists of 10 member states with a total population of more than 647 million people. The EU is a political and economic union of 27 member states with a total population of about 447 million people.The two regional groups have vastly different levels of integration in many policy fields due to the nature of their organizations, with the EU being much more econom… Forgot Password ? Log in with your social account Topics : Facebook Linkedin LOG INDon’t have an account? Register here #ASEAN ASEAN EU #EU ASEAN-EU #ASEAN-EU populism identity-politics integration #integration Google
BRUSH, Colo. – Drivers winning Xtreme Motor Sports IMCA Modified regional and special series championships are among recipients of contingency awards from Ricochet Race Components again this season.The Brush, Colo., company, in its third year as an IMCA marketing partner, gives sets of three shock guard covers to the top drivers in standings for each of the five Modified regions and in 10 special series for the open wheeled division.Shock guard cover sets also go to feature winners at each event in the Hawkeye Dirt Tour and the Kupper Chevrolet Dakota Classic Tour; to the winner of 10 other Modified specials; and to the Karl Chevrolet Northern SportMod national champion.Ricochet is owned by Modified veteran John Hansen and information about the company’s shock guard covers is available on Facebook.“We know how valuable shocks are to a racer’s weekly program,” Hansen said. “ Our goal at Ricochet is to help teams protect their investments.”“The Ricochet covers are a great way to protect your shocks from the wear and tear of a night at the dirt track, and the volume of them we’re able to give away through this program is a testament to the confidence John and Ricochet have in the IMCA market,” added Kevin Yoder, director of marketing for the sanctioning body.
Advertisement zyNBA Finals | Brooklyn Vs3zcbWingsuit rodeo📽Sindre E73idv( IG: @_aubreyfisher @imraino ) c7rWould you ever consider trying this?😱1fiCan your students do this? 🌚j2dt1Roller skating! Powered by Firework A day before the 2nd T20I game between India and Bangladesh, Rohit Sharma claimed that T20 cricket is the perfect platform to try out young emerging players before moving them to ODIs and Tests. On Thursday, the Indian skipper was asked about the lack of success for India in T20Is. The Men in Blues won their last home series in 2018 and since then, have been beaten by Australia and drew a series 1-1 with South Africa. In the latest three-match series against Bangladesh, they again trail the series by 0-1.Advertisement Image Courtesy: Inkhabar“This is the format where we are trying a lot of players. The key players are not involved (in this series) so we are trying the younger players who are sitting on the fringe. That is one of the reasons, because in other formats we have our entire squad playing,” Rohit answered.He then went on to assert the importance of several new faces in T20Is, “This is the format where you can try (new players), and there is no harm in doing that. We have seen a lot of players who have emerged from this format, who have gone on to play ODI and Test formats.”Advertisement There is a serious warning for cyclone ‘Maha’ in Rajkot, but Rohit said that his focus is to win games.“We have to win, that is the first priority. But these guys will learn from it. That is how all of us want. This is the format to try for all these guys who are emerging,” he concluded.Advertisement Advertisement