Arsenic: A Deadly Ingredient in a Chicken Dinner

A Deadly Ingredient in a Chicken Dinner

By Douglas Gansler
June 28, 2009

Published by The Washington Post.

Most people don't know that the chicken they eat is laced with arsenic. The ice water or coffee they enjoy with their chicken may also be infused with arsenic. If they live on or near a farm, the air they breathe may be infected with arsenic dust as well.

Why do our chicken, our water and our air contain arsenic? Because in the United States, most major poultry producers add an arsenic compound known as roxarsone to their chicken feed. Inorganic arsenic is a Class A carcinogen that has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and declines in brain function. Recent scientific findings show that most Americans are routinely exposed to between three and 11 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended safety limit.

The poultry industry has been using the feed additive roxarsone--purportedly to fight parasites and increase growth in chickens--since the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 1944. Turns out that the arsenic additive promotes the growth of blood vessels in chicken, which makes the meat appear pinker and more attractive in its plastic wrap at the grocery store, but does little else. The arsenic additive does the same in human cells, fueling a growth process known as angiogenesis, a critical first step in many human diseases such as cancer.

The arsenic additive also presents health risks to farmers who work with the chemical or fertilizers. Chicken growers have reported illness from contact with roxarsone while preparing feed. Because most smaller growers rely on contracts with larger chicken producers that mandate the use of arsenic in chicken feed, the smaller growers are often unable to avoid the health risks associated with roxarsone.

In 1999, recognizing that any level of inorganic arsenic in human food and water is unacceptable, the European Union outlawed its use in chicken feed. Reportedly, several American chicken producers, including Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms, have acted responsibly by discontinuing the use of roxarsone in their animals. Other growers have turned to "organically fed" chicken operations. Nevertheless, as recently as 2006, 70 percent of the more than 9 billion broiler chickens produced annually in the United States were fed roxarsone.

Chicken consumption in the United States has increased dramatically in the past 40 years. In addition to the arsenic Americans consume at the dinner table, American broiler chickens generate billions of pounds of animal waste each year--more than 1.2 billion pounds annually in Maryland alone--causing significant runoff of arsenic into soils and surrounding waterways. The dangerous levels of arsenic in chicken manure ultimately contaminate crops, lakes, rivers and fertilized lawns, and it may even reach drinking water. Meanwhile, the poultry industry labors under the legal fiction that although it owns the chicken feed and the chickens that eat the feed, it has no responsibility for the chicken manure.

The federal Food and Drug Administration should ban arsenic from chicken feed. Working through the environmental committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, Maryland has enlisted more than 30 states to join in this effort.

The poultry industry's continued use of arsenic creates unnecessary and avoidable risks to our health and environment. The FDA has delayed banning this poison from our diet for far too long. If offered a side order of arsenic with my chicken, I'd say no. Wouldn't you?

The writer is attorney general of Maryland. He serves on the executive board of the National Association of Attorneys General and is co-chair of the association's environmental committee.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Site Design by Virgo Graphics
Web Development by Turtle Island Web Design
Contact the PDA webmaster at webmaster@pdamerica.org.
Copyright © 2004-2008 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.

Published on Sunday, June 28, 2009 by The Japan Times

When in War, Why Bomb the Innocent?

Historians argue that bombing civilians is a tragic and virtually ineffective strategy

by Jeff Kingston

BOMBING CIVILIANS: A Twentieth Century History. Edited by Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn Young. New York: The New Press, 2009, 291 pp. $30 (cloth)

How one feels about what one is reading can differ depending on where and when. Reading these essays while boarding a flight from Tokyo, transiting Hanoi and then arriving in Laos - all places that have been subjected to extensive U.S. bombing - is to feel the long arm of history tug at one's conscience.

Some monks I met in Luang Prabang (Laos) recounted a recent journey to the Plain of Jars, a World Heritage sight. They said there are carefully marked paths with signs warning not to wander off because of unexploded ordnance in the area - cluster bombs dropped by the United States on a neutral country in a secret war that never happened. Estimates suggest that this insidious legacy of the bombings, which ended in the 1970s, has resulted in more than 20,000 Laotian casualties including many maimed children.

Rather than accusing, seeking vengeance or accountability, the monks calmly praised the very limited mine clearing efforts of U.S. veterans. They said they don't feel anger; it was all a long time ago and would be of little importance if not for the continuing dangers.

This unsought absolution stirs a sense of incredulity about why the U.S. government has done so little to help a desperately poor country that it dragged into the maelstrom of the Vietnam War. This malign neglect also extends to Vietnam, where people continue to suffer from the dioxin residue left behind by extensive spraying of Agent Orange during the war.

Mark Selden argues that the U.S. has much to answer for in the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Japan. We learn that Japan crossed that bridge itself in 1932 with the bombing of Shanghai, and Tetsuo Maeda details Japan's bombing campaign against Congquing's civilians from 1938.

Selden and colleagues are not out to exonerate the Japanese or privilege their suffering over what they inflicted on others. He is reminding us, though, that the U.S. systematically firebombed and gutted 66 Japanese cities in 1945 under flimsy excuses that these were primarily military targets.

The intention, however, was not solely a matter of zapping Japan's factories and infrastructure. This aerial terror amounted to vengeance, payback for Pearl Harbor and mistreatment of prisoners of war, and was intended to inflict as much suffering on the civilian populace as possible.

However much this campaign of "terror bombing" disrupted life and demoralized the people, Japan's military leaders were undaunted as they persisted in gambling on a decisive battle. For this, there was a price to be paid and, as in most modern conflicts, civilians paid the highest price. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed an estimated 100,000 people. The total firebombing tally is roughly 300,000 plus 400,000 wounded (these figures exclude Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Selden reminds us that the comforting dominant narrative of the Good War (aka World War II) averts our eyes from the grim realities of these crimes against humanity and the ongoing evasion of accountability.

Selden believes the failure to hold the victors accountable for crimes is crucial to understanding why "Mass murder of civilians has been central to all subsequent U.S. wars." He concludes that "the pre-eminence of strategic bombing as quintessential to the American way of war" persists even though it has not been effective.

Marilyn Young's essay explores the fallacy that bombing of civilians is effective, a mistaken assumption that has led to horrific humanitarian consequences for little strategic gain.

Yuki Tanaka traces the early history of aerial bombing of civilians from World War I. In the aftermath, the battered British found such bombing an economical way to maintain imperial interests. The first campaign was against Afghanistan in 1919 followed by Somaliland and then far more extensively in Iraq during the 1920s and 1930s.

In Iraq, civilian casualties were high and intentional as part of a campaign to demoralize the population. The British, and subsequently the Italians in Ethiopia, were explicitly racist in justifying indiscriminate bombing of those they viewed as "uncivilized," while this is implicit among contemporary avatars. The efficacy of this strategy remained unquestioned even though the results were decidedly mixed.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa asks whether the atomic bombings were justified and were the key to Japan's surrender; he gives an unequivocal no on both counts. He argues that Truman used the atomic bomb in an effort to secure Japan's surrender before Stalin could enter the war and impose a joint occupation.

In his view, the decision to surrender was not due mainly to the atomic bombings, but rather to the Soviet entry into the war as well as concerns about preservation of the monarchy.

This rich collection of essays makes a cogent case for reassessing the effectiveness of air campaigns and how power influences accountability. How can the international community hold any country accountable if the worst perpetrators get immunity?

The Japan Times Ltd.

Jeff Kingston is Director of Asian Studies at Temple University, Japan campus.

Did Toxic Chemicals in Iraq Sicken GIs?

Published on Sunday, June 28, 2009 by The Associated Press

Did Toxic Chemical in Iraq Sicken GIs?

by Sharon Cohen

Larry Roberta's every breath is a painful reminder of his time in Iraq. He can't walk a block without gasping for air. His chest hurts, his migraines sometimes persist for days and he needs pills to help him sleep.

Sgt. David L. Moore during his National Guard service in Iraq in a photo provided by his brother Steve. The guardsman's post-war life was plagued by health problems until he died in 2008 of lung disease at age 42. (By Jared Fawks, AP)

James Gentry came home with rashes, ear troubles and a shortness of breath. Later, things got much worse: He developed lung cancer.

David Moore's postwar life turned into a harrowing medical mystery: nosebleeds and labored breathing that made it impossible to work, much less speak. His desperate search for answers ended last year when he died of lung disease at age 42.

What these three men - one sick, one dying, one dead - had in common is they were National Guard soldiers on the same stretch of wind-swept desert in Iraq during the early months of the war in 2003.

These soldiers and hundreds of other Guard members from Indiana, Oregon and West Virginia were protecting workers hired by a subsidiary of the giant contractor, KBR Inc., to rebuild an Iraqi water treatment plant. The area, as it turned out, was contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a potent, sometimes deadly chemical linked to cancer and other devastating diseases.

No one disputes that. But that's where the agreement ends.

Among the issues now rippling from the courthouse to Capitol Hill are whether the chemical made people sick, when KBR knew it was there and how the company responded. But the debate is about more than this one case; it has raised broader questions about private contractors and health risks in war zones.

Questions, says Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to hold hearings on the issues, such as these:

"How should we treat exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals as a threat to our soldiers? How seriously should that threat be taken? What is the role of private contractors? What about the potential conflict between their profit motives and taking all steps necessary to protect our soldiers?"

"This case," says the Indiana Democrat, "has brought to light the need for systemic reform."

For now, dozens of National Guard veterans have sued KBR and two subsidiaries, accusing them of minimizing and concealing the chemical's dangers, then downplaying nosebleeds and breathing problems as nothing more than sand allergies or a reaction to desert air.

KBR denies any wrongdoing. In a statement, the company said it actually found the chemical at the Qarmat Ali plant, restricted access, cleaned it up and "did not knowingly harm troops."

Ten civilians hired by a KBR subsidiary made similar claims in an arbitration resolved privately in June. (The workers' contract prevented them from suing.)

This isn't the first claim that toxins have harmed soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; there have been allegations involving lead, depleted uranium and sarin gas.

This also isn't the first challenge to KBR, whose billions of dollars of war-related contracts have been the subject of congressional scrutiny and legal claims.

Among them are lawsuits recently filed in several states against KBR and Halliburton Co. - KBR's parent company until 2007 - that assert open-air pits used to burn refuse in Iraq and Afghanistan caused illnesses and death. (KBR says it's reviewing the charges. Halliburton maintains it was improperly named and expects to be dismissed from the case.)

This case stems from the chaotic start of the war in 2003 when a KBR subsidiary was hired to restart the treatment plant, which had been looted and virtually stripped bare. The Iraqis had used hexavalent chromium to prevent pipe corrosion at the plant, which produced industrial water used in oil production.

It's the same chemical linked to poisonings in California in a case made famous in the movie "Erin Brockovich."

Hexavalent chromium - a toxic component of sodium dichromate - can cause severe liver and kidney damage and studies have linked it to leukemia as well as bone, stomach and other cancers, according to an expert who provided a deposition for the civilian workers.

The chemical "is one of the most potent carcinogens know to man," declared Max Costa, chairman of New York University's Department of Environmental Medicine.

KBR, however, says studies show only that industrial workers exposed to the chemical for more than two years have an increased risk of cancer - and in this case, soldiers were at the plant just days or months.

The company also notes air quality studies concluded the Indiana Guard soldiers were not exposed to high levels of hexavalent chromium. But Costa says those tests were done when the wind was not blowing.

Both soldiers and former workers say there were days when strong gusts kicked up ripped-open bags of the chemical, creating a yellow-orange haze that coated everything from their hair to their boots.

"I was spitting blood and I was not the only one doing that," recalls Danny Langford, who worked for the KBR subsidiary. "The wind was blowing 30, 40 miles an hour. You could just hardly see where you were going. I pulled my shirt over my nose and there would be blood on it."

Larry Roberta, a 44-year-old former Oregon National Guard member, remembers 137-degree heat and dust everywhere. He sat on a bag of the chemical, unaware it was dangerous.

"This orange crud blew up in your face, your eyes and on our food," he says. "I tried to wash my chicken patty off with my canteen. I started to get sick to my stomach right away."

Roberta had coughing spells and agonizing chest pains, he says, that "went all the way through my back. ... Every day I went there, I had something weird going on."

Russell Kimberling, a former Indiana National Guard captain, had severe sinus troubles that forced his medical evacuation to Germany. After returning, he became alarmed one August day in 2003 while escorting some officials to the plant in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

"I jumped out of the truck and I turned around and they (KBR staff) had full chemical gear on," he says. "I looked at some of my soldiers and said, 'This can't be very good.' ... They could have told us to put chemical suits on."

Ed Blacke, hired as plant health, safety and environmental coordinator, says he became worried after workers started having breathing problems and a former colleague sent him an internal KBR memo outlining the chemical's dangers. Blacke says he complained, was labeled a troublemaker and resigned under pressure.

"Normally when you take over a job, you have a briefing - this is what's out there, here's what you need for protective equipment," says Blacke, who testified at a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing last year. "There was nothing, nothing at all."

Blacke and Langford were among those whose civil claims were resolved in arbitration.

Kimberling is among nearly 50 current or former Guard members - most from Indiana, a smaller number from Oregon - who've sued. Some soldiers who served with the West Virginia Guard are expected to follow soon.

Mike Doyle, a Houston lawyer representing the soldiers and civilians, maintains KBR knew as early as May 2003 the chemical was there, but didn't close the site until that September.

"Once they (KBR) found out about it, they didn't tell anybody and they did everything to conceal it," he contends. "Their staff was getting reports and soldiers and civilians who were in the field were told ... 'There's nothing to worry about."'

The lawsuit cites minutes of an August 2003 KBR meeting that mentions "serious health problems at the water treatment plant" and notes "almost 60% of the people now exhibit the symptoms."

In a recent Associated Press interview, KBR chairman William P. Utt said the company has been unfairly targeted for its military work.

"People think there's an opportunity here in Iraq, let's paint it on KBR, then we'll worry about making the facts precise or correct later," he said.

As for the water plant, KBR says once it learned of the chemical, it took precautions to protect workers, notified the Army Corps of Engineers and led the cleanup. It says the Corps had previously deemed the area safe.

KBR also points to Army tests of Indiana Guard soldiers that showed no medical problems that could be linked to exposure, as well as a military board review that found it unlikely anyone would suffer long-term medical consequences.

But Bayh and Doyle say those tests were done too late to be valid and note that soil tests were taken after the contaminated area was covered.

Doyle also disagrees with KBR's contention that workers weren't there long enough to have elevated cancer risks.

It can take a long time for symptoms of illness to surface - five to 10 years or more for cancer. But some of those who say they were exposed are already ill.

James Gentry, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Indiana Guard, is in the late stages of lung cancer and the disease has spread to his ribs and spine, according to his friend, Christopher Lee.

Gentry hasn't sued but in a December 2008 deposition he said it was "very disappointing" KBR managers didn't share information soldiers were around cancer-causing chemical.

"I'm dying because of it," he said.

While acknowledging he wasn't 100% certain that's why he has cancer, Gentry - who served a second tour in Iraq - said his doctor "believes the most probable cause was my exposure to this chemical."

The Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon National Guards have sent hundreds of letters to soldiers notifying them of possible contamination and urging them to seek medical attention.

Bayh has introduced a bill calling for a medical registry that would require the Department of Defense to notify all military members of exposure to potential toxins and ensure their medical care. A similar measure that only mandates notification was approved Thursday in the U.S. House as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.

All these steps come too late for 1st Sgt. David Moore.

When he returned from Iraq, his persistent cough escalated into breathing problems, nosebleeds and boil-like rashes, recalls his brother, Steve.

Even when doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong, Moore didn't give up, Steve Moore says.

"He was always upbeat," he recalls. "He said, 'They'll figure it out, they'll figure it out.' He thought that until the last time I talked to him."

Moore died in February 2008. The cause was lung disease. His death was ruled service related. His brother believes it was hexavalent chromium.

Larry Roberta, the former Oregon Guardsman who needed stomach surgery after his return, says he suffers from post-traumatic stress, mood swings, nose polyps, chest pains and debilitating migraines.

"I have 100% disability," he says. "I've got a long laundry list of things that happened to me while I was there. If you add it all up, I'd be almost 200% disabled."

Kimberling, the former Indiana Guardsman, struggles as well.

The father of two young children - he's a pharmaceutical salesman in Louisville - says he hasn't been able to get life insurance because his possible exposure is mentioned on his medical records.

Sometimes, he says, it's hard to separate his ailments - sinus problems and joint pains - from his fears.

"I feel like I'm a 38-year-old in a 60-year-old's body," he says. ... "I'm not sure if it's the anxiety of finding out about it or not. I kind of know and feel it's just a matter of time before it catches up with me."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Published on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 by About.com

Operation Enduring Folly: US Kills 60 More in Pakistan Air Strike

by Pierre Tristam

"Operation Enduring Freedom is ostensibly being fought to uphold the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it completely," the Indian writer Arundhati Roy wrote in 2001, in "The Algebra of Infinite Justice." Roy took a lot of grief for that piece from American public opinion, hijacked at the time by a blind desire for violent revenge (and the silencing of dissenters) that would prove to be far worse than 9/11's mass murders. Far worse, because we're living its consequences still, though far less in the West than in the Middle East: Iraq, Iran (yes, even Iran), Afghanistan and Pakistan as Roy's words have been unfortunately and terribly vindicated many times over, with no end in sight.

Slick and deadly: Most of the victims in at least 22 unmanned "drone" missile attacks in Pakistan have been civilians. (US Air Force)

Yesterday there was this headline in The Times: "U.S. Tightens Airstrike Policy in Afghanistan," over a Dexter Filkins story quoting the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, saying that "Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly," and pledging, "Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces," in Filkins' paraphrase, that "airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas - the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover."

Then this headline, barely 24 hours later: "Suspected U.S. Strike Kills at Least 60 in Pakistan." The attack was carried out by a CIA or Pentagon drone--killing people attending a funeral in South Waziristan. Dawn, the Pakistani newsper, puts the death toll at 50 and describes most of the victims as "militants." The Times is less categorical:

Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high. If the reports are indeed accurate and if the attack was carried out by a drone, the strike could be the deadliest since the United States began using the aircraft to fire remotely guided missiles at members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The United States carried out 22 previous drone strikes this year, as the Obama administration has intensified a policy inherited from the Bush administration.

It begs the question. What's Stanley A. McChrystal doing differently? What's the Obama administration doing differently? McChrystal's words sounded strangely similar to those of Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who told a congressional committee in September 2008, "We can't kill our way to victory." Only to let the killing continue.

Sometime this summer, the United States will register its 5,000th American soldier killed as a result of wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The media, if there's still any interest in casualties of any sort Stateside, will write the mournful editorial or two, missing, as always, the larger problem: the day-in-and-day-out devastation visited on local populations by the very forces ostensibly dispatched to protect them, at a price far, far heavier than the one sustained by Americans.

That one strike today killed more people in Pakistan than the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq since March. That many, maybe most, of the victims may turn out to be "militants" won't diminish the ripples of the attack in Pakistan, precisely the kind of ripples McChrystal was claiming to want to control from here on.

It's no longer the American Way of Life American deployments are fighting to preserve. The wind went out of that shameless bit of flag-waving years ago. But it hasn't been clear for years, either, what the deployments are fighting for. Or against. Except for the one recurrent target that never fails to take a hit, even when all else fails: civilians.

About.com

McDonald's Is Poisoning Consumers

McDonald's Is Poisoning Consumers -- And Blaming Everyone Else for the Catastrophic Societal Costs

By Stacey Folsom, AlterNet. Posted June 24, 2009.

McDonald's refuses to take responsibility for the skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

For most of us it’s not that difficult to understand how McDonald’s share profits rose over 2008 when the rest of the Dow Jones (save for Wal-Mart) was taking a nose dive. After all, they offer a value at the register that’s easy on our thinning pocketbooks.

That said, the value at the register is a misnomer when you look at the true costs McDonald’s is passing on to its patrons. Each year, the direct and indirect costs of diet-related disease cost Americans well over 120 billion dollars. Value meals cost a great deal more when you subdivide that tab by the number of us eating regularly at the Golden Arches and other chains that serve food high in fat, calories, salt and sugar.

McDonald’s has yet to take its share of the blame for this alarming number, let alone the skyrocketing rates of diet-related conditions like obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It has instead pumped hundreds of millions into a high-stakes, public relations blame game.

Line 1 – “It’s not our food that’s to blame, it’s a lack of exercise.” Too bad recent studies find that are kids and adults are not much less active than they were just 30 years ago when the amount of fast food being consumed was much lower.

Line 2 – “It’s not our marketing to kids that’s to blame, it’s all the video games and internet media that distract our kids from physical activity.” Have you ever seen McWorld, McDonald’s interactive online playland where, “it’s a kid’s world where kids rule?” Well, it provides a window into the duplicity of the corporation’s marketing to say the least.

Line 3 – “We’re a leader in offering healthier menu choices.” If that means offering salads that have more calories than a Big Mac and apple slices with a caramel dipping sauce…McDonald’s nutritionists seem to have fallen asleep behind the wheel.

And there are as many lines as you’ll find in your neighborhood McDonald’s and more.

But the American public is increasingly seeing through the antics. In a recent Corporate Accountability International poll conducted by Lake Research partners 57 percent of Americans said they believe the fast food industry was, “responsible…for the increase in diet-related diseases and health conditions.” This is a three-fold increase over a similar Gallup poll conducted in 2003.

This alone should give shareholders pause, despite CEO Skinner’s effusive earnings report this May. But there’s more reason to believe all this corporation touches doesn’t turn the golden color of its French fries.

A recent Columbia University and UC Berkeley study found a sizable increase in the rates of obesity in teens who attend school within 1/10 of a mile of fast food chains like McDonald’s. Earlier studies conclude the zoning of fast food is anything but accidental or arbitrary. Fully one-third of schools nationwide have at least one fast food restaurant or convenience store within walking distance.

To further paint the picture, Corporate Accountability International has developed an online mapping tool that allows parents and policymakers to get a sense of how McDonald’s and others cluster around our children’s schools.

This brings up Line 4 – “It’s not our responsibility that kids are getting sick from eating too much of our food, that’s on parents.” Well, McDonald’s certainly isn’t doing parents any favors when it takes advantage of every space parents cannot control to make lifelong customers of young people.

It’s not just the promotion and marketing in and around schools, the siting of restaurants or cleverly disguised product promotion like the McDonald’s All-American Reading Challenge – it’s the actual sale of branded fast food in schools (which occurs in one out of every five schools).

As the largest fast food corporation, McDonald’s can do better than this. It can stop zoning restaurants next to schools and selling branded fast food in schools. It can also provide an example of industry best practices by halting all sports sponsorships and marketing that appeals to children.

These types of actions will signal to shareholders that the corporation cherishes its family-friendly ethos over the lip service of its current public relations. It will also help ensure McDonald’s “value” doesn’t come at the expense of our children’s health.

Suspected US missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan

Suspected US missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan: officials

Published: Tuesday June 23, 2009 At least 17 people were killed Tuesday when suspected US missile strikes hit a Taliban base in Pakistan's northwest, pounding militants gathering for funeral prayers, officials said. The first reported strike by an unmanned drone aircraft hit near Makeen village, 60 kilometres (37 miles) northeast of Wana, the main town in South Waziristan and a stronghold of Pakistan Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud. "A missile attack by a suspected US drone took place in rugged mountainous terrain in Neej Narai in South Waziristan," said a Pakistani security official who did not want to be named as he was not authorised to speak to the media. He said the first drone fired three missiles Tuesday morning, adding that "six militants were killed and seven others wounded in the attack." Another security official confirmed the incident and casualties, saying that the missiles destroyed a compound, a bunker and two vehicles of the Taliban in the semi-autonomous tribal belt along the Afghan border. As militants gathered for funeral rites for the dead later in the day, another unmanned drone aircraft dropped three more missiles, officials said. "Our agents in the area informed us that eleven militants were confirmed dead. We have reports of dozens wounded," another security official based in the northwest told AFP. He said that hundreds of militants were assembled to attend the funeral prayers of one of their commanders killed in the initial strike. "The reports we are receiving from the area said that the death toll may rise as hundreds of militants were attending the funeral prayers," he added. A local intelligence official confirmed the death toll and said he had reports of more than ten wounded in the second attack. Security and intelligence officials routinely refuse to be named when talking to the media about the sensitive issue of US strikes. The United States military does not, as a rule, confirm drone attacks, but its armed forces and the Central Intelligence Agency operating in Afghanistan are the only forces that deploy unmanned drones in the region. Washington alleges Al-Qaeda and Taliban rebels who fled Afghanistan after the 2001 US-led invasion are holed up in South Waziristan, plotting attacks on Western targets, and Pakistan's army has vowed a military offensive there. The attacks came after Qari Zainuddin, a tribal leader aligned against Mehsud, was shot dead in the northwestern town of Dera Ismail Khan. Pakistan publicly opposes the US strikes, saying they violate its territorial sovereignty and deepen resentment among the populace. Since August 2008, more than 40 such strikes have killed at least 400 people. Pakistani troops are wrapping up a nearly two-month battle to dislodge Taliban insurgents from three northwest districts, and the military has said it will open up a second front in the tribal regions to track down Mehsud. A senior US defence official said earlier this month that any operation in South Waziristan would work best with "pressure on both sides of the border." About 90,000 foreign troops -- most of them from the United States -- are currently deployed in Afghanistan to battle an insurgency by the Taliban, which was ousted from government by the 2001 US-led invasion.

Homegrown Terrorism: GOP sows the seeds, Dems won't interfere

Homegrown Terrorists Next Door

by Bill Berkowitz / June 17th, 2009 / Dissident Voice

(A tip of the cap to Dan Levitas and his book The Terrorist Next Door)

Over the past two months, right-wing extremists have assassinated an abortion doctor in Wichita, Kansas, murdered three policemen in Pittsburgh, and killed a security guard while attempting to shoot up the U.S. National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

While all of these incidents appear to have been carried out by so-called “lone wolves” — right-wing extremists steep in movement politics but acting on their own initiative — all three killers have ties to, or have been involved with, radical right-wing organizations.

Scott Roeder, the alleged killer of Dr. George Tiller, has been identified with the right-wing Freeman movement, and was apparently related to the Army of God, one of the 1990s most radical anti-abortion groups.

According to friends of Richard Poplawski, the man accused of ambushing and murdering three Pittsburgh policemen, the killer was worried that the Obama Administration was poised to ban guns, a charge that has been repeatedly made by right-wing columnists and conservative hosts of talk radio programs. “If a total collapse is what it takes to wake our brethren and guarantee future generations of white children walk this continent, if that is what it takes to restore our freedoms and recapture our land: Let it begin this very second and not a moment later,” Poplawski wrote on a white supremacist Web site under the name Braced for Fate, the Anti-Defamation League recently noted. James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist who allegedly took a rifle into the museum and killed security guard Stephen T. Johns, an African American, was steeped in anti-Jewish, anti-Black and anti-immigrant hatred, was a Holocaust denier who had deep roots in the white nationalist movement.

The Wichita assassination and the Holocaust Museum attack occurred a month or so after the release of a report prepared by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which warned of the possibility of an uptick in violent activities by right-wing extremist groups.

The report pointed out that the election of America’s first African American president, the sharp economic downturn, rising unemployment, and unfounded rumors that the administration of Barack Obama would be pushing for stricter gun control regulations, could fuel a resurgence of “right-wing extremist groups,” bringing with it a spate of homegrown terrorist activities.

The DHS assessment, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” — originally ordered up by the Bush Administration — pointed out that “Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.”

“The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s [during the Clinton administration] when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers,” the assessment read.

“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups . . . The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement,” the report stated.

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the assessment was one in an ongoing series published by DHS “to facilitate a greater understanding of radicalization in the United States.” An earlier report had focused on possible violence by left-wing activists.

“DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues,” Kuban pointed out.

Release of the DHS assessment incurred the immediate wrath of a number of right-wing talk show hosts, commentators, and columnists. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson pointed out that “some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating ‘right wing’ with ‘terrorism.’”

A group spearheaded by some of America’s largest Religious Right groups — acting under the name No Political Profiling — released an ad that claimed the DHS report, “declared law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights as: ‘the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.’”

Jeffrey Mazzella of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom was among the first who called for the firing of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Mat Staver, the founder of the Orlando, FL.-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal operation, decided to “match fire with fire.” In a move both political and entrepreneurial, Staver invited supporters to get an official laminated, wallet-sized (”personalized with your name”) complimentary “Right-wing Extremist” card, “and Take a Stand against the New Administration’s Attack Machine.”

While originally pointing out that the card would be sent free (he now is apparently asking for a specific donation), Staver noted that “there are expenses associated with this national campaign, so any financial support you provide will be greatly appreciated and put to immediate use in advancing and protecting our precious liberties.”

In response to the criticism, the DHS pulled its report, promising to come up with a revised edition. Thus far, there has been no revised edition.

In a recent piece posted at PolitickerNY.com, Joe Conason pointed out that the Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that “authorities have discovered more than five dozen terror conspiracies by far-right groups, including militia outfits, neo-Nazi gangs and others claiming that their cause is above the law,” over the past fifteen or so years. “The Oklahoma City bombing was only the most notorious and tragic of those plots, which have cost lives, damaged property and infringed on our safety and freedom,” Conason noted. “The late Dr. Tiller, who was shot on an earlier occasion, was the eighth U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977. At least 17 others have been targets for attempted murder.”

In its spring 2009 report, the SPLC, an Alabama-based watchdog group tracking hate groups for 30 years, found more than 900 hate groups — including the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and Black separatists — currently operating in the U.S., an all-time high.

“Right across the board, extremist groups are thriving right now,” says Mark Potok, Director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project. Potok, who attributed the rise in the number of hate groups to a number of reasons including the election of Obama and unresolved immigration issues, pointed out that “We’re looking at a kind of perfect storm of factors that really favor the continued growth of these groups.”

Responding to the murder of Dr. George Tiller, Attorney General Eric Holder sent federal marshals to protect doctors, nurses and abortion clinics from possible attack. But that may not be enough. And, in the aftermath of the attack at the Holocaust Museum, it remains to be seen how many people will be applying for Mat Staver’s “Right-Wing Extremist” card!

Meanwhile, as a guest on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program recently pointed out, protesters in front of health clinics across the country have been emboldened by Dr. Tiller’s assassination, and have been cranking up the rhetoric and violent threats. And, the announcement on Tuesday, June 9, by the Tiller family that the Wichita clinic would be closed permanently, is an indication that homegrown terrorists have won another round.

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His column, "Conservative Watch," documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right. Read other articles by Bill.

This article was posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 at 9:01am and is filed under Abortion, Activism, Fascism, Religion, Right Wing Jerks,Terrorism.

Fascism on the Airwaves Could be the Downfall of Democracy

The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (Paperback) -- Fascism on the Airwaves Could be the Downfall of Democracy and a Shooting Rebellion in Which We are the Enemy

By David Neiwert

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

"Last night, Dave Neiwert's brilliant new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right arrived. I've already read half of it and man is it a page turner of the first order. More importantly, it is essential reading if you want to understand clearly the danger posed by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck. Dave makes a convincing case that they are not mere buffoons whose eliminationist rhetoric can be downplayed or safely ignored, as it was recently in a disgracefully misleading front-page Times article on Beck. (Nowhere in the article did Brian Stelter or Bill Carter (or their editors) find the space, for example, to mention, as Dave does, that when he was on CNN Headline News, Glenn Beck publicly endorsed the John Birch Society or that Beck has continued to push Birchers in his new job on Fox.)"

-- Posted on Digby's Hullabaloo

Among progressive Internet sites, including BuzzFlash, some of the most-read articles on are on the right wing media shills. As liberals, we love to slam the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Beck and their infamous colleagues.

BuzzFlash has always been of two minds about this: it is necessary, but the nutter media echo chamber uses progressive criticism to garner more publicity and more outrage from their angry audience. In short, we give them fuel for their flames.

This has become even more of a dilemma given the post-Obama election fanning the flames of armed rebellion (resulting in a rash of gun shootings recently) and apocalyptic political rhetoric of the right wing media hit squad. We can't ignore them because they are, in effect, inciting violence, but then they use progressive criticism to further whip up the fury of their viewers or listeners.

David Neiwert understands the gravity of the situation all too well in "The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right."

"Drawing from his extensive reporting on right-wing groups, David Neiwert argues that the conservative movements alliances with far-right extremists have not only pushed the movements agenda to the right, but have become a malignant influence thats increasingly reflected in political discourse. The result is a pathology Neiwert calls pseudo-fascisma political style that talks and acts like fascism without its core violence and thuggishness. The author argues that only effective response is a rhetoric of peace and not a surrendering one, but the kind of peace that stands up for human values, civil discourse, and basic decency."

If condemnation from a wing nut is a recommendation to buy Neiwert's vitally important book, then read this nutter take-down of "How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right" in the comments section of Amazon.com: "Most conservatives, according to Neiwert, are "unacceptable" and "conveyor belt neo-nazis." This would include Rush, Hannity, Ingrahm, Coulter. It seems as though he would like to ban all right wing talk radio that doesn't fit his "standard of decency." He presumes to define how conservatives should be, in order to meet his standard of decency. Any conservative that went along with Mr. Neiwert's definition of decency would be an ideologically gelded chump. If you let someone who hates you, define your standards of "decency" or "morality" for you, then you are defeated before you even begin to fight. If this sort of writing is to your taste, hey, go for it. But understand, it's just anti-white, anti-tradition, anti-conservative boilerplate. For entertainment purposes only, if ya get my drift."

Well, obviously Neiwert's correct and this Dittohead is wrong.

And the future of the nation hangs in the balance.

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

As populists, let us never forget the plight of all Indigenous Peoples.

Published on Saturday, June 13, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

Indigenous Peoples: 'We Are Fighting for Our Lives and Our Dignity'

Across the globe, as mining and oil firms race for dwindling resources, indigenous peoples are battling to defend their lands – often paying the ultimate price

by John Vidal

It has been called the world's second "oil war", but the only similarity between Iraq and events in the jungles of northern Peru over the last few weeks has been the mismatch of force. On one side have been the police armed with automatic weapons, teargas, helicopter gunships and armoured cars. On the other are several thousand Awajun and Wambis Indians, many of them in war paint and armed with bows and arrows and spears.

Natives set up a road block at the entrance of the Amazonian town of Yurimaguas, northern Peru. "For thousands of years, we've run the Amazon forests," said Servando Puerta, one of the protest leaders. "This is genocide. They're killing us for defending our lives, our sovereignty, human dignity." (AFP/Ernesto Benavides)

In some of the worst violence seen in Peru in 20 years, the Indians this week warned Latin America what could happen if companies are given free access to the Amazonianforests to exploit an estimated 6bn barrels of oil and take as much timber they like. After months of peaceful protests, the police were ordered to use force to remove a road bock near Bagua Grande.

In the fights that followed, at least 50 Indians and nine police officers were killed, with hundreds more wounded or arrested. The indigenous rights group Survival International described it as "Peru's Tiananmen Square".

"For thousands of years, we've run the Amazon forests," said Servando Puerta, one of the protest leaders. "This is genocide. They're killing us for defending our lives, our sovereignty, human dignity."

Yesterday, as riot police broke up more demonstrations in Lima and a curfew was imposed on many Peruvian Amazonian towns, President Garcia backed down in the face of condemnation of the massacre. He suspended – but only for three months – the laws that would allow the forest to be exploited. No one doubts the clashes will continue.

Peru is just one of many countries now in open conflict with its indigenous people over natural resources. Barely reported in the international press, there have been major protests around mines, oil, logging and mineral exploitation in Africa, Latin America, Asia and North America. Hydro electric dams, biofuel plantations as well as coal, copper, gold and bauxite mines are all at the centre of major land rights disputes.

A massive military force continued this week to raid communities opposed to oil companies' presence on the Niger delta. The delta, which provides 90% of Nigeria's foreign earnings, has always been volatile, but guns have flooded in and security has deteriorated. In the last month a military taskforce has been sent in and helicopter gunships have shelled villages suspected of harbouring militia. Thousands of people have fled. Activists from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta have responded by killing 12 soldiers and this week set fire to a Chevron oil facility. Yesterday seven more civilians were shot by the military.

The escalation of violence came in the week that Shell agreed to pay £9.7m to ethnic Ogoni families – whose homeland is in the delta – who had led a peaceful uprising against it and other oil companies in the 1990s, and who had taken the company to court in New York accusing it of complicity in writer Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution in 1995.

Meanwhile in West Papua, Indonesian forces protecting some of the world's largest mines have been accused of human rights violations. Hundreds of tribesmen have been killed in the last few years in clashes between the army and people with bows and arrows.

"An aggressive drive is taking place to extract the last remaining resources from indigenous territories," says Victoria Tauli-Corpus, an indigenous Filipino and chair of the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. "There is a crisis of human rights. There are more and more arrests, killings and abuses.

"This is happening in Russia, Canada, the Philippines, Cambodia, Mongolia, Nigeria, the Amazon, all over Latin America, Papua New Guinea and Africa. It is global. We are seeing a human rights emergency. A battle is taking place for natural resources everywhere. Much of the world's natural capital – oil, gas, timber, minerals – lies on or beneath lands occupied by indigenous people," says Tauli-Corpus.

What until quite recently were isolated incidents of indigenous peoples in conflict with states and corporations are now becoming common as government-backed companies move deeper on to lands long ignored as unproductive or wild. As countries and the World Bank increase spending on major infrastructural projects to counter the economic crisis, the conflicts are expected to grow.

Indigenous groups say that large-scale mining is the most damaging. When new laws opened the Philippines up to international mining 10 years ago, companies flooded in and wreaked havoc in indigenous communities, says MP Clare Short, former UK international development secretary and now chair of the UK-based Working Group on Mining in the Philippines.

Short visited people affected by mining there in 2007: "I have never seen anything so systematically destructive. The environmental effects are catastrophic as are the effects on people's livelihoods. They take the tops off mountains, which are holy, they destroy the water sources and make it impossible to farm," she said.

In a report published earlier this year, the group said: "Mining generates or exacerbates corruption, fuels armed conflicts, increases militarisation and human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings."

The arrival of dams, mining or oil spells cultural death for communities. The Dongria Kondh in Orissa, eastern India, are certain that their way of life will be destroyed when British FTSE 100 company Vedanta shortly starts to legally exploit their sacred Nyamgiri mountain for bauxite, the raw material for aluminium. The huge open cast mine will destroy a vast swath of untouched forest, and will reduce the mountain to an industrial wasteland. More than 60 villages will be affected.

"If Vedanta mines our mountain, the water will dry up. In the forest there are tigers, bears, monkeys. Where will they go? We have been living here for generations. Why should we leave?" asks Kumbradi, a tribesman. "We live here for Nyamgiri, for its trees and leaves and all that is here."

Davi Yanomami, a shaman of the Yanomami, one of the largest but most isolated Brazilian indigenous groups, came to London this week to warn MPs that the Amazonian forests were being destroyed, and to appeal for help to prevent his tribe being wiped out.

"History is repeating itself", he told the MPs. "Twenty years ago many thousand gold miners flooded into Yanomami land and one in five of us died from the diseases and violence they brought. We were in danger of being exterminated then, but people in Europe persuaded the Brazilian government to act and they were removed.

"But now 3,000 more miners and ranchers have come back. More are coming. They are bringing in guns, rafts, machines, and destroying and polluting rivers. People are being killed. They are opening up and expanding old airstrips. They are flooding into Yanomami land. We need your help.

"Governments must treat us with respect. This creates great suffering. We kill nothing, we live on the land, we never rob nature. Yet governments always want more. We are warning the world that our people will die."

According to Victor Menotti, director of the California-based International Forum on Globalisation, "This is a paradigm war taking place from the arctic to tropical forests. Wherever you find indigenous peoples you will find resource conflicts. It is a battle between the industrial and indigenous world views."

There is some hope, says Tauli-Corpus. "Indigenous peoples are now much more aware of their rights. They are challenging the companies and governments at every point."

In Ecuador, Chevron may be fined billions of dollars in the next few months if an epic court case goes against them. The company is accused of dumping, in the 1970s and 1980s, more than 19bn gallons of toxic waste and millions of gallons of crude oil into waste pits in the forests, leading to more than 1,400 cancer deaths and devastation of indigenous communities. The pits are said to be still there, mixing chemicals with groundwater and killing fish and wildlife.

The Ecuadorian courts have set damages at $27bn (£16.5bn). Chevron, which inherited the case when it bought Texaco, does not deny the original spills, but says the damage was cleaned up.

Back in the Niger delta, Shell was ordered to pay $1.5bn to the Ijaw people in 2006 – though the company has so far escaped paying the fines. After settling with Ogoni families in New York this week, it now faces a second class action suit in New York over alleged human rights abuses, and a further case in Holland brought by Niger Delta villagers working with Dutch groups.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil is being sued by Indonesian indigenous villagers who claim their guards committed human rights violations, and there are dozens of outstanding cases against other companies operating in the Niger Delta.

"Indigenous groups are using the courts more but there is still collusion at the highest levels in court systems to ignore land rights when they conflict with economic opportunities," says Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington. "Everything is for sale, including the Indians' rights. Governments often do not recognise land titles of Indians and the big landowners just take the land."

Indigenous leaders want an immediate cessation to mining on their lands. Last month, a conference on mining and indigenous peoples in Manila called on governments to appoint an ombudsman or an international court system to handle indigenous peoples' complaints.

"Most indigenous peoples barely have resources to ensure their basic survival, much less to bring their cases to court. Members of the judiciary in many countries are bribed by corporations and are threatened or killed if they rule in favour of indigenous peoples.

"States have an obligation to provide them with better access to justice and maintain an independent judiciary," said the declaration.

But as the complaints grow, so does the chance that peaceful protests will grow into intractable conflicts as they have in Nigeria, West Papua and now Peru. "There is a massive resistance movement growing," says Clare Short. "But the danger is that as it grows, so does the violence."

© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited

EPA Withholds Locations of 'High Hazard' Coal Ash Sites

So much for transparency

Published on Sunday, June 14, 2009 by Environmental News Servivce (ENS)

Public Not Allowed to Know Location of Hazardous Coal Ash Sites

EPA Withholds Locations of 'High Hazard' Coal Ash Sites

WASHINGTON, DC - There are 44 coal combustion waste sites nationwide that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified as "high hazard," but the agency cannot make the locations of these hazardous sites public, Senator Barbara Boxer told reporters today. The California senator chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the federal environmental agency.

Under the stacks of TVA's Kingston coal-fired power plant, the ash spill cleanup continues. April 30, 2009. (Photo courtesy TVA)

In the aftermath of last December's spill of more than a billion gallons of coal ash waste at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston coal-fired power plant, the U.S. EPA conducted inspections of the nation's coal combustion waste sites.

Agency inspectors identified several hundred coal ash piles across the country including 44 sites that pose a "high hazard." These sites are located in such a way that if the coal ash ponds were to fail, they would pose a threat to people living nearby.

But, Senator Boxer said, "the EPA, after consulting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Homeland Security, has indicated that they cannot make the list of 'high hazard' sites public."

"If these sites are so hazardous and if the neighborhoods nearby could be harmed irreparably, then I believe it is essential to let people know," Boxer said. "In that way, they can press their local authorities who have responsibility for their safety to act now to make the sites safer."

"There is a huge muzzle on me and on my staff, and the only people I can tell about this are the senators whose states are impacted," said Boxer. "We cannot talk to any of their staffs. This is unacceptable. The committee is going to continue hearings into this matter."

Today, Senator Boxer sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA seeking further information on whether the public disclosure of coal ash waste sites is consistent with the treatment of other hazardous sites.

"One of the lessons we all learned from the TVA spill is that a close look at these facilities is extremely important, and we cannot rely on general assurances that these sites are safe," the senator said. "That is why I am pleased that on-the-ground inspections have begun."

At 1:00 am on December 22, 2008, a retaining wall failed on an 84-acre surface impoundment holding a half century's worth of coal ash at the TVA's Kingston power plant about 35 miles west of Knoxville, Tennessee, at the junction of the Emory and Clinch Rivers.

More than one billion gallons of coal ash "rushed down the valley like a wave," Boxer said. Ash covered nearly 400 acres, destroying three homes and damaging a dozen others. No one was injured.

"The volume of ash and water was 100 times greater than the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster," Boxer said today. "The cost of cleaning up that spill has been estimated at over a billion dollars."

After the devastating Kingston spill, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing to better understand this incident and how to avoid similar disasters in the future.

"When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson came before our committee for her confirmation hearing a week later, she committed to move immediately to address the threat posed by coal ash waste," Boxer said today, expressing confidence Jackson would act to regulate coal combustion waste sites.

"Coal combustion waste is subject to very limited regulation," Boxer said. "In fact, there are stronger protections for household garbage than for coal ash across the country."

The EPA has the authority to regulate coal ash, which can contain toxic substances such as arsenic, selenium, lead, cadmium and chromium.

"I do have great confidence in Administrator Jackson's commitment to move forward with regulations," said the senator. "I hope and expect we will have these regulations by the end of this year."

At the site of the Kingston coal ash spill, cleanup continues. On May 11, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency that is the nation's largest public power provider, and the EPA signed an agreement by which TVA recognizes EPA's role and specialized expertise in responding to large-scale environmental clean-ups.

While TVA will retain its status as a lead federal agency, EPA will approve all work plans and schedules going forward.

"This agreement will continue the collaborative work between EPA, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and TVA, using EPA's expertise under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act," said TVA Senior Vice President of Office of Environment and Research Anda Ray.

"All of the agencies involved have a common goal, to meet the nation's highest standards for effectiveness, transparency, and public involvement," said Ray.

Transparency is exactly what Senator Boxer is after. The Environment and Public Works Committee will continue its ongoing investigation of coal ash waste sites and Boxer announced plans to conduct additional hearings on the 44 "high hazard" sites with the intention of learning why their locations are being withheld from the public.

© 2009 Environmental News Servivce

Published on Sunday, June 14, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

Far-Right Shootings Raise Fear of Hate Offensive in America

The killing of a black security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington last week was the latest example of a surge in extremist violence, as the election of Barack Obama and the economic crisis breed resentment in a fanatical, racist minority

by Paul Harris

A series of attacks by rightwing extremists has raised fears of a new wave of violence triggered by the economic crisis and the election of the country's first black president.

Daniel Cowart: The 20-year-old from Tennessee is being held over an alleged plot to kill Barack Obama and 102 blacks.

Since the inauguration of Barack Obama this year a series of shootings have taken place, with targets ranging from an abortion clinic to a liberal church and police officers. The attacks have often been fuelled by a potent mix of race hate and conspiracy theories.

Last week's shooting by neo-Nazi James von Brunn of a black security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, a few blocks from the White House, was the most recent incident. Now many experts are worried that extremists will eventually take aim at Obama himself.

"There is now a worry that Obama is going to be a target. It is a really serious situation. It is simply because of the colour of his skin," said Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which closely monitors hate groups in the United States. In papers left in Von Brunn's car after last week's shooting, investigators have already found anti-Obama statements. Von Brunn wrote in a note: "The Holocaust was a lie. Obama was created by Jews." Von Brunn, who shot dead Stephen Johns before being shot himself, is in hospital and has been charged with murder.

The shooting has sent shock waves through the US, but in fact it is the tip of an iceberg of incidents over the past year involving far-right gunmen or those inspired by conspiracy theories and inflamed by conservative media pundits.

Two weeks ago Kansas-based abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in a church by an anti-abortion campaigner. In April, Joshua Cartwright shot dead two policemen in Florida after a domestic disturbance. Police interviews established that he was "severely disturbed" that Obama had been elected. In North Carolina a former marine is facing charges after police investigating an armed robbery found a private journal containing a plan to kill Obama and white supremacist material.

In January, the day after Obama was inaugurated, a white man in Brockton, Massachusetts, went on a gun spree that killed two blacks. He also had links to white supremacist groups. That followed another shooting spree last summer in which an unemployed truck driver in Tennessee shot two people dead at a church. The gunman, Jim Adkisson, left a note saying he was targeting the church because of its liberal and gay-friendly outlook.

But perhaps the most disturbing recent incident involving the far right happened in December 2008, when police investigated the murder of James Cummings in Maine. Searching his house, they discovered literature on how to build a dirty bomb and many ingredients that could have been used to make such a weapon. Cummings, who collected Nazi memorabilia, had amassed four barrels of radioactive material.

Experts believe that the upsurge in rightwing shootings mirrors the 1990s, when militia groups sprang up across the US, often believing anti-government conspiracy theories. The election of Obama and the sheer scale of the economic crisis have now provided a huge boost to a movement that had appeared to decline markedly over the past decade.

"From the moment Obama became a serious candidate, you have seen a serious up-tick in activities and online chatter from these people... there is a push from extremists that 'we have got to do something'," said Professor Jim Corcoran, an expert on America's far right at Simmons College, Boston, and author of two books on the subject.

So serious has the problem become that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report warning about the problem in April. Though the report was greeted with howls of protest by conservatives, its central thesis of an upsurge in far-right extremist violence seems to have come true.

"The DHS report was not crying wolf. It was spot on," said Corcoran. The report said the economic downturn and Obama's election represented "unique drivers" for rightwing groups. It warned that "rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength" and added that new technologies, especially the internet, made "it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent or pre-empt a violent extremist attack".

Another factor driving the rise in extremist attacks has been statements by some conservative politicians and media commentators, especially on the Fox News Channel and talk radio. Some of Fox News's most popular talking heads regularly accuse Obama of being a socialist or a communist who is a threat to American democracy.

Bill O'Reilly, who hosts a nightly show on Fox, regularly called the shot abortion doctor Tiller a baby murderer and nicknamed him "Tiller the killer". Glenn Beck, one of Fox's most well-known TV presenters, has even aired patently false rumours that Obama is building "concentration camps" for Republican supporters. "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain't good," he said on one broadcast.

Those comments echo those of Republican congresswoman Michele Bachman, who has said that Obama is planning to set up "re-education" camps for young people where they would be trained in political correctness. Such outrageous sentiments, carried on a mainstream news channel, are potentially dangerous and could incite people to kill, some experts say. "It is dangerous. They are just promoting conspiracy theories in what is supposed to be the mainstream media," said Beirich.

One popular conspiracy theory is that Obama plans a crackdown on gun laws in America. The subject is a popular one among conservatives, despite the absence of evidence. It has led to widespread ammunition shortages across the country as gun supporters hoard bullets. The problem has become so bad that some police departments have even had to ration their ammunition supplies. It can also have a deadly impact. In April in Pittsburgh Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers he believed might be trying to take away his weapons. Poplawski, a white supremacist, had come to believe that Obama was planning a crackdown on gun ownership.

© 2009 Guardian/UK