text:
What America must change to become a truly great nation
Anthony Marr
I was born in China during the Japanese invasion which murdered some 20 million Chinese civilians. My mother was almost captured as a "comfort woman", i.e. a sex slave to be eventually killed when used up. Had this happened, I wouldn't be here writing this essay.
So right off the bat, I was born to think that Japan was anything but great. And though after the war I tried to forgive and forget, Japan turned the same blood-lust against the whales and dolphins, which has kept me seething. No, Japan is not a great nation, not by a long harpoon shot. They do make great motorcycles at an affordable price, though, I'll grant them this.
When I was 5, the Communists overran China, and my family escaped with our lives by moonlight down the Pearl River to the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Had we not done so, my entire family could have been terminated in the purges and hard labor camps which ensued. All in all the Communist regime wiped out some 60 million Chinese people in its consolidation of power. Most of these 60 million died of starvation when the Maoist government shipped their food to Russia in exchange for technological and military assistance. After the "Great Cultural Revolution", I tried to forgive and forget as well, but the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of 3000 students forever removed China from greatness in my mind.
From ages 5 through 20, I grew up in Hong Kong as a stateless person under the rule of the British Empire. Though it was not a bloody regime, a day did not pass when I was not reminded one way or another, and none too subtly, that I was a third class citizen. By no means all Chinese, but the Cantonese culture of Guang Dong province, to which Hong Kong is attached, is notorious for its callous and broad-spectrum animal use and abuse. Britain, which ruled the Cantonese people flooding into Hong Kong, had the responsibility of enforcing its supposedly humane animal laws, but from what I saw as a child and a teenager, nothing along this line was done. Since I loved animals, the British did not relieve my pain. But then, how could a nation known for its cruel sport of fox-hunting impose its will on the people of another culture regarding humane and respectful animal treatment? Based on the above alone, Great Britain, though the lesser of two evils compared to China relatively speaking, left much greatness to be desired.
At age 21, I flew across the Pacific to Canada on a student visa. Prepped by over- dramatized Hollywood movies about the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia, I set foot on North American soil with trepidation. But almost at once, I found the Canadian people warm, gentle and helpful, and genuinely kind and loving to their companion animals, which made me feel very much at home. Further, I was amazed by how people could openly criticize the government without any fear of retribution, and on the contrary I saw smiling politicians shaking hands with the humble people in Chinatown, which was unheard of where I had come from. There was/is a free Medicare system for all, and a respectful policy towards seniors. So finally, when I swore myself in as a Canadian citizen, I felt rightly proud for belonging finally to what I perceived to be a great nation. But it did not take me too long to get disillusioned. As a university student, I worked summers out in the bush as a geologist's assistant. It was then I began to see the horrific assault by logging companies against the environment. When one year I worked in a cathedral-like old growth forest by which I was awed, the next year, it had been reduced to a waste land, with nothing but huge grey stumps left behind. I saw trophy hunters shooting down anything magnificent that moved. And I saw mines and pulp mills discharging heavy metals, cyanides, organo- chlorines, PCBs, PAHs and dioxins on to the land. And that was before I learned about the horrendous Newfoundland seal massacre, and finally flew over the six hellish Alberta tar sands mines which made of the entire Athabasca watershed one enormous carcinogen.
But at least, so I thought, I still had my freedom of speech, until I became an animal rights activist, and found that although I could indeed shout my lungs out in a demonstration, and could debate 100 hunters at a time without getting lynched, the truth of the matter is that not one word I had spoken or written proved worth a dime in the eyes of those to whom it was addressed. And over my protestations, my tax dollars were used to subsidize the seal hunt.
So bit by bit, then clunk by chunk, and year by year, the monument of Canadian greatness disintegrated in my mind.
In the mid-late 1990s, I went to India to work in three tiger reserves to help save them from habitat destruction, and the Bengal tiger from extinction. India's great Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." From what I have seen in three expeditions by plane, train, jeep and on foot, each lasting 2-3 months, India's animals are not well treated, especially its street dogs and wildlife. I have personally rescued a puppy from being stoned to death by children, while the adults stood by, doing nothing. Where animals are concerned, India first task is to save the Bengal tiger and its complex ecosystems. The country does have a federal program called Project Tiger, but it is fighting a half-hearted and therefore losing battle, and tiger habitat continue to dwindle, and tiger numbers continue to decline. The tiger is a world treasure, but India has the responsibility to preserve it. If we cannot even save the tiger, a species universally loved and admired, what can we save?
Not until India has demonstrated her sincere and whole-hearted commitment to saving the Bengal tiger and its ecosystems would I begin to consider her in the question of greatness.
In 1999, the Makah native tribe in Washington state clamored for a revival of their "traditional" hunting of the Grey whale. We could not stop them from killing one young female - with a high-powered 50-calibre rifle and towed back to shor with a motorcraft - some "traditional" whaling. But we have legally stalled them since, so far. This was my first field engagement with American activists, and I rapidly grew to love working with them on an international basis.
From 2003 through 2008, I conducted 6 Compassionate for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours), each covering 25-41 states in 3-7 months.
I have worked with grassroots activists in almost every state on their campaigns, and have developed a certain depth of understanding in most of their issues and their ways of handling them. I have seen their successes and failures, and have learned from them the dos and don'ts. In doing so, I have also been exposed to the opposition, and the way it works, to KNOW THY ENEMY. Most of all, I have become keenly aware of not only local trends, but national trends (of which local activists may not always be aware), and I have forged coalitions to deal with multi-state and nation-wide problems and issues. As well, I have engaged American activists in Canadian issues, not least of all the 300, 000- baby- seals-per-year Newfoundland seal massacre, with my car painted with the slogan "I AM CANADIAN. BOYCOTT MY COUNTRY!" And I have received much support in return, for which I am deeply thankful.
I love my American friends deeply, so I wish America the best. Unfortunately, the way I've seen it, in many ways it is not even good, much less great. I owe it to my American friends to point a few things out from my visiting Canadian's perspective. To heal, one must first diagnose. Following are some of my observations:
*1st Amendment violations
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the Five Freedoms. It is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government.
In terms of the freedom of speech, it forbids viewpoint discrimination, however unpopular the viewpoint may be. However, if you say as much as "Good morning" to a hunter in the process of targeting a deer, you can be charged with violating the state-level Hunter Harassment law, which in turn violates the First Amendment. The hunters argue that it is the sound of the speech, not the words, that harasses the hunter, but how can even they separate the words from the sound? If the words of "Good morning" is protected by the First Amendment and can be spoken, how can the sound of "Good morning" when it is being spoken be illegal? Clearly, the HH laws are created and administered by hunters, for hunters, including the judge in Pennsylvania who convicted Jan Haagensen on five counts of hunter harassment - for telling invading hunters to get off her land, and for telling a hunter hunting from the road that what he was doing was illegal even under the hunting laws of PA (listen to the Jan Haagensen interview by Anthony Marr on Animal Voices in www. myspace. com/AnthonyMarr).
What about the mother of the U.S. - Great Britain? Does true freedom of speech exist there? Judging by the life-time ban of Dr. Steven Best from the U.K. for speaking in favor of direct action in animal rights activism, the answer is a resounding NO.
If all these curtailments of freedom, and invasions of privacy, are designed to win the "War on Terror", then the first battle is already lost, because the lost American freedom is the terrorists' spoil of war. The United States and Britain have compromised and defeated themselves.
A nation whose constitution has been compromised cannot be considered great. The way for the U.S. to correct this problem is to scrap all state-level laws that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
* Pseudo- Democracy
Democracy means majority-rule, but minority-rule by power elite is not uncommon, if not rampant. And it could even be written into the constitution itself. The constitution of New Jersey, for example, stipulates that of the 11 voting member of the Fish & Game Council, 6 must be hunters. In most such case, all 11 are hunters, because any odd-man-out will be ostracized mercilessly until he/she quits. This is pseudo-majority-rule within the Council, but real minority rule in the entire state of New Jersey. The result is a set of hunting laws by hunters, for hunters, while the non-hunters and anti-hunters of New Jersey, be they hikers, campers, photographers, bird-watchers, biologists, ecologists..., who add up to 99.2% of the population (only 0.8% of New Jerseyan's hunt) have no say in the matter whatsoever. Some democracy.
A nation which mocks and violates its own founding principle cannot be considered great. To correct this problem, all U.S. states must have wildlife management laws determined by a panel proportionately representing the general population of that state, not its tiny-minority hunting elite.
Another point of pseudo-democracy is in the form of the so-called "public consultation" sessions in county, city and municipal council. From my observation, by the time the council is in session and the public is allowed to speak, the decisions have often already been signed and sealed behind close doors. So the public strenuously speaking their mind, to which the council only pretends to listen, is expending their energy showing externally what a great democracy they all live in, being able to speak out with passion without fear of persecution.
The crux of the matter here is the composition of the council itself. A pro-funting council will decide in favor of urban deer hunting no matter what activists say. The solution is to make the council anti-hunting, and this has to be done through the political process by fielding anti-hunting candidates and campaigning to put them in office. Already existing is the League of Humane Voters (LOHV) headed by Peter and Anne Muller, and LOHV chapters headed by local activists (e.g. Lane Ferrante, director of the new Ohio LOHV chapter).
All this is easier said than done, considering that almost all American politicians on all levels are puppets of the powerful gun lobby, hunting lobby, and the arms and hunting industries. And pseudo-democracy, pseudo-anything for that matter, has no place in greatness.
*A CORPSE-run nation
I love my American friends, each in a unique way, but there is one thing in common. They all live in a system originally designed by conscience, e.g. the U.S. Constitution, but eventually abused and corrupted by corporations, opportunists, rapists, psychopaths, sociopaths and ecopaths (CORPSE) for their own immediate profit and aggrandizement, at the expense of the innocent, the future and the whole. They have created new subsystems for the purpose of defeating the Constitution itself, complete with pseudo-patriotic slogans. And they attack the conscience of society itself - us.
The impact of such a system far exceeds that directed against the animal rights and environmental movements. It can wipe out all the corals in the sea, it can desertify the entire Amazon, it can starve millions with a global millennium drought, it can make Earth uninhabitable for humans, and it can wipe out over 90% of all species on Earth as the End-Permian Extinction did 251 million years ago. If we let these CORPSEs run the show, the entire nation will behave as if it has no conscience. Can a nation without conscience be considered great? Can any psychopath be considered great?
Analyse a CORPSE-run nation, and we will see the evil manifest in a thousand different ways, including the rise of Nazism in WW2 Germany. Following are those that I have personally encountered through my travels in the United States of America - "the land of the free, the home of the brave".
*Political Puppetry
Even the person in the nation's highest political office can be, and to a large extent is, a puppet. Its puppet-masters are corporations. When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, GUI (governing under the influence) of Big Oil, Texas ranked last in environmental protection. The oil companies got richer and ever more powerful, so much so that they put Bush all the way up into the White House, to make of the Unites States a large Texas. As soon as Bush took over as president, one of his first feats was to gut the Environmental Protection Agency by planting unprecedented numbers of industrial CEOs into the EPA's highest ranks, who then proceeded to eliminate as many Clinton-era protection laws as the public would allow. And the authority-fearing and by-and-large apathetic public just let him/them do whatever they wanted. And of course, whether he was genuinely ignorant of global warming or not, he publicly voiced skepticism about global warming, and very publicly refused to ratify the Kyoto Accord to counteract the global threat of climate change, by virtual order of Big Oil, thereby squandering a great opportunity to lead the world into the future. Worse, 8 years of precious time for saving the planet was wasted, when the total amount of time for doing so is no more than 12 years as of 2000. Even Obama, infinitely better informed than Bush ever was or presumably ever could be, is still a puppet to an extent - of the oil/coal/gas industry - even though he himself, as an independent logical thinker, would not condone.
If the top leader of a nation is a puppet, that nation cannot be considered great.
*Neo-Fascist "Democracy"
Wikipedia has a definition for a certain ism, which "comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology". That ism is called Fascism, and the United States "Democracy" is dangerously close to it. A Fascist nation is automatically precluded from greatness, because it subjugates the will of its citizens to that of its corporations. An all-powerful corporatist economic policy has no regard for human rights, much less animal rights and environmental integrity. It's only concern is economic hegemony and military supremacy.
To correct this problem there must be a new amendment to severely limit or exclude political influence on government by corporations, and economically powerful special interest groups such as the NRA or, to be fair, the HSUS. The root of all political evils is corporate economic influence on political election outcomes. Putting it bluntly, to fire each and every "best politician money can buy" is a must for national greatness.
*A war started by a fool
The war: The Iraq War. The fool: George W. Bush. The fool is gone, but the war remains. As long as a foolish war continues, the nation waging it cannot be great.
*Bought global warming denial
In case the general population feels smug about corporate villainy and politicians being corporate puppets, each citizen should be reminded that he is himself a mini-puppet, whose very thought may not be his own. Corporate thought control exists in many forms, in many nations, but nowhere as pronounced and blatant and staggering as in the United States, the lair of Big Oil. To ensure a sustained oil and coal market, Big Oil has spend some $100 million in waging a counter-campaign to discredit global warming as hoax and a myth. The result is that the United States ranks rock bottom in global warming awareness amongst all western nations in international surveys. This is a deliberate deception and dumbing-down of all Americans by the oil corporations and the American power-elite which profits hugely from public apathy and compliance, at the expense of the environment and our children's future - their own children's future too.
The 8 Bush years may already have driven the planet past the point of no return. Obviously, a nation that sabotages international efforts to save the planet and our children's future for its own short term profit bears the antithesis of greatness. Is Obama significantly better? Better, yes. Significantly? Not as long as he keeps on puppeting for Big Oil and King Coal, why mouthing the words environmentalists want to hear.
*The self-debeautificatio n of America
America the Beautiful? Almost heaven, West Virginia? John Denver would weep, if he saw what I saw that summer day in 2008, when I was in my 6th Compassion for Animals Road Expedition. A local activist took me up one of the mountains to witness for myself a mountain-top-removal operation by the coal industry.
To call it "an eye-sore" is like calling Ted Bundy "naughty". A government that would allow the destruction of the magnificent mountains which took millions of years to build for the short term profit of its puppet master Big Coal is not a great government, and the nation ruled by such a government is not a great nation.
*Be insured, or die
In "socialist" Canada, medical care is a basic human right. In "capitalist" United States, it is not. I don't know why some Americans hate or fear "socialism" so much. It is just another case of McCarthyish paranoia. No nation which says its citizens, "pay up or die" can be considered great.
Only the puppet masters have anything to fear, because - Where does the money come from? - subsidy from taxation - stupid. It is the tax-payer, through cowardly government, that is feeding beast of his own destruction.
*The enslavement and slaughter of billions
Substitute humans for animals, and concentration camps for factory farms and vivisection labs, and cattle cars for cattle cars, gas chambers for slaughter houses, and the factory farmers and transporters and vivisectors and slaughterers, would be no better than Nazis. Only their victims are different. The villains are essentially the same.
Quantitatively, it's worse. Line up the cows slaughtered every year in America for human consumption in single file, and the cow line will stretch from L.A. to N.Y. back and forth 16 times, and the pig line, 35 times, and the chicken line (10 billion) would stretch between the Earth and the Moon 8 times. All these add up to sentient-being- sufferings on an astronomical scale.
A nation harboring such enormous imposed internal suffering cannot be considered great.
*Lying to The People
A government that lies to the people is criminal, by whatever political system it abides. A nation in which a government lies to the people is lightyears from greatness.
Here is a blatant example. In 2007, while on my 5th Compassion for Animals Road Expedition (CARE-5), I was in Allentown PA when local activists asked for my assistance in opposing a new bow-hunting scheme within the nearby Trexler Nature Preserve. It was the dying wish of General Harry Clay Trexler, who created the Preserve in 1906, that no hunting be conducted within the preserve. But after honoring him for exactly 100 years, the local government announced to the public in 2007 that due to a "population explosion" of the white-tail deer within the preserve, its ecology has been compromised, and thus the deer population needed to be reduced. Further, the bow hunters in the area had volunteered themselves to do do the community a favor, free of charge of course. Except for the resistance put up by these few great local activists, notably Carol Loomis, Virginia Wolfe and Cheryl Baker, the public had no comment, and the hunt did go ahead. On opening day of the hunt, Carol, Cheryl, Cheryl's teenage son and I entered the preserve, amidst the hordes of bow hunters, male and female, all armed to the teeth. We received many stares ranging from suspicious to hostile, but it was an eye-opener. Were I blindfolded and driven by deep into the preserve, and taken for a short walk of no more than 100 yards from the parking lot, then have the blindfold removed and asked what I was looking at, I would have answered that I was in a farm. Acres of forest had been plowed down, and row upon row of deer clover had been planted in its place.
Those who understand the Compensatory Rebound Effect, some hunters included, know that with an overabundance of food, deer would maximize their reproductive rate. Instead of no-fawn and singlet, they would have twins and triplets, resulting indeed in an overabundance of deer, which is what the hunters wanted. Local residents are usually not aware of this, at least not on a first person basis, and that is that the bow-hunters are very aggressive in forcing their way into potential hunting areas where the discharge of fire-arms is illegal, including urban parks like Trexler, and even within the urban areas themselves - in people's backyards. It is the general strategy of hunters to first cultivate a high deer population, then claim deer over-population, then offer themselves as saviors of deer-damaged communities. The truth of the matter is that the whole thing is initiated by the bow-hunters in collusion with the hunter-friendly politicians who are often themselves hunters, for which they were put in office by the hunting industry in the first place. I took pictures of the plantation and submitted them to the local newspaper, and spoke at length to its reporter, but the article that came out the following day did not make a single mention of the deer clover plantation, did not use my photos, but instead glorified a female hunter for being among the first to bag a magnificent buck.
How great is a nation in which the government deceives the people to appease its puppet masters?
*A nation run by serial killers
Let's brush aside all the fluff and window-dressing and BS and get down to the bare bones, shall we? The cold hard fact of the matter is that not only are the vast majority of politicians under the thumbs of powerful serial killers, but are themselves serial killers. I am talking about recreational hunters and trophy hunters of course. The fact that their victims are non-human does not alter the fact hunters kill them serially, that hunters have no compassion, revel in bloodshed, derive pleasure from another being's suffering, and practice serial killing as a form of entertainment and amusement. The greatest amusement park is not Disneyland, folks. It is the Great Outdoors, catering exclusively to serial killers.
When I go speaking to children, I often ask them what to them is the most immoral reason for killing an animal - in self-defense? for food? for clothing? for money? for fun? Without a single exception the children in all schools have voted against KILLING FOR FUN as the most immoral reason for killing anything. And America is ruled by a small minority of very powerful but highly immoral people who kill for fun, i.e. who are recreational hunters.
A nation run by pathological serial fun-killers cannot POSSIBLY be great.
*Animal protection laws or lack thereof
Animal protection laws do exist within the United States, and on both the federal and state levels. Federal animal protection statutes take the form of Acts, which number almost 100, including the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Airborne Hunting Act, the Animal Damage Control Act, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Animal Health Protection Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Fighting Act, the Bald and Goldern Eagle Protection Act, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, the Dog and Cat Protection Act, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Recreational Hunting Safety and Preservation Act, etc. These may seem impressive, but if we look between them, we'd see huge gaps through which entire sectors of the animal kingdom could be abused, tortured, shot, trapped and slaughtered with impunities, notably wild animals not protected by the Endangered Species Act, and farm and lab animals place under the "protection" of the Department of Agriculture, the very governmental body whose purpose is to exploit them. And some of these "animal protection laws", e.g. the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, as its name clearly states, is to protect the animal enterprises, not the animals, and its new incarnation the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, is demonstrably unconstitutiona l.
I consider the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act unconstitutiona l because even a non-violent demonstration is an act of "terrorism" if it inflicts economic damage upwards of $10,000 on any animal enterprise. So, a boycott of a certain company, e.g. KFC, could be considered an act of terrorism if the company could demonstrate that as a result of the boycott, it suffered $10,001's sertback in chicken wing sales, in which case the jail time is up to 6 months. If the financial damage is in the range of $1 million, the jail time is up to 6 years. In other words, if Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi were animal rights activists today, they would have been considered terrorists. Again, the primary point is that the AETA violates the Constitution of the United States. A conditional freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as freedom of speech "on the condition that you don't offend anybody."
The state level animal protection laws are far simpler than the federal acts. Generally, they protect cat, dogs and horses which "belong to" human individuals and some corporations, but not wild animals that "belong to" no one. The reason for this is that the "owners" of the cats and dog and horses would make a fuzz if "their" animals are harmed by others, e.g. shot by a hunter, but there is no one to speak for the wild and hunted animals. So basically, these are "animal-owner" protection laws, not animal protection laws, which therefore concern themselves with human rights, not animal rights.
No nation that does not recognize that animals have rights can be considered great.
*Government control of media
Local radio talkshow listeners may think that their own area is exceptionally right wing. But having listened to radio talkshows in my car while I driving from state to state, from coast to coast, I can tell you with certainty that it is not. Where the radio talkshow scene is concerned, the entire nation is exceptionall right wing. Over 95% of all well known American talkshow hosts, from Rush Limbaugh pn down are right wing. And worse, every morning, each right wing talkshow host would receive an email from Maryland telling them the talking points of the day, and what stand to take on each talking point. In the newspaper arena, investigative journalism is all but dead. It is brain-washing on a grand scale.
The Allentown PA newspaper article on the Trexler preserve mentioned above, which buried my photos of the Trexler plantation, is not an isolated local case either. In many places, a reporter attacking or just questioning hunting is committing professional suicide, or at least opening himself to severe and concerted hunter attack.
Thought control and the suppression of truth is not the mark of a great nation.
*The 5 lethal maneuvers of the House of Fraud
I have mentioned the Jan Haagensen case (listen to the Haagensen interview by Anthony Marr on the Animal Voices talkshow archived in www. myspace. com/AnthonyMarr). Haagensen was convicted by the PA criminal court on 5 counts of hunter harassment, which involve a jail term. She appealed to an appelate court, and had the convictions all overturned for a total lack of evidence. Now she is taking the offense, and is legally challenging the constitutionali ty of the PA Hunter Harassment Statute. She is fighting this battle alone and deserves, and needs, our support. But at least she could appeal.
While researching material on Steve Hindi, one of my guests on Animal Voices, I came across the following passage by Rob Sherman in an article which shocked even me. I will copy-paste it here verbatim:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------
While there may be two sides to the rodeo debate (although I doubt it), as a professional journalist, let me assure you that you should place no credibility, whatsoever, in anything that the Illinois criminal courts do. The criminal courts, here, are widely recognized as a House of Fraud which fakes the conviction of completely innocent people for the purpose of attempting to smear the reputation of political enemies.
Here are five ways in which they do it:
1) Most judges in Illinois criminal trials are former prosecutors from the same state's attorney's office that is now presenting the prosecution's case. Blatant conflict of interest. The judge has numerous ways of rigging the outcome of cases to ensure conviction, as described below, regardless of whether the Defendant is guilty or innocent. Indeed, it doesn't even matter if the Defendant has not been accused of doing anything that violates the cited statute.
2) Block the introduction of testimony that exonerates the Defendant. The way that this scam works is, every time the Defense asks a prosecution or defense witness a question that, if answered, would clearly exonerate the falsely accused Defendant, the prosecutor objects to the question being answered and the judge, who is a former prosecutor (sort of a prosecution tag team), sustains the objection. The jury never gets to hear the testimony that would exonerate the Defendant.
3) Block any testimony from Defense witnesses who have the knowledge to refute everything that the prosecutor is contending. The way this scam works, the prosecutor objects that the testimony of the witness should not be allowed because the testify is supposedly irrelevant. The former- prosecutor judge, being familiar with this lawyer trick, sustains the prosecutor's objection and the witness is barred from testifying. A jury is required to base its decision on the evidence and testimony presented, so if the jury is only allowed to hear from witnesses that support the prosecution's trumped up charges, the jury has no choice but to render a decision based solely on the prosecutor's presentation.
4) Charge and convict the Defendant for the crime of nothing. This is a beautiful scam that any rodeo type would love. The prosecutor accuses a Defendant of being in violation of a law, but doesn't allege that the Defendant actually did anything that violates that law. After a trial on the allegation of the crime of nothing, the judge says, "I enter a finding of guilty," but not guilty of doing anything in particular. Then, when the Defendant complains to the judge, "I didn't do anything that violates the law. I wasn't even accused of doing anything that violates the law, and you haven't found me guilty of doing anything which violates the law. So, just what, exactly, is it that you found me guilty of doing that violates the law?" To which the judge responds, "You don't understand, sir. Now that I've entered a finding of guilty, you have lost your presumption of innocence. Therefore, you have to tell the Court what it is that you did that violated the law, rather than the other way around."
5) The hostage-taking scam. This scam is an extension of Scam #4, above. In this scam, the judge takes the falsely convicted Defendant hostage every time he has an appeal brief due, to keep him from appealing the fake conviction. The way that this scam works, every time that the filing date approaches for the Defendant to submit an appeal brief to the Appellate Court, the prosecutor and judge schedule a simultaneous post-trial hearing in which the prosecutor or court demands that the Defendant announce what it was that the Defendant supposedly did that violated the law for which he was falsely convicted. If the Defendant refuses to make up a false accusation against himself and be coerced into confessing to the false accusation, the Defendant is sent to jail, not for committing a crime, but rather for "Failing to cooperate with the Court's efforts to help him." This is done just in time to keep the Defendant from filing his appeal brief. No appeal brief, no reversal of the fake conviction. Quite a clever lawyer trick by the judge and prosecutor. On the other hand, if the trick succeeds in scaring the innocent Defendant into making up a coerced false confession, that moots out any appeal because the Defendant has supposedly admitted guilt to the non-existent crime. Either way, the fake conviction sticks and the Defendant loses.
Again, as a professional journalist, I have personally seen all of these lawyer trick courtroom scams. It's why nobody should ever take seriously ANYTHING that takes place in Illinois criminal court. It is truly a House of Fraud.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------
This is downright bloody disgusting if you ask me, and even if you don't. Tell me, how can a nation harboring this kind of miscarriages of justice and judicial corruption be even remotely be considered great?
The solution here is obvious. Nail down these legal felons and bar them for good. Then put them on trial for abuse of power, comtempt of court and corruption of American justice, convict them, throw them in jail and throw away the key.
*America: destroyer of the Amazon
Americans consume so much beef that America imports huge quanitities of extra beef from Brazil. Americans consume so much ethanol in gasoline that America imports huge quantities of extra ethanol, also from Brazil. And Brazil burns down the Amazon rainforest by the thousands of square miles to create extra land for cattle ranches and soy plantations. If Americans, and Canadians for that matter, do not voluntarily curtail their own gluttony for Earth's dwindling resources, not only are they not world-leaders, but world- degraders, and this is far from great.
*Fiscal irresponsibilit y
Suppose a family has been living beyond its means, and is now teetering on the brink of insolvency. Any responsible banker will advise the family to tighten the belt, not to borrow more money to maintain that same unsustainable standard of living which has driven the family to have lived beyond its means in the first place. And this is what the U.S. is doing on a national scale as we speak. A fiscally irresponsible nation cannot be a great nation.
*The self- impoverishment of the animal rights movement
Americans and Canadians complain about China becoming the largest consumer on a per nation basis, while they remain the largest consumers on a per capita basis.
How much does an American, or a Canadian for that matter, need to live? Less than $20,000 per year. I can say this with certainty, because this is how much I live on, including the cost of doing my work. So why should we tolerate, much less accept, and far less contribute towards, the CEO of the largest American animal advocacy "non-profit" organization paying himself a cool quarter million dollars per year, or almost $25,000 per month, and paying his dozen or so VPs $150,000 each, and his own secretary a handsome $100,000, all from the donations meant for the animals? Isn't he just a little ashamed of himself for personally profiting by robbing the suffering animals for which the donations were meant? This organization has a financial worth of $230 million - all animals' money - and an annual budget of some $120 million, of which some 50% is overhead, which include the lavish salaries, financial investments and a $6-10 million fund-raising budget. In spite of all these mega-bucks, this insatiable organization still stoops to charging penniless grassroots groups kilo-bucks for simple zero-cost assistance. I have always thought that when a group has crossed a certain size threshold, it will turn from its original cause to its own growth as its primary purpose. But not until I have directly observed this group over time did I realize to what abysmal depth this could sink. One cold hard fact is that this organization, and several other similar ones with big names and offices, the CEO of one of which paying himself, would you believe, $ 750,000/annum, with their high overheads and slick fund-raising machines, have sucked the financial resources within the movement dry, leaving nothing for the grassroots groups, most of whose members could not even afford health insurance, while that CEO and his VPs and "executive" secretaries laugh all the way to the bank.
This is open and blatant corruption and betrayal within the animal rights movement, but it is not all. Through my travels, I have stayed at local activists' home by the dozens, and never have I encountered a local activist without one or more animal companions, bless their hearts. If they, being true-hearted animal advocates and activists (unlike that CEO who openly confesses to having no personal affinity for animals), had to choose between buying health insurance for themsleves and paying the vet bills of the animals under their guardianship, they would pay the vet bills and do without health insurance for themselves. I have seen families spending thousands of dollars in vet bills while they can ill afford even food on the table. The problem where the movement is concerned is that most of these animal guardians would choose to pay the vet bills than to donate the same amount to a grassroots animal rights group when they cannot do both. And the vets, like the pseudo- animal- advocacy CEOs, seem just as intent on sucking all financial resources out of the animal rights movement, which has indeed been impoverished.
We are animal rights activists, and we are the conscience of our societies, even the conscience of humanity. If this conscience has been compromised by hypocrisy and greedy, our societies, in fact humanity itself, cannot be great.
*The new world disorder
Any "new world order" designed, organized and led by a nation that is not great will descend into disorder.
Final question:
Is there a truly great nation in the world today?
Please let me know if you can think of any.
Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com (AM's 3rd-book-in-the-making)
Anti, ARA, Artist, Author, Environmentalist, Evolutionist, Horseman, Martial Artist, Musician, Omniscientific Cosmologist, Philosopher, Photographer, Physics Grad, Poet, Public Speaker, Vegan, Wildlife Preservationist, World Traveler, Writer, Zen Motorcyclist
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
S.O.S. - Ocean's 11th Hour
The oceans of Planet Earth currently contain about a quarter million species of marine organisms, which together constitute the Marine Food Pyramid and the Marine Food Web. If we do not change our ways, radically and fundamentally, immediately or sooner, we stand to drive over 90% of them, or more than 225,000 species, to extinction, and that is from the oceans alone.
Worse if we look at the Marine Food Pyramid in terms of its 6 Trophic Levels (TLs), namely:
- TL1. Phytoplankton (otherwise known as "Producers", which convert solar energy and CO2 into organic matter and oxygen),
- TL2. Zooplankton (which feed on the Phytoplankton and other Zooplankton, e.g. krill),
- TL3. Primary Consumers (which feed on plankton e.g. carols, and feed on krill e.g. small fish and baleen whales),
- TL4. Secondary Consumers (which feed on the Primary Consumers, e.g. medium fish, cephalopods e.g. squid, etc.),
- TL5. Tertiary Consumers (which feed on the Secondary Consumers, e.g. large fish) and
- TL6. Quaternary Consumers (which feed on the Tertiary Consumers, e.g. Great White Shark, Giant Squid, all marine mammals, and humans).
Of this 250,000-species global treasure the Marine Food Pyramid/Web, all the fishes on all levels and pathways combined number only 15,000 species, and all the marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals) total only about 120 species. And all of these advanced species will likely be among those that would go extinct, as will likely be most the corals and most arthropods (krill, crabs, lobsters).
The mechanism of marine ecological collapse is two-fold: ocean warming, which is unfavorable to plankton growth, and ocean acidification, which is detrimental to all organisms with skeletons composed of calcium carbonate, which means all species with skeletons, including most phytoplankton species, krill, the crustaceans, and all corals).
The pH of the oceans has dropped (acidified) from 8.2 to 8.1 since industrialization, and susceptible species have begun to die off. By pH 7.8, all plankton species will be impacted, and with their decline, or demise, so will the species on the higher trophic levels, all the way up to the top sharks, the seals, dolphins, whales, even the humans.
This is not all speculation and computer modeling. It has happened before, and can happen again. We are talking about Earth's Mass Extinction bouts, in #6 of which we are as we speak deeply entrenched. 50 years ago, the planet was losing about 20 known species a day; today, we are losing over 100 known species a day, meaning possibly ten times that many unknown species. And when it is all said and done, we will have lost over 1.5 million known species, and many times that many unknown species, land, air and sea.
When we talk about mass extinctions, the End-Cretaceous Extinction 64 million years ago, the one that wiped out all the dinosaurs - Mass Extinction #5 - comes to mind. But first, it is not the most severe among the Big 5, eliminating "only" about 50% of Earth's species (including all the dinosaurs), and second, it is not caused by global warming, but by an asteroid, and was therefore irrelevant to our current consideration.
The worst of them all was Mass Extinction #3, the End-Permian Mass Extinction 251 million years ago, which drove some 75% of all land species and 95% of all marine species, including all the corals, to extinction. And it was caused indeed by global warming resulting from geological activities associated with the break-up of the super-continent Pangaea, which raised global temperature by some 15 degrees Celsius.
The conditions are ripe for Mass Extinction #6 being a repeat of Mass Extinction #3, or even to out-do it in some of the worse-case scenarios.
This won't be immediate, at least not in the human time frame - perhaps a century or two, or three, but it will happen if we follow our current trajectory. The only difference is: Which of our future generation shall we devastate the most?
Meanwhile, as we do the Amazon rainforest on land, so we rape the oceans and the seas, directly, by highly effective machinery from chain saws to trawlers, to drain pipes of pulp mills, to floating islands plastic, as if there is no tomorrow. Many previously major species have been fished out of commercial existence, and poaching, such as shark-finning, kills off up to 90 million sharks a year, of which over 200 species are endangered. At the rate we're going, perhaps there will be no tomorrow after all.
Imagine an ocean without whales, dolphins, seals, sharks, cod, octopus, lobsters, crabs, nor a single coral reef. It will still look breath-taking from a beach at sunset, but our soul will be filled with that ocean's desolate emptiness.
Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com (AM's 3rd-book-in-the-making)
Monday, July 18, 2011
Ocean's 11th Hour
The oceans of Planet Earth currently contain about a quarter million species of marine organisms, which together constitute the Marine Food Pyramid and the Marine Food Web. If we do not change our ways, radically and fundamentally, immediately or sooner, we stand to drive over 90% of them, or more than 225,000 species, to extinction, and that is from the oceans alone.
Worse if we look at the Marine Food Pyramid in terms of its 6 Trophic Levels (TLs), namely:
- TL1. Phytoplankton (otherwise known as "Producers", which convert solar energy and CO2 into organic matter and oxygen),
- TL2. Zooplankton (which feed on the Phytoplankton and other Zooplankton, e.g. krill),
- TL3. Primary Consumers (which feed on plankton e.g. carols, and feed on krill e.g. small fish and baleen whales),
- TL4. Secondary Consumers (which feed on the Primary Consumers, e.g. medium fish, cephalopods e.g. squid, etc.),
- TL5. Tertiary Consumers (which feed on the Secondary Consumers, e.g. large fish) and
- TL6. Quaternary Consumers (which feed on the Tertiary Consumers, e.g. Great White Shark, Giant Squid, all marine mammals, and humans).
Of this 250,000-species global treasure the Marine Food Pyramid/Web, all the fishes on all levels and pathways combined number only 15,000 species, and all the marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals) total only about 120 species. And all of these advanced species will likely be among those that would go extinct, as will likely be most the corals and most arthropods (krill, crabs, lobsters).
The mechanism of marine ecological collapse is two-fold: ocean warming, which is unfavorable to plankton growth, and ocean acidification, which is detrimental to all organisms with skeletons composed of calcium carbonate, which means all species with skeletons, including most phytoplankton species, krill, the crustaceans, and all corals).
The pH of the oceans has dropped (acidified) from 8.2 to 8.1 since industrialization, and susceptible species have begun to die off. By pH 7.8, all plankton species will be impacted, and with their decline, or demise, so will the species on the higher trophic levels, all the way up to the top sharks, the seals, dolphins, whales, even the humans.
This is not all speculation and computer modeling. It has happened before, and can happen again. We are talking about Earth's Mass Extinction bouts, in #6 of which we are as we speak deeply entrenched. 50 years ago, the planet was losing about 20 known species a day; today, we are losing over 100 known species a day, meaning possibly ten times that many unknown species. And when it is all said and done, we will have lost over 1.5 million known species, and many times that many unknown species, land, air and sea.
When we talk about mass extinctions, the End-Cretaceous Extinction 64 million years ago, the one that wiped out all the dinosaurs - Mass Extinction #5 - comes to mind. But first, at about a 50% extinction rate, it is not the most severe among the Big 5, eliminating "only" about 50% of Earth's species including all the dinosaurs, and second, it is not caused by global warming, but by an asteroid.
The worst of them all was #3, the End-Permian Mass Extinction 251 million years ago, which drove some 75% of all land species and 95% of all marine species, including all the corals, to extinction. And it was caused by global warming resulting from geological activities associated with the break-up of the super-continent Pangaea.
The conditions are right for Mass Extinction #6 being a repeat of Mass Extinction #3, or even to out-do it.
This won't be immediate, at least not in the human time frame - perhaps a century or two, or three, but it will happen if we follow our current trajectory. The only difference is: Which of our future generation shall we devastate the most?
Meanwhile, as we do the Amazon rainforest on land, so we rape the oceans and the seas, directly, by highly effective machinery from chain saws to trawlers, to drain pipes of pulp mills, to floating islands plastic, as if there is no tomorrow. Many previously major species have been fished out of commercial existence, and poaching, such as shark-finning, kills off up to 90 million sharks a year, of which over 200 species are endangered. At the rate we're going, perhaps there will be no tomorrow after all.
Imagine an ocean without whales, dolphins, seals, sharks, cod, octopus, lobsters, crabs, nor a single coral reef. It will still look breath-taking from a beach at sunset, but our soul will be filled with that ocean's desolate emptiness.
Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com (AM's 3rd-book-in-the-making)
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text: It's been more than four years since Boeing unveiled the 787 Dreamliner. In that time, the company has achieved as many setbacks as milestones. But after spending billions building the plane and racking up billions in orders, the company delivers its first composite airliner to a customer today. But long before today's handover to All Nippon Airways, Boeing started training the pilots who will fly the company's most advanced airliner ever. Much has been made of the 787's advanced technology — its composite airframe, the fuel-efficient engines, even the windows dimmed at the touch of a button. But Boeing has put just as much thought into the technology used to train the pilots. We recently visited Boeing's flight training center south of Seattle to see what it takes to become a 787 pilot. We couldn't spare the time needed for a proper training session, so we settled for a two-hour overview of a program that can take as long as three weeks. Anyone who's flown a Boeing 777 can get up to speed with the 787 in as few as five days as the two airplanes share a type rating for pilots. A pilot with no experience in a Boeing airplane will need as long as 22 days to receive a type rating and master the 787. No matter their experience level, none of them will actually fly a 787 during training. It's all done electronically. There are no books to study, airframes to inspect or airplanes to fly. From learning about the airplane's hydraulic system to making a virtual walk around pre-flight inspection to even learning how to take off, pilots learn everything needed for their type rating without ever even seeing a real 787. At one of the 787 training centers it all happens inside a nondescript office building south of Seattle. This is where pilots learn the difference between traditional airplanes that use bleed air to power systems and the 787 that uses generators. They work through checklists and practicing landing the Dreamliner in a severe crosswind, in the clouds, and with an engine out. But even before they learn how to fly a 787, they learn what the cockpit is like. And they do that sitting in an office cubicle. Above photo: Boeing, All other photos: Jason Paur/Wired.comThe computer-based training is the first step in the transition to flying the 787. The system, set up in an ordinary office cubicle, provides a full-size basic layout of the cockpit, including pictures printed on paper of the center console and overhead pane, to help pilots familiarize themselves with the vast array of buttons, switches and instruments. Pilots sit through several lessons simply learning what information is displayed on the heads-up display and learning about other vital cockpit tools. The pilots sit in their traditional locations in the cockpit — the captain on the left, first officer on the right — so they immediately begin working together, practicing the procedures and mastering the cockpit flow that allows them to work together seamlessly.Boeing asked its customers what they wanted in the 787, and then asked them what they wanted in the training program pilots would follow. One thing it heard repeatedly was a request to provide greater choice and flexibility in training programs. So Boeing borrowed a concept from the airlines and created a system similar to a frequent flier program. "Every time you buy a 787 airplane you get points," says Roei Ganzarski, chief customer officer for Boeing Training & Flight Services. "And with those points you can go online and choose any 787 training we have." Boeing believes this will allow airlines to tailor training to their specific needs. There are 787 training centers in Seattle, London, Singapore, Tokyo and Shanghai, with more on the way. Customers are given a certain number of points with each 787 purchase. They can use some of their points for a shorter transition course for a 777 pilot, or they can use most of them for a pilot who is new to the airlines. If there are extra points left over they can be used later for the recurrent training pilots go through every six months, or special training such as polar flight.Not all training is limited to the cockpit. Anyone who has been through an airport has probably seen pilots walking around airplanes making a pre-flight inspection. Pilots rely on the maintenance crew to do most of the work, but one of the two pilots will personally inspect everything that can be seen from the ground. Part of the computer-based training includes a virtual walk-around similar to what you might experience in a video game. The pilot will approach the plane and make the same inspection he'd perform in the real world, using the same checklist used during routine flights. This photo shows the inspection of the front landing gear. Pilots must identify various parts of the landing gear, inspect them and check them off the list. When a more detailed view is needed, embedded photos supplement the image.After spending as long as 12 days at the computer-based training workstation learning all of the systems, flows and inspections of a 787, pilots transition into learning how to fly the plane. The 787 flight training device provides an accurate representation of the actual flight deck, complete with a control yoke, power levers, glass panel displays and some of the switches and buttons — mostly those used to operate the autopilot. Other switches have been upgraded from the printed photos used in earlier training to touchscreen glass displays that allow pilots to receive feedback confirming whether or not they have correctly flips the right switches. Unlike the static computer-based training, this simulator can be flown. Although it "flies" just like the real thing, the point is not to recreate the actual sensation of flight. The goal is to build upon what was learned in computer-based training by using it in a flight-like environment.Another focal point in developing the 787 training program was using common software in all of the training devices. This makes it far easier to update everything. In the past, something so simple as updating the software in the various training devices meant pilots may discover information learned on a computer-based training system varied from what they had to know flying the full-motion simulator. "We wanted all suites of training on a common platform," Ganzarski says. "Once we make an update to one tool, all tools will be updated." The fixed-based trainer mimics the four main glass-panel displays found in the 787, as well as the aircraft's heads-up display and electronic flight on the pilot's left.There are two reasons training is done in a virtual environment. The first is cost. Boeing could train pilots by putting them in a 787. Pilots could power up the airplane, learn where all the buttons and switches are located and learn how to operate the airplane. And those same pilots could take to the air with instructors to learn how to fly in and out of real airports. But that would, of course, be absurdly expensive. More importantly, it would not allow pilots to simulate the countless emergencies they must prepare for. Simulators were developed to provide a safer and more cost-effective means of learning to fly new aircraft. But the full-motion simulators themselves cost more than $10 million to purchase and can be billed at a rate of more than $1,000 per hour. This is why pilots learn the basics on a PC in what amounts to a really cool office cubicle. It allows them to master essential skills without racking up big bills in a full-motion simulator.The final stage of training occurs in a motion based simulator that precisely replicates the 787 cockpit and the experience of actually flying the plane. The full flight sim, known as a "Level D" flight training device, can recreate any weather condition from blue skies to blowing snow, day or night, along with any type of mechanical failure or aerodynamic situation to challenge pilots. It sits atop six hydraulic arms that can move the cockpit in roll, pitch and yaw. To recreate the sensation of acceleration, whether during take off, in a turn or in an unusual attitude situation, the simulator uses acceleration onset cueing to fool the brain into believing you're actually flying. To do this, the hydraulic arms move the device with the same initial acceleration as would be experienced in the real aircraft. The brain registers the acceleration felt and combines it with the visual clues of motion represented on the screen inside the simulator. As the pilot performs a turn or some other maneuver, the visual clues continue to feed the brain the information that the airplane is moving in accordance to the initial acceleration, though the device itself may be resetting at a rate below what is perceptible to the brain.Inside the simulator — shown above on pause on final heading into Boeing Field for runway 13R — pilots work with an exact replica of the 787 cockpit. Everything they touch is exactly what they'll touch in the real airplane. Each pilot has a heads-up display as well as the four main glass-panel displays. A fifth glass panel sits at the front of the center console. The computer screens at the bottom of the image are used by the instructor to manipulate all aspects of the training flight.From the runway at Boeing Field south of downtown Seattle, you can see Mt. Rainier in the distance as you accelerate down runway 13R. In a nod to its real-world test facility located at the airport, the very first 787, airframe ZA001, can be seen in its usual spot outside Boeing's flight test department. By the time a pilot is sitting in the left seat of the full-motion simulator, everything about the 787 is almost second nature. Now they're learning how to fly the plane and how to handle inclement weather and a long list of emergencies. "We throw everything from upset recovery to engine fires, engine failures, dual engine failures" says Captain Patrick Garrigan, lead flight instructor on the 787 program, "it gets pretty exciting." During our visit, Boeing let us make two flights in the 787. For the first, we would be hand-flying the entire time. A glance at the electronic flight bag to the left shows our weight at 369,600 pounds, which according to the calculations gives us a rotation speed (~takeoff speed) of 135 knots. During the takeoff pilots typically use three reference speeds, V1, Vr and V2. The first, V1, is the max speed at which the pilot must take the first action in order to stop the aircraft within a required distance. It also is the speed at which the pilot can continue the takeoff should he lose power in the critical engine. Vr is the speed at which the nose gear lifts off and is commonly referred to as the rotation speed. And V2 is the speed at which the airplane can safely become airborne with just one engine. On our flight the speeds were 132 knots, 135 knots and 146 knots respectively. As we accelerated down the runway, the computer called out V1 at 132 knots. At 135 knots Capt. Garrigan said to gently pull back on the yoke and the airplane gently began to rotate. Moments later we were airborne. From the moment the power levers were pushed forward, the whole experience felt just like the real thing.The glass-panel displays in the 787 can be reconfigured by pilots to display a wide range of information. Pilots can start with simple checklists on a display or call up anything from the flight and navigation information to systems and engine data. The screens can also be split horizontally and vertically as seen above. On the primary flight display at left is a typical layout, with basic flight information on the top screen — including the artificial horizon spanning the entire screen, with the airspeed tape on the left (indicating 143 knots) and the altitude tape on the right (indicating about 1,270 feet). The vertical speed is to the right of the altitude and shows a descent of 650 feet per minute. The PFD is split horizontally, with the compass and navigation information shown on the bottom of the screen. The right hand screen -- the MFD -- is split vertically to show an enlarged version of the approach navigation along with engine settings and flap and trim indicators.The same basic flight data displayed on the PFD also appears on both heads-up displays, or HUDs used by the pilot and co-pilot. The HUD allows pilots to gather vital flight information during critical phases of flight without looking down at their instruments. We flew an instrument approach back into Boeing Field and the HUD greatly increases the situational awareness for the pilot by allowing constant visual contact with the runway along with the airspeed and altitude. A friendly voice also reads out the altitude in feet, "fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, ten" as you approach the runway. After holding a steady landing attitude the autothrottles reduced the power and we made a reasonable touchdown. After deploying the thrust reversers and applying the brakes, you feel the deceleration as the seat belt keeps you in place. For the second flight Capt. Garrigan showed us a more advanced flight using all the technology aboard the 787. To give a small taste of the challenges a pilot in training might face he dialed in a 45-knot crosswind from the west (200 degrees) and said there may be a mechanical failure of some sort in our future (we doubt the pilots get such a helpful warning).To make it a bit easier and to demonstrate what the airplane is capable of, our job was to just monitor everything on landing. The autopilot would bring us to the final approach, and the airplane's autoland capabilities would be put to the test. Everything was going great with the autopilot having no problem handling the extreme cross wind. About four miles from the runway we had an engine problem and Capt. Garrigan said to shut down the right engine. So with the flip of a switch on the center panel we were down to one engine. Now, in addition to the significant crab angle to counter the crosswind, the airplane was pulled further to the right by a dead engine creating a lot of drag. The extreme angle meant the airport was nearly off the HUD screen (it's just to the right of the '143' on the left side of the display). Despite losing an engine and the strong crosswind, the autoland system put the 787 gently down on runway, right on the center line, maybe even smoother than the first landing. Our only job was to apply the brakes to bring the airplane to a stop. Real 787 pilots will train how to perform these maneuvers themselves in addition to using automated systems. And it would probably be at night, in a storm with some lightening thrown in for a bonus distraction. Most of the time spent in the full-motion simulator is spent coping with aircraft malfunctions or problems — and often multiple malfunctions and problems. Simply flying the airplane straight and level in nice weather doesn't take long for the experienced pilots to figure out. By the end of their training, 787 pilots will have spent several several four-hour sessions inside the full-motion simulator. All of the data, audio and video is recorded for use during debriefing sessions. Depending on where they will be flying, pilots receive the appropriate type certificate for the Boeing 787 and are then licensed to fly it. As is the case with most modern airliners, a pilot's first flight in a 787 will most likely occur with passengers aboard. Don't panic, though — they'll be making the flight with an experienced instructor pilot with them. All Nippon Airways had several pilots flying in a 787 used for flight testing, allowing them to accumulate real-world experience they can pass on to other pilots before the airline begins carrying passengers aboard Dreamliners next month.Photos: Jason Paur/Wired.comSee Also:- Passenger-Ready 787 Dreamliner Is Ready to BoardFeds Sign Off on Boeing's 787 DreamlinerBurt Rutan's Boomerang: Safety Through AsymmetryBush-Plane Competition Spurs InnovationBoeing Puts Another Behemoth in the SkyVideo: Sparks Fly as Boeing 787 Drags Its Tail

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Recommended Stories
Biden's 'unity' task force rolls out its vision for health care reform
The updated policy includes the previously floated idea of lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 60, as well as some new additions.
COVID-19 costs and workers' comp: The fight continues
As the COVID toll climbs, sick workers and families of the dead face another daunting burden: fighting for benefits from workers' compensation systems.
Primary care is coming to a Walgreens near you
The pharmacy chain has struck a deal with VillageMD to open primary care clinics in 500 to 700 of its stores over the next five years.
Resource Center
Case Study
Sponsored by Picwell
How to Improve Financial Wellness Without Sacrificing ROI
Discover how one company and its employees improved their financial wellness with a successful consumer-directed health strategy.
Case Study
Sponsored by Picwell
Help Clients Improve Financial Wellness Without Sacrificing ROI
Show clients how one company and its employees improved their financial wellness with a successful consumer-directed health strategy.
White Paper
Sponsored by TrueConnect
How Employers Enable Financial Freedom (Without Just Paying Wages)
Don't forget about workers' financial wellness when you consider your benefits offerings.
BenefitsPRO Broker Expo 2020Event
Get More Information
Don't miss crucial news and insights you need to navigate the shifting employee benefits industry. Join BenefitsPRO.com now!
- Unlimited access to BenefitsPRO.com - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
- Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
- Exclusive discounts on BenefitsPRO.com and ALM events.
Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Modern Classic
SLRs Series :
Nikon FA, 1983-1989
Nikon has long been portrayed as a conservative company, despite the fact that it has had a long and clear leadership in the professional camera market since the introduction of the Nikon F in 1959. When the Nikon FA was introduced in 1983, (along with the Nikon FE2 and FM2n) it raised the corporate image as it was truly a revolutionary camera. It will be most remembered for it's innovative metering system - an early testbed for the current and much copied 'Matrix Metering' system commonly found in many Nikon AF cameras as well as those of competitors. It was also the first Nikon camera body that had shutter priority and program automation exposure control.
This was in addition to the traditional favoured aperture priority AE and fully manual exposure control. Furthermore, TTL OTF flash metering enhanced the FA's flash capability and made the FA the most sophisticated multimode manual focus Nikon ever. To supplement the FA's immense capabilities, a host of other changes occured during the early part of the eighties. Firstly, a new line of Nikkor lenses called the AI-S (Automatic Indexing Shutter) and a new dedicated motor drive MD-15 were introduced. Depite all these, the FA still retained its backward compatibilitiy with the huge Nikon system.
Affectionately called the 'Techno-camera ' by its followers worldwide, it deserves a detailed briefing here and fully justifies a claim as a true classic camera of modern times.
This site is currently made out of 9.1 MB filles (288 items in gif, Jpeg, PDF and HTML files).
Camera Detailed Operation (13 Parts) and Other Related Info (8 parts),
Other Technical Issues: Part I | Part II Camera Instruction Manual - HTML | PDF (1.4 MB)
Main Reference Map for Body - HTML | PDF (731k)
Specifications - HTML | PDF (245k)
The AI-S Nikkors (related info | TTL OTF Flash Metering | Interchangeable Focusing Screens. The MD-15/MD12/MD11 Motor Drives | Flash Units -SB-16 | SB-15 | SB-10 | SB-16B & Other Options | Databacks | Titanium Shutter |
* Alternate 3rd party products: Soligor Power Winder | Y.I.C Power Winder
Nikon FA Variation : Mr Y K Wong from Singapore contributing many NEW images on his Nikon FA GOLD
| Back | to Pictorial History of Nikon Rangefinder/SLR/Digital cameras
| Message Board | for your favourite Nikon FA camera
| Message Board | for your Nikon Optics in a shared environment
| Message Board | Specifically for Dispose or Looking for Nikon / Nikkor Photographic Equipment
Shared Resources: MD-11 | MD-12 | 3rd Party Power Winder Only for FM2(n)/FE2/FA | Focusing Screens | Titanium Shutter | Flash Units - | SB-15 | SB-10 | SB-16B & Other Options | Databack | Nikkor lens mount (related info)
Others:- Nikon AF-TTL Speedlights | SB-20 (1986) | SB-22 (1987) | SB-23 | SB-24 (1988) | SB-25 (1991/2) | SB-26 (1994) | SB-27(1997) | SB-28 (1997) | Nikon SB-29(s) (2000) | Nikon SB-30 (2003) | Nikon SB-600 (2004) | Nikon SB-800 (2003) Nikon AF-TTL Speedlight DX-Series: Nikon SB-28DX (1999) | SB-50DX (2001) | SB-80DX (2002)
Nikon BC-flash Series | Original Nikon Speedlight
SB-11 | SB-12 | SB-14 | SB-140 UV-IR| SB-15 | SB16A | SB-17 | SB-18, SB-19 | SB-21A (SB-29) Macro flash | Flash Accesories | SF-1 Pilot Lamp
Nikon F | Nikon F2 | Nikon F3 | Nikon F4 | Nikon F5 | Nikon F6 | Nikkormat / Nikomat | Nikon FM | Nikon FE/ FA | Nikon EM/FG/FG20 | Nikon Digital SLRs | Nikon - Other models
Nikon Auto Focus Nikkor lenses:- Main Index Page
Nikon Manual Focus Nikkor lenses:- Fisheye-Nikkor Lenses - Circular | Full Frame | Ultrawides Lenses - 13mm15mm18mm20mm | Wideangle Lenses - 24mm28mm35mm | Standard Lenses - 45mm 50mm 58mm | Telephoto Lenses - 85mm105mm135mm180mm & 200mm | Super-Telephoto Lenses - 300mm 400mm 500mm 600mm 800mm 1200mm |
Index Page
Special Application lenses:
Micro-Nikkor Lenses - 50mm~55mm -60mm 85mm -105mm 200mm Micro-Zoom 70-180mm
Perspective Control (PC) - 28mm 35mm PC-Micro 85mm
Dedicated Lenses for Nikon F3AF: AF 80mm f/2.8 | AF 200mm f/3.5 EDIF
Depth of Field Control (DC): 105mm 135mm
Medical Nikkor: 120mm 200mm
Reflex-Nikkor Lenses - 500mm 1000mm 2000mm
Others: Noct Nikkor | OP-Nikkor | UV Nikkor 55mm 105mm | Focusing Units | Bellows-Nikkor 105mm 135mm
Nikon Series E Lenses: 28mm35mm50mm100mm135mm | E-Series Zoom lenses: 36~72mm75~150mm70~210mm
MF Zoom-Nikkor Lenses: 25~50mm | 28~45mm | 28~50mm | 28~85mm | 35~70mm | 36~72mm E | 35~85mm | 35~105mm | 35~135mm | 35~200mm | 43~86mm | 50~135mm | 50~300mm | 70~210mm E | 75~150mm E | 80~200mm | 85~250mm | 100~300mm | 180~600mm | 200~400mm | 200~600mm | 360~1200mm | 1200~1700mm
Tele-Converters: TC-1 | TC-2 | TC-200 | TC-201 | TC-300 | TC-301 | TC-14 | TC-14A | TC-14B | TC-14C | TC-14E | TC-16 | TC-16A | TC-20E
Recommended links to understand more technical details related to the Nikkor F-mount and production Serial Number:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-153.html by: my friend, Rick Oleson
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/fmount.htm by: Hansen, Lars Holst
| Back | Main Index Page of Nikkor Resources
| Back | Main Index Page of Pictorial History of Nikon SLRs
| Message Board | for your Nikkor optics ("shared" because I do wish some of you to expose to other's perspective as well. Isn't it a sad sate to see photography has to be segmented into different camps from the use of various labels)
about this photographic web site
Home - Photography in Malaysia
A contributing effort to Michael C Liu's Classic Nikon Site.
Credit: Chuck Hester for some of his beautiful images used in this site; Ted Wengelaar®, Holland for his continuous flow of input; Lars Holst Hansen, Danish 'Hawkeye' who shares the same passion; Mr Poon from Poon photo for their input; Ms Miss Rissa (Sales Manager) & members of the Technical Service dept. of Shriro Malaysia, local distributor of Nikon cameras in Malaysia & Singapore, in providing so many useful input to make this site possible. Special thanks to Mr MC Lau, who has helped with his images of the MF-12 databack. Michael Tan, Pertama Photo (603-2926505) for lending his original Titanium Shutter Display Unit. Dave Hoyt who has prepared the introductory page and offer some images of his FE2 in this site.. Hiura Shinsaku, Nikomat ML, Japan for his contribution on all the various images; A contributing site to a long lost friend on the Net. Note: Certain content and images appeared in this site were either scanned from official marketing leaflets, brochures published by Nikon and/or contribution from surfers who claimed originality of their own work to publish in this site based on educational merits. The creator of this site will not be responsible for any discrepancies that may arise from such possible dispute except rectifying them after verification."Nikon", "Nikkormat", "Nippon Kokagu KK" & "Nikkor" are registered tradename of Nikon Corporation Inc., Japan. Made witha PowerMac.


text:
RA's Ryan Keeling journeys to The Hague to meet one of electronic music's most fascinating and prolific figures.
Wolfers' mammoth discography can also be explained by his relationship to the music making process. During our interview it was at times difficult to draw him on the specifics of his approach, which was less to do with obtuseness and more down to the role it plays in his life. It's as though I was asking him to explain how he got out of bed or did his weekly shopping. Whatever the exact specifics when he's in the moment, Wolfers prefers to regularly vary the set-up and combinations of his vast array of outboard gear and, perhaps surprisingly to some, is by no means wedded to purely analogue technologies.
When were you first drawn to the possibilities of electronic music production?
It was in the early '90s when house came up and it was something special and magical. On MTV there would be documentaries or little items about these guys using a TB-303, saying [house music] could be made in a bedroom on a cassette tape and I thought, "That's cool, I want to do that too." I guess it was around '92 and of course I had the Commodore Amiga already by then. It played a big role in electronic music in the early '90s, a lot of people used it with the programme called OctaMED and there were other programmes too like Protracker or even like a Cubase-style programme.
There was an Amiga computer magazine at one point and they gave away a free copy of OctaMED...I think [the Amiga] has been very important in the history of early '90s electronic music. A lot of people were using Amiga for all kinds of music styles. Jungle music played an important role. Also, hardcore gabba music in Holland, which was one of the main machines, also techno like Unit Moebius from The Hague. They made their first tracks on an Amiga with OctaMED. Really a lot of artists... I think Aphex Twin used it.
So you already had an Amiga: had you been listening to much electronic music at that point?
Yeah, slowly, because it was like an exciting new thing in my early teen years so I thought, "OK, this is cool." Not rebellious, but something fresh. For a boy it was very exciting to hear music made with computers or electronics, you know. Back then people were saying, "computer bleeps is house music." That's how I actually started: slowly on the Commodore Amiga, not this one [points to an Amiga on desk] because this is a 1200 but it was a 500 with a copy of OctaMED. You could sample sounds and then play it. Basically the Amiga is also like a sampling sampler, so you could use it like a sampler and sequencer and make tracks from there.
Did you have fairly serious aspirations to make tracks from the beginning?
In the very beginning, of course one should always have aspirations. Then quickly it didn't amount to much, but I just kept on dabbling. I thought, "OK, I'm going to make a house record." It was quite difficult because [back] then there was no internet. You had no idea how to make [house music]. I also didn't know anybody who did it so I was all alone and into that. I would go to the library and get books about synthesisers but they were from the early '80s, saying you need to get a Jupiter 8 or something, but of course it's impossible to afford that if you're 13. So I just kept on dabbling and slowly I created some tracks.
When did you realise there were other people in The Hague doing a similar thing?
Well, there was a radio programme back then. National radio was still pretty good and they would broadcast weird stuff. There was a Friday evening show... I don't know what it's called anymore but it would play house and techno records and Ferenc [I-f] would also play there as well and then they had an item about Unit Moebius: I thought, "This is from the Hague, that's weird," because I thought [the music was only coming from] Detroit or Chicago or whatever. People were only into rock music here. So then I heard about that and that there was Bunker Records, then a few years later I got a release on that label.
Did you have teachers within the label?
Not so much technically, because at that time I was already quite advanced with the machines.
to make a house record."
When did hardware synthesisers enter into your life?
It's difficult to say. I guess 1993 or even '92. I went to Rotterdam with my dad to buy a Yamaha DX-21 FM synthesiser, which is an advanced version of the DX-100—like a double DX-100. But I didn't have any clue what it was back then. I thought you could make acid sounds with it, but you can't really do that with a Yamaha FM synthesiser. It's also very difficult to programme so it's a really very horrible first thing to buy. But it was all I had. I was very disappointed when I bought it because it couldn't make any acid sounds like a Juno. Of course it had some house sounds like the organ and the solid bass, but then I taught myself how to programme it in the night when I came back from school. I would spend hours trying to figure out how to programme it.
Were you captivated by the possibilities of synthesisers very early on?
Yeah, yeah it was very exciting as something to do and I was very involved with it...well, I'm still very involved with it. It was a true passion, yes.
To bring things forward somewhat, what is a typical day like for you in the studio?
I probably would just make some coffee, eat some breakfast, then probably do some administrative stuff... I never really have musical ideas beforehand, but when I'm sitting behind the synthesiser, I open up a channel and then I can start. I never go into the studio and think, "This is an interesting idea," and write notes. I don't do that. It comes while I'm making it.
Has experimentation always been the basis of your approach?
When I was little I played piano and violin, but that's had no influence over this stuff because I have forgotten how to play. [These days] I start working on a track and then it just automatically comes. It's always different. I use different machines. I set up my stuff in different locations. I also use different mixers all the time. I guess for a techno or house track the beat is very important. I'd probably start with the bass and from there I just look for weird dreamy sounds or whatever, and then I just start making a track.
Have you always programmed your own patches?
I like to programme synthesisers to a certain extent but I'm absolutely not against presets because I use a lot of presets, like from the Korg M1 or the DX-100, there's a lot of my own sounds but sometimes I use some legendary house presets. You know these people that say, "urgh, he uses presets." If it's just a sound, who cares? It's what you play with it. The piano is also a preset.
You must be pretty good at spotting when other people are using presets by now?
Definitely from everything up until the year 2000. I don't know much about new synth workstations.
Is there much from the past ten years that interests you?
A lot: as you can see here I've got the microKorgs which I'm a huge fan of. They have a lot of synthesis capability and also the sound I kind of like—it's like woolly, in between an old Roland sound, like a Jupiter mixed with....they're like little work horses. If you have a computer editor you can do amazing stuff with it.
Do you have a preferred type of synthesis?
I'm definitely an expert on FM synthesis. I can programme the DX-100 and I've totally mastered it if I say so myself. Also the D-X7: I have one of those too but I like the four operator ones because they sound more characteristic than the D-X7.
Have you ever dabbled in modular synthesis?
Absolutely not. For me it's the most boring thing. I have the MS-20 analogue sequencer and the MS-10, but modular synths don't fit in my work flow. They're also really expensive. A guy would have a $5000 modular system and the only sound he makes with it is [makes raspberry noise] sound. Most of the time they're also not polyphonic. I think modular synths are more like a hobby for synthesiser dabblers, you know. I'd rather want to have a good workstation ROMpler, like the Korg Microstation here [points] because you can really use that to make tracks and you can make much more interesting sounds with it also I think. Of course you can buy amazing modules and make them sound really weird but it also doesn't work quickly enough for me because you have to patch the cables and there's no memory.
Are you still using the Amiga for sequencing?
I always have different ways of working. Maybe for one week I'll work only with the Amiga connected with an 808 through the MS-20 and then I'll do something else to keep it fresh, because I'm not somebody who can sit in the same studio all the time—then I get bored and there's no more inspiration.
Have you always paid close consideration to your environment?
Yeah, I guess so because at one time I had this huge studio with every fucking synth possible and a giant mixing board, like a Tascam, automated. It was a huge thing with lots of channels, a real pro thing. You're sitting there and you think, "I'm going to make house and techno music with this?" Most house and techno classics are made on this Tascam 4-track or even mixed with a DJ mixer or something.
I thought as an artist, you had to have the most equipment and the most expensive compressors...well, this is basically bullshit because you can use anything, even just a laptop or something to make a great record. So I gave my mixer to Brian (Orgue Electronique), I sold a lot of synthesisers because I wasn't really using them. Then I just started using this Inkel audio mixer which I got for €20. It's really simple, but it's all I need. You don't need 32 channels to make a house record; I was only using like three channels on this giant mixing board.
When did you make this realisation?
I don't know, I guess a few years ago. I still have my studio. In the synthesiser world, people want prestige, the more synthesisers you have, the more prestige you have, always. Especially on those forums, a very masculine, macho thing, the same with a car hobby or something. Especially with modular synthesisers, it bores the crap out of me.
Is this something you've been guilty of yourself?
Oh yes, certainly. I guess everybody has.
Do you regularly find yourself hitting limitations with these older technologies?
I'm combining them with a lot of new technologies actually. I've got very modern synthesisers here like the Microstation and I also use computers a lot and combine them. I use different software—I use Ableton, Reason, all kinds of stuff too.
I wasn't actually aware of that.
Yeah, people always think I'm an analogue old school cat but I like to combine stuff, I like changing my set-up all the time. I also use different programmes, one week I'll be using Ableton and then I use Reason for another week.
Is this more of a mental thing to keep yourself fresh or are you looking for a different type of result?
I think both. To keep it adventurous, you know.
Are there certain aesthetics you're drawn to in electronic music?
I like dirty sounds, that's why I record a lot of stuff on cassette tape, on a 4-track Tascam. I used to record on reel-to-reel tape but that's very expensive to buy now. A reel tape costs €30/€40. If you record high speed you can record three tracks on there. I make a lot of tracks every week, so I would have to spend like €300 on tape a week. I either record directly into the computer or on cassette tape. I also like using old dirty mixers, for example this little Behringer mixer here, it can sound really dirty too actually. That's also with this synthesiser elitism macho thing: they always piss on Behringer.
Behringer, it's the whipping boy isn't it?
This little mixer is really, really nice and it's got really good effects, but it's not cool to say that. It actually can sound really lo-fi. It's better than a lot of other mixers. Using certain filters I can feed stuff to the MS-20—lots of people do that I guess.
I've read that delay is very important to you.
Yeah, indeed. Delay is one of the fundamental things of my music. I'm not sure why, maybe I can devise a theory about that. It makes music more alive and even if you do it very subtly, you cannot even hear it, but then these musical dimensions get doubled or they expand into time with delay... but then we're getting into a mystical realm of music...
overrated things I think."
What do you turn to for delay?
All kinds of stuff, but this old analogue Inkel has built-in delay, like an analogue delay. Most synths have delay now, and even the Behringer has a pretty good delay, but I also have lots of delay boxes.
It may have even been in the same interview but there was something you mentioned about a particular EQ setting that you find yourself going back to where the upper-mids were...
Mid sweep. I like to get a sharp sound but also kind of wooly. Actually I cannot do it right here because these mixers set up here don't have any mid sweep. I actually try to leave it because it can be too much sometimes.
Do you pay much attention to the engineering side of things? Do you ever master your own records?
Sometimes but I don't really...mastering is one of the most overrated things I think. I don't have an opinion about mastering... I'm mostly into the sound and the music itself. It's the mystical realm that I like.


text:
Richard Solomon Representative Blog.
Richard Solomon, artist rep for Gary Kelley, Mark Summers, Chris Payne, Greg Manchess, Jim Bennet, and many other illustrators considered the best in the business, has started a blog. Sadly, their first entry is about the NYC crane collapse that destroyed their offices.
There was a tremendous amount of artwork lost in the accident, much more tragically, a number of lives were lost. The only saving grace is that it occurred on Saturday, when very few people were in the building. I've known Richard and his group for years...had this happened 24 hours earlier, I shudder to think of the loss it would have been.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Richard Solomon Group Blog
Richard Solomon Representative Blog.
Labels: Gary Kelley, Illustration News
3 comments:
- ces said...
That is heartbreaking.
My condolences to Richard Solomon, to all of his employees, & to the families that lost loved ones.
And my condolences to all those families who lost loved ones in the accident.
I like a game which you need use dofus kamas to play. If you want to be online to play this game, I can borrow kamas to you. When you have cheap kamas, and than you can go on this game. Of cause, when you are first to play, you can dofus gold. If you have enough buy dofus kamas, you will be able to different games.
Do you like playing the game where you need to use shaiya gold, when you do not have shaiya money, you must borrow cheap shaiya gold from friends, or you can not go on this game without shaiya online gold. If you buy shaiya gold, you can continue this game.


text:
A huge, huge giveaway of tax money to giant corporations is rolling down the tracks at us. If it happens, this tax giveaway would be second only to the bank bailouts on the list of schemes to give money to private corporations. (Except, with the bailouts we got some of that money back.)
Giant, multinational companies owe us up to $700 billion in taxes they have been avoiding paying. Now they say they'll let us have some of the tax money they owe us if we let them off from paying it all. For some reason, just telling them to pay their taxes is off the table.
How The Scam Works
Here's how this particular tax-avoidance scam works. Companies that make profits outside of the U.S. owe taxes on that money the same way they owe taxes on money made here. But a loophole lets them avoid, or "defer," paying those taxes until they "bring the profits back into the U.S.," also known as "repatriating" the profits.
The idea behind letting them defer taxes is that the companies might need to invest in things outside the U.S. that make them even more money later. This is a win-win for all of us because American companies making more is better for us and means even more tax revenue later.
But many companies have started scamming on that deferral loophole by just keeping profits outside the country, period. They're not using it to invest, they're just scamming to avoid taxes. Even worse, many companies are inventing all kinds of ways to make it look like profits made here are made outside the country.
This scam of moving profits out of the country has gotten so bad and has been going on long enough that more than $2 trillion is now held outside the country. At the top 35 percent tax rate this means up to $700 billion in taxes already owed are being kept from use by We the People. Even worse, this gives these scamming companies a financial advantage over good, patriotic companies that pay their taxes.
Pfizer, For Example
Pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer is one of these companies that has shifted profits out of the country. It "strips income" out of the United States so they can report it as foreign earnings. Pfizer actually reports a loss in the U.S. while reporting huge profits outside the U.S. even while charging much higher prices here. To put it another way, "while 124 percent of its before-tax profits were foreign, only 57 percent of its sales have been outside the United States."
So the outside-the-U.S. cash has piled up. According to a New York Times report, "In its most recent annual report, Pfizer reported $69 billion in foreign profits indefinitely reinvested overseas, and each year's profits generate more cash."
Pfizer is not alone by a long shot. The NYT report says, "for most American multinationals, a lot of income from foreign sources is really American income in disguise. Most large multinationals use aggressive transfer pricing and other techniques to strip income out of the United States."
Now Pfizer is trying to take over a British company, AstraZeneca, in an "inversion" deal. The idea is that Pfizer changes from a U.S. company to a British company by taking over the smaller competitor. They are betting this means never paying those taxes they already owe.
Budget Deficit Extortion Deal
Republicans and the corporate elite have been working to convince the country that we're broke because this leads to certain policy conclusions that benefit them. For years there have been well-funded campaigns (Fix the Debt, etc.) to get everyone scared about budget deficits.
So after cutting taxes for the rich and then cutting taxes for the rich and then cutting taxes for the rich and their corporations, all the while massively increasing the military budget (much of which goes to wealthy corporate contractors), they say we have a budget problem and the country is in dire straits because of deficits (caused in part by companies avoiding paying up to $700 billion in taxes owed).
Because of this supposed problem Republicans have been holding up everything the government might do to help citizens and our economy. We've suffered cuts in everything government does to make our lives better. They have cut education, food stamps, even cutting basic scientific research. They got rid of unemployment benefits for people out of work a long time. They even cut Meals on Wheels!
Never Miss a Beat.
Get our best delivered to your inbox.
Now, after the "we're broke" campaign these companies are pushing an extortion deal: they will let us get our hands on a little bit of the money they owe us if we let them off from paying all of it now, and don't tax them anymore in the future. While Republicans are requiring that anything spent on We the People be "paid for," they'll let us "pay for" some of it if we let these companies keep hundreds of billions of taxes they already owe.
It is difficult to come to grips with the sheer audacity of this. These companies withhold paying the taxes they owe. They fund campaigns to convince us to cut back, and fund politicians that impose austerity on us. Then they say if we want some money to do a few things, let them out of paying most of what we owe.
Pay For Infrastructure?
In June there is going to be an infrastructure fight in the Congress. Our infrastructure is in dire straits and we have to start paying to maintain it. This is the right thing to do, the country needs it, we need the jobs. A modern infrastructure will boost our economy. But there is going to be a fight over how to "pay for" it.
Never mind that fixing up our infrastructure is an investment that pays for itself. First, the jobs this creates move people off of "safety net" programs, get them paying taxes again, stop foreclosures and help local economies. Second, all of the companies involved and their suppliers are boosted and they are paying taxes again. Third, when the infrastructure is fixed up, that boosts our economy for decades and that boosts jobs and increases tax revenue.
But now that people are demanding that Congress start fixing up our infrastructure, the big companies see an opportunity. There is a $2 trillion pot of corporate cash being help outside the country, representing up to $700 billion of tax money. Companies are using this as a way to extort a few (or more) hundred billion dollars from the public. "Hey, I know where there is a big pot of cash you can tap."
There are two ways to tap that cash.
The first, of course, is to tell these companies to just pay their taxes. This would bring in up to $700 billion that we can use on infrastructure. The ripple effects from all of the future economic growth – the job creation and business-boosting – will boost tax revenues into the future.
The other is to give in and let these companies off the hook for the taxes they owe, and allow a "repatriation tax holiday" or various other schemes that let them bring the money back without paying all of the taxes they owe.
Democrats are correct to say that we should be spending big time on infrastructure, and that we should pay for this in an aggressive way by collecting the tax money these companies owe us anyway. Democrats should go to the public and make the case for spending on jobs, not on big corporate giveaways.
It's our money. These companies already owe these taxes.
A Simple And Fair Solution
I'd like to propose a simple and fair solution to this deferral problem. Congress should impose a 5-percent-per-year fee on deferred income. Let them keep the money out if they say they need to, and let them defer paying their taxes. But just have them pay a modest 5 percent fee to do it. If a company has a good reason for keeping profits out of the country, a 5 percent fee won't be a problem.
This would bring in $100 billion a year all by itself if they decide to keep the $2 trillion out.
This should not be a deductible fee; it should be 5 percent per year. That way, they pay all of the taxes they owe when they do bring the money back. If they keep the money out for seven years we would collect the full 35 percent owed in taxes and they'd still owe 35 percent on the money they bring back.