Slashdot Mirror

The reason why so many people have accepted as blind faith the axiom that free trade is automatically good is that the Big Money has funded more economists, columnists, talk radio hosts, etc. This vast Big Money media has for decades used words and slanted, biased, flawed studies to create a worldview friendly to "free" trade, regressive taxes, and an ever-smalled social safety net, along with increased illegal and legal immigration.

Samuelson is a reminder that there are lots of economists who think free trade is a scam. But the average American rarely hears from them. Why?

After 3 decades, the Big Money media machine owns many of the ideas in your brain, and owns the public debate. They bought the public debate with 2 billion dollars of foundations and think tanks. See more about the Tentacles of Rage from Harpers magazine article this month.

Okay, according to here the count is at least 282 executives who were involved in siphoning money off of Enron. According to here there were a total of three Enron execs who had given in to the guilty plea as of 24-Aug-04

That's here and here.

And it's 292. So the FBI's batting 1% on the big players who've cost American investors multi-millions in fraud. Go get 'em boys! Score 1 for the People!

Giving up a mega-million dollar high profile job is pretty bad punishment

<wry smile> I'm sure his amassed wealth will help to assuage the pain while he's on the golf course.

ALL the Sr. Enron execs who came up the the scams are convicted and doing time except Lay (so far). You really should check your facts.

Okay, according to here the count is at least 282 executives who were involved in siphoning money off of Enron. According to here there were a total of three Enron execs who had given in to the guilty plea as of 24-Aug-04.

Those rich people are really taking a pummelling. Whew. I bet it's getting hot out there on the golf course.

Giving up a mega-million dollar high profile job is pretty bad punishment

<wry smile> I'm sure his amassed wealth will help to assuage the pain while he's on the golf course.

ALL the Sr. Enron execs who came up the the scams are convicted and doing time except Lay (so far). You really should check your facts.

Okay, according to here the count is at least 282 executives who were involved in siphoning money off of Enron. According to here there were a total of three Enron execs who had given in to the guilty plea as of 24-Aug-04.

Those rich people are really taking a pummelling. Whew. I bet it's getting hot out there on the golf course.

link.
very interesting actually.

Gays have exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else. Heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa. If it is so natural, why can't they procreate?

A lot of people can't procreate regardless of which gender they might be interested in. I gather then, you would be in favor of anyone who is sterile should also be barred even from heterosexual marriage. Our past ignorance can enshrine a special status for marriage now only by blatant bigotry and predjudice.

The "traditional" definition of marriage includes a HUGE erroneous assumption at its base. It is inherently prejudicial in that it presumes that every human individual is either a "man" or a "woman." It is now clearly seen to be an erroneous assumption that gender is a binary state. The "definitions" that are sorely in need of reexamination are far more rudimentary than "marriage"-- that of "man" and "woman."

For example, how should the term "marriage" apply to an individual who is completely hermaphroditic, such as in a dyzygotic chimera? How about an individual who is only partially intersexed, such as an genetic XXY individual, pseudohermaphrodite or someone with an endocrine or hormonal disorder? What about someone who is transgendered via a medical procedure? And what if such a procedure wasn't voluntary, such as when newborn males with small penises are thought to be females, surgically "corrected" and grow up believing they are females only to find out later (perhaps at puberty, or even later) they are otherwise male? Who gets to decide what gender and consequently, what rights they have to marry (anyone) and on what basis?

Does marriage simply not apply to some of these individuals? What do you do if one of these persons ends up inadvertently married to the "same" gender but who had honestly believed they were "opposite" genders when they got married and found out later that perhaps they are not? How "male" does one have to be to be considered "male" enough to marry as a male? 51%?... 80%?.... 95%?.... What does it mean to have such a fundamental social institution that simply doesn't apply to certain people? How willfully ignorant will you have to continue to be in order to argue for a definition of marriage that ignores these issues?

Can we simply ignore the issue because it's only a minority population of individuals with indeterminate or intermediate gender? How large would such a population have to be to be taken into consideration regarding "marriage?" How do you determine if someone is a member of such a population-- what means are to be used for determining intermediacy and how intermediate do you have to be to be considered one of such a group? What if the only "intermediacy" you have is that you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Apparently, even that is too much intermediacy for "marriage" to apply, at least in some quarters-- suggesting that the required percentages of "maleness" or "femaleness" required for marriage are quite high.

And finally, does love have anything at all to do with marriage given the restrictions some people would apparently apply?

IMHO-- How better could we undermine the institution of marriage then to withhold it from certain classes of persons? How could we make it more irrelevant to society at large than to pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming it an exclusive club? Watch what you wish for...

The ignorant dinosaurs who yearn for a black and white world can try to ignore these difficult issues, but even the passing of a constitutional amendment isn't going to make them disappear, facts don't disappear merely because you prefer to ignore them...

Can a small ring of metal cut radiation from hands-free kits[www.mindfully.org] here is a link to microwave propagation along hands free kits (originally from news scientists) - mod the parent up -- informative.

I call BS.

Here's another article snip (from a Newsday article):

What the world is running out of is economical, pre-pressurized deposits that ooze oil just by digging a little below the surface. There will always be oil deposits, the question is at what cost.

But that's ok, we know we're not running out of oil anyways. And if we don't conserve any oil and don't make a single machine more efficient in the next 50 years, when we run out of the stuff in the ground, we can always just recycle ourselves some more.

Oh, so how much has Halliburton made in Iraq? Here's one link. Do you really want me to believe that there aren't qualified organizations based in the Middle East for working in oil fields? How about the rest of Europe?

Also, ever hear of OPEC? You know, the guys setting oil production rates in the Middle East? Seems to me, whenever they limit production, world oil prices go up, no matter which one you buy from. Stands to reason that, if the U.S had Iraq ignore the production limits set by them, you could reduce their control on oil prices, even halfway around the world in the U.S, let alone in Saudi Arabia.

Your ignorance, as well as your patriotism, is stereotypical.

Course, that article was written nearly a year ago and I have yet to hear anything about it in the news. Strange, considering the rising cost of gas, you'd think this would be front page news.

I especially love the public service announcement at the end:
Mindfully.org note: ... If you must drive your own car, please drive one that gets great mileage--28mpg or above in the city and above 50mpg highway.

Right, because there's lots of cars that get 28mpg city and 50+ highway.... in fact I can count the number on one hand, least the ones currently available in the US. Wonder if all the people working at mindfully.org take their own advice and drive hybrids or motorcycles?

Hopefully not for long.

(4) Monsanto/Scott thinks that you are responsible for their inability to control their products.

Crops contaminated by GM organisms

GM Canola spreading out of control

Farmers are now suing Monsanto in self-defense, and even suing each other:

Litigation in the Wind

And it's not just pesticide resistance that is spreading:

New Scientist Article

Many crops are being engineered to produce pharmaceuticals now. Yes, chemicals with active functions in the human body. Slashdot had coverage of this in a recent story:

Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice?

Without taking a political position, let me just point out that the English word marriage already has a definition: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". Any attempt to redefine that word based on political correctness smacks of "whims and prejudices" to me.

The point is not whether or not there is an existing definition, but that the existing definition is prejudicial in that it doesn't apply equally to everyone.

In fact, the above definition of marriage is inherently prejudicially exclusive in that it presumes that every human individual is either a "man" or a "woman." The prejudice is in the erroneous assumption that gender is a binary state which is clearly false. The definitions that are sorely in need of reexamination are far more rudimentary than "marriage"-- that of "man" and "woman."

How then, does the term "marriage" apply to an individual who is completely hermaphroditic, such as in a dizygotic chimera? How about an individual who is only partially intersexed, such as an genetic XXY individual, pseudohermaphrodite or someone with an endocrine or hormonal disorder? What about someone who is transgendered via a medical procedure? And what if such a procedure wasn't voluntary, such as when newborn males with small penises are thought to be females, surgically "corrected" and grow up believing they are females only to find out later (perhaps at puberty, or even later) they are otherwise male? Who gets to decide what gender these people are and on what basis?

Does marriage simply not apply to some of these individuals? What do you do if one of these persons ends up inadvertently married to the "same" gender but who had honestly believed they were different genders when they got married and found out later that perhaps they are not? How "male" does one have to be to be considered "male" enough to marry as a male? 51%?... 80%?.... 95%?.... What does it mean to have such a fundamental social institution that simply doesn't apply to certain people?

Can we simply ignore the issue because it's only a minority population of individuals with indeterminate or intermediate gender? How large would such a population have to be to be taken into consideration regarding "marriage?" How do you determine if someone is a member of such a population-- what means are to be used for determining intermediacy and how intermediate do you have to be to be considered one of such a group? What if the only "intermediacy" you have is that you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Apparently, even that is too much intermediacy for "marriage" to apply, at least in some quarters-- suggesting that the required percentages of "maleness" or "femaleness" required for marriage are quite high.

And finally, does love have anything at all to do with marriage given the kind of constraints some people would apparently apply?

IMHO-- How better could we undermine the institution of marriage then to withhold it from certain classes of persons? How could we make it more irrelevant to society at large than to pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming it an exclusive club? Watch what you wish for...

Those who yearn for a black and white world can try to ignore these difficult issues, but even the passing of a constitutional amendment isn't going to make them disappear...

What part of the economy can we be competitive in with the current trade agreements. We have a 500 ***billion*** trade deficit right now!!!!!!

The problem with NAFTA and the WTO is that we gave away the farm. We didn't insist that other countries rise to our level (i.e., with labor standards, environmental standards, etc.) and as a result, we're grossly mismatched. You can't expect any part of our economy to compete with another country that doesn't have similar regulation. Just not going to happen.

As a matter of principle you did insist on a rise in environmental standards with NAFTA. Hence the formation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

However in reality, NAFTA has worked as a tool for lowering of environmental standards, in all countries involved, due to the way it allows big business to sue governments for protecting the environment & health of its citizens. See: Billion Dollar NAFTA Challenge To California MTBE Ban, Canada's First Province-Wide Ban of Cosmetic Pesticides Threatened Under NAFTA, and Metalclad vs. Mexico: The Toxicity of NAFTA's Ruling.

On the other hand, sometimes governments do steal property from businesses, or intimidate them, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Cronyism and corrupt officials exist everywhere, at all levels (not just the rich), so NAFTA's mechanisms are not entirely without merit.

The danger to workers in the USA isn't unfair trade relationships with other countries. It's inappropriate relationships with wealth and power in your own country. Next time you notice a huge trade or budget deficit, at any level, ask yourself this: if every government in the world is in debt at the same time (and that is possible), who do they owe it to? What does that mean in terms of power and influence? And is that good for workers?

transport it to the ethanol plant

Hell, I'm pretty sure that most of my dad's cousins still have an "ethanol plant" hidden back behind the barn.

what you'll make your fertilizer from

spent mash, corn waste, hay. Feed it to the "fertilizer plant", get bacon whenever you "upgrade" the factory.

how you'll get your ethanol to your hydrogen plant all without using any fossil fuels...

RTFA. The unit does that for you.

Ethanol can be produced from agricultural by-products as well (such as corn-cobs and stalks, rice and wheat straw, etc.), not just whole grain. Alongside renewable natural gas, this technology could reduce farm waste and agicultural surplus problems, reduce America's dependance on fossil fuels, help balance the trade deficit, and help family owned farms stay in business while reducing the cost of energy for the end user. All good things, IMHO.

A lot of people will be crying at the demise of the oil import giants, but I am certainly not one of them.

Is anyone else amazed by the fact that industries as old as railroads are still doing shit as fucked up as this? This isn't the first railroad to get on slashdot for being jackasses.

Yeah, Gattaca is on TV right now and I'm watching

another reason to be concerned is that biological effects often manifest at *very* low doses.

take for example endocrine disruptors (substances that mimic hormones in your body). read this excerpt from the Chemical Messengers [That Work in Parts per Trillion] chapter in the book Our Stolen Future:

"What is astonishing about vom Saal's wombmate studies is how little it takes to dramatically change the tune. Hormones are exceptionally potent chemicals that operate at concentrations so low that they can be measured only by the most sensitive analytical methods. When considering hormones such as estradiol, the most potent estrogen, forget parts per million or parts per billion. The concentrations are typically parts per trillion, one thousand times lower than parts per billion. One can begin to imagine a quantity so infinitesimally small by thinking of a drop of gin in a train of tank cars full of tonic. One drop in 660 tank cars would be one part in a trillion; such a train would be six miles long.

The striking lifelong differences between a pretty sister and ugly sister stem from no more than a thirty-five parts per trillion difference in their exposure to estradiol and a one part per billion difference in testosterone. Using the gin and tonic analogy, the pretty sister's cocktail had 135 drops of gin in one thousand tank cars of tonic and the ugly sister's 100 drops-a difference that might not be detectable in a glass much less in a tank car flotilla.

This is a degree of sensitivity that approaches the unfathomable, a sensitivity, vom Saal says, "beyond people's wildest imagination." If such exquisite sensitivity provides rich opportunities for varied offspring from the same genetic stock, this same characteristic also makes the system vulnerable to serious disruption if something interferes with normal hormone levels-a frightening possibility that first dawned on vom Saal when Theo Colborn called him to talk about synthetic chemicals that could act like hormones."

some studies have even shown that as the dose is lowered toxicity increases and as the dose is increased toxicity approaches zero! this turns our traditional understanding of toxicity on it's head.

read these two issues of Rachel's Environment & Health News for an intro to toxicity:

#754 - Paracelsus Revisited, October 17, 2002
#755 - Paracelsus Revisited -- Part 2, October 31, 2002

low dose endocrine disruptors are only beginning to be investigated but compelling evidence already exists that indicates they may have significant health impacts.

makes me also wonder about the myriad undiscovered toxic effects of chemicals that we brush off today as nothing to be concerned about.

>> You dont need nuclear weapons for that. Look at Japan. Heck even cuba doesnt have nuclear weapons. They all manage to stand up to US "bullying". And now after being nuclear power also, successive Indian govts vie (with pakistan) to be "better friend" of US rather than saying anything against their "bullying tactics".

Japan is virtually a colony of the west. Their constitution (whose drafting was overseen by the US) does not allow their military an offensive role, so they depend on the US for their external security. They have a colonial mindset where everything American and Western is preferred and many of their women prefer caucasian men
Cuba only survives because Castro has been extremely quiet after the fall of the Soviet Union and the US has bigger things to worry about.

>> There were many reports pointing the lack of safety in Indian nuclear power plants including some official/semiofficial agency report.
You mean like this, this, this, this, this or this?

Krishna

... was probably either R.U.R. or Frankenstein, depending on your definition of a machine.

Oh, for those trolls who might want to respond, "Yeah, but that was a hundred years ago..." might do well to read this link. Here's a short excerpt;

For the first time, an American judge has ordered a U.S. corporation to stand trial for alleged human-rights violations committed by a joint-venture partner overseas. In a case with potentially far-reaching implications, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney ruled from the bench Monday that Unocal Corp. may be held liable for the conduct of the government of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, Unocal's partner in the Yadana gas field in southern Myanmar. A trial is scheduled for September on the allegations raised in the suit, which was filed by several Myanmar villagers in 1996. They charge that they were forced to work on the oil project in slave-like conditions by Myanmar's military.

Wrong, the vast majority is attributable to smaller engines with largely unregulated emissions.

Emissions from coal-fired power plants & automobiles are tightly controlled through scrubbers, catalytic converters, etc that don't exist in smaller engine designs... your average weed-wacker, lawn-mower, leaf-blower, chain-saws etc are all guilty.

Actually, that was done by Karl Capek, a Czechoslovak Science Fiction writer, in the story RUR Rossum's Universal Robots, in 1920. It seems that ``robot'' was Czech for ``worker'', and Capek gave it its curent meaning.

please spend some time reading about plastic before you respond to this post:

Plastic
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/plastic.htm

An article from last year says the price for the current top of the heap, the NEC Earth Simlator, cost roughly $350 million to build, and IBM's ASCI White, another contendor, was around $110 million.

Look at this beauty from last session: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Terrorism-Lif e-OR-SB742-27feb03.htm This bill would define almost anyone, anywhere, as a terrorist and send them to prison for life without possibility for parole.

You see the damndest things related to terrorism. Check this out (from the second line of the bill):

Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001.

Terrorism and the mark of the beast in a government document. Nice. (It appears two more times in the document as well.)

What blows me away is the list of crimes which are now terrorism (if I read the bill right -- the list starts on line 16 of the second page, with SECTION 3). A small sampling:

Bribe giving
Bribe receiving
Public investment fraud
Bribing a witness
Bribe receiving by a witness
Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the first degree
Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the second degree
Theft in the second degree
Theft in the first degree
Aggravated theft in the first degree
Theft by extortion
Theft by deception
Theft by receiving
Theft of services
Unauthorized use of a vehicle
Mail theft or receipt of stolen mail
Possession of burglar's tools
Unlawful entry into a motor vehicle
Computer crime (what the hell is that??? file sharing?)
Unlawful labeling of a sound recording
Unlawful recording of a live performance
Unlawful labeling of a videotape recording
Unlawful use of a weapon
Prostitution
Promoting prostitution
Compelling prostitution
Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor
Unauthorized use of a livestock animal
Driving while under the influence of intoxicants
Unlawful distribution of cigarettes

Note that number (132) is itself "Terrorism" so perhaps I'm really not reading this right -- maybe it is simply adding the crime of Terrorism to the already-existing 666 chapter of section 19...

The annual meeting of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers is going on this week in Denver . It includes a sub-conference of technical types who are trying to slow down purchasing and installation of the new machines until they are made more secure. Meanwhile, ignore Jonik's comment.

Below is a link to the article referenced in the parent post.

The Economics of Empire

Michael.

Compared to Toronto, a.k.a. The Megacity?

> the Sierra Club referred to these things as "Cuisinarts of the air"

ah, that convenient misquote from the Cato Institute, who are not known for their accuracy and impartiality. The Sierra Club denies ever saying it.

> But what types of birds are killed in cities ... ?

cars, buildings and cats claim all types, from songbirds to raptors. Wherever birds are, they are part of the local ecosystem.

> I'm ... suggesting that the best solution for energy generation is one that maximizes return.

Return of what? Smog? If it's return on investment you are after, WindShare is offering its members very good returns.

> ... at least some folks are saying that the ecological drawbacks to mass-scale wind-power right now are large

Let me tell you about one of the power stations running in my province, Ontario. Nanticoke, on Lake Erie, is the largest coal burning plant in North America, and one of the single biggest polluters. It's kept running for two reasons:

1. the promised nuclear reactors refits are running years late and billions over budget. Nanticoke is tiding them over, while New York State is lodging a formal pollution complaint about Ontario's coal plants.
2. the US's power infrastructure is in such chaos due to overconsumption and underinvestment that Nanticoke sells a lot of its power south. Most of its smog goes south, so I suppose that's only fair.

The last two points are from memory, from reading Power: Journeys across an energy nation, by Gordon Laird (ISBN: 0140290036). My numbers may be slightly off.

The negative environmental impact of wind energy is nothing compared to that of traditional non-renewable energy methods. Wind is "What You See Is All You Get" -- no smog, no radiation, no weird stuff.

That's the mistake that some of them made last time - they voted for the Greens (Nader). Had that not been an option, most of their votes would undoubtedly have gone to Gore, who would have won by an even larger percentage. A vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Alfred E Newman .

neither Watson nor Crick have discovered or published anything significant since then.

This is true in Watson's case, unless you count blatantly sexist, racist, unsupported "research" as significant.

Which we don't. Can you believe this guy received a Nobel Prize?
He's done at least one other "publication" like this, too.

Shock me. How much?

Greenpeace researchers discovered records listing Pepsi as the exporter of about 4,500 tons of plastic scrap in 23 shipments during 1993... Much of the waste was dumped at the site of a factory owned by Futura Industries in Tiruvallur, outside of Madras... The senior manager of the Futura plant, Dr. L.R. Subbaraman, ... reports that Futura has imported a total of 10,000 metric tons of plastic waste from Pepsi and other companies since 1992." [article written in September 1994]

Much of the waste was dumped at the site of a factory owned by Futura Industries in Tiruvallur, outside of Madras. "As we came over the hill in our auto-rickshaw, we saw a mountain of plastic waste," recounts Madras environmentalist Satish Vangal, one of the researchers who discovered the site. "Piles and piles of used soda bottles stacked behind a wall. When we got closer to the factory, we found many bottles and plastic scrap along the road and blowing in the wind. Every bottle we saw said 'California Redemption Value.' They were all from California's recycling program and now they are sitting in a pile in India!" explains Vangal. "We have enough problems dealing with our own plastic wastes; why should we import other peoples's rubbish?"

In brief:

Forests: The FAO data series is the only long run series available.

Fisheries

Lomborg's deceptive "doubling" is based on the fact that fishing operations now rely heavily on landing species that were considered "trash" in the 1970s, and on landing juveniles because the full-sized fish are now increasingly scarce.

So you admit that Lomborg is right and fishery catches have actually doubled? Does it matter that fish eating habbits have changed or been forced to change? As for landing juvenilles, that's just evolution in action.

Biodiversity: The largest tropical study of the correlation between rainforest and the extinction of species was carried out in Puerto Rico by Ariel Lugo of the United States Department of Agriculture. He found that the primary forest had been reduced by 99 percent over a period of 400 years. 'Only' seven out of 60 species of birds had become extinct although the island today is home to 97 species of birds.

Global Warming: Are you sure Lomborg's position is a straw man? He never says that the Kyoto accord is a 100 year treaty but merely quotes the IPCC numbers and says that if the Kyoto accord is implemented in full, the IPCC projections will only be delayed by 6 years.

Water: Quite right that the plant has not yet been built -- there's no pressing need for it! Throughout history, humans have demonstrated a lot of intelligence and ingenuity. I have absolutely no doubts that when a large scale desalination plant is required, my guess is that the prices will be close to what Lomborg predicts (higher than what Lomborg predicts, but much, much lower than current rates).

Two points before I end this:

1. Lomborg does not claim to be a scientist. He has merely placed an alternative interpretation on existing data.

2. This quote from one of his critics Stephen Schneider:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this
context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some
broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to
offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This
'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989,
see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996, http://cyclotron.aps.org/apsnews/0896/11592.html).

You think third world villages a really aware or concerned with the dangers high tech litter has?

India already has a lot of pollution control mechanisms. Plastic bags are banned in many Indian smalltowns. Delhi's buses are court-mandated to run on LPG alone.

There are a lot of implementation issues yes, but the pollution problem is getting serious attention in India nowadays.

Berkeley, CA runs recycling trucks on this stuff.

There is a place in SF where you can buy it for your car. $3 or something a gallon (bit pricey, even for our ridiculous $1.75 87).

-Sean

This rather misses the point (in addition to being a bit optimistic). A brief glance at Greenpeace highlights the dangers in long-distance radioactive fuel transport. Trafficking and sabotage of nuclear fuel shipments are the potential source of major disasters, alongside abysmal safety records for fuel storage and reprocessing.

Nuclear power has too many 'collateral' problems, not least in the way it helps the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It's time to ditch it.

You'd think ICAAN wouldnt have the nuts to make such an obviously self-serving decision in light of the OBVIOUS conflict of interst. It realy is sickening that these Corporate Whores would insult the public with such drivel... im amazed.

This by no means is DIRECTLY related, but it remind me of the fact that ENRON got to selecting their own regulators in the energy commission.

Coruption in America is starting to become almost a Banana-Republic-like comedy.