Why Not to Nuke the Oil Spill, Israels International Mess - News Headlines 2 June 2010

*** Read why not to nuke the Gulf oil spill and the many sides of the Israeli raid issue.





*** ALSO: BP Oil Spill News Updates - 2 June 2010


From Denny: This Israeli raid on the Gaza relief supplies boat ramming the Israeli blockade is an international mess like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

First of all, ramming a blockade isn't exactly the smartest move as they had to know it would bring a militaristic response. That's the usual way things happen in those situations.

According to Israel's defenders, even here in America, there are several things to consider. One is that Israel has the right to defend itself against the importation of weapons and bombs. Fair enough.

Another defense is claimed that the Palestinians actually killed their own people, claiming it was the Israelis. Looking at the massive amounts of video footage issued from both sides this claim looks murky at best; it's inconclusive.

What is evident is that Israel used excessive force even if it was a move to smuggle weapons and bombs into Israel. Forget rubber bullets. Why not use tasers? You can subdue aid workers and terrorists alike, especially in such close quarters as a boat. There would be no loss of life and an international incident avoided.

It really does make you wonder where Israel's head really is these days with the extremists running the show. They are ultra conservative, don't give a damn about respecting anyone else besides their yes crowd and they are not wise in their international dealings. In short, these conservatives will end up blowing up the Middle East at the rate they are going. Repairing international relations with countries like Turkey could take decades.

Check out this strange commentary about the Israeli raid: The Gaza Flotilla Is Not What It Seemed

As to the much talked about nuke option to seal off the ocean floor well in the Gulf, the Pentagon claims there is no serious consideration of the idea at this time. There also is no proof it would actually work and accomplish sealing off the well by imploding it. We all recognize it is a huge risk to the environment and our health on the Gulf Coast. Just think of all the thousands of new cancers that would overwhelm the health insurance industry to cover if nuclear radiation exposed millions of people.

The biggest reason the nuke option for capping the well is not considered is because it would be a violation of the treaty banning all nuclear explosions. Let's hope Obama sticks to that treaty. The people of the Gulf, and their health, is dependent upon the President's commitment to that treaty.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*** ALSO: BP Oil Spill News Updates - 2 June 2010

U.S. Officials: Al Qaeda No. 3 Killed

Is the Limitation of Liability for Oil Spills the Poster Boy Against Tort Reform?

The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Mutilated Our Economy

Rand Paul Remarks Lead Kentucky Legislature To Pass Civil Rights Legislation

Turkish PM: Israeli Raid A 'Bloody Massacre'

The Gaza Flotilla Is Not What It Seemed

Is Obama's 'cool' too cold for ravaged Gulf?



*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Wonder if Rand Paul would defend THESE folks' PROPERTY RIGHTS?

hat tip-a JJP reader based on a comment from ms martin

msmartin:

”To discuss whether or not Rand Paul is a racist is a waste of time, he clearly is; only a true and real racist would give power to racism.

If one would wish to start a debate about "property rights" I would think one would focus on eminent domain or something of that nature, I would hardly think they would start with what race of people they are required to let into their businesses. The very nature of that is purely racist, purely racist and everyone that is discussing this knows it is purely racist.

If Rand Paul wants to discuss property rights, let's get real. Let's discuss the rights of the people who owned the property that is the United States before it was stolen from many. That's a property rights discussion I would love to hear. “

In The Cross-Heirs

A loophole in real estate law pits families against developers and each other. Some say there’s more than money at stake.
Posted May 1, 2009 11:40 PM CDT
By Anna Stolley Persky

Standing on a bare stretch of beach in early February, Billy Freeman is not alone. His memories, his family, his ghosts are here with him in North Carolina, at the edge of the ocean.

It is here where Freeman played in the sand with his cousins. It is here where his family, for generations, fished, cooked and watched the tide with an intimate familiarity. And it is here where his family built Freeman Beach, nicknamed “Bop City,” a beachside haven where African-Americans could enjoy the summer months—even in the days of segregation.

“It’s a part of me,” says Freeman, 68, digging a heel into the sand, facing the cold winter wind. “We’ve always had the land. No money—but land.”

Freeman can trace his heritage and land to his great-great-great-grandfather, Alexander Freeman, a freed slave who in 1855 bought 99 acres near Myrtle Beach Sound. But Freeman and his relatives are in danger of losing part of that original plot, Freeman Beach. A developer claims to have majority ownership interest in the land and has filed court documents requesting a partition sale.



Freeman and his family are particularly vulnerable because the land has been passed down through “heirs’ property,” which means without the benefit of a will. Heirs’ property results in descendants who inherit real property as tenants in common, with each owner having an undivided interest in the land. For the descendants, heirs’ property also creates a problem—anyone who inherits or buys an interest in the land, no matter how small, can file with a court to force other owners to sell.

Some practitioners and scholars are concerned that poor and middle-income people, and particularly Afri­can-Americans, are being forced off their land through partition sales. During these sales proceedings, the heirs who want the land often don’t have the means to purchase it, so the property can go to outside bidders, such as developers. As a result, land owned by families for generations is suddenly lost.
..........................


A PROBLEM MOSTLY OF THE POOR

The issue has alarmed some legal scholars and practitioners for years. In the South, land loss among African-American families is considered a particularly significant concern.

According to the Land Loss Prevention Project, a Durham, N.C.-based organization that provides legal support to financially distressed farmers and landowners in the state, of the 15 million acres of land acquired by African-Americans after Emancipation, about 2 million remain owned by their descendants. Nationally, it’s estimated that African-American land ownership has decreased from as much as 19 million acres in 1910 to 1.5 million acres in 1997, according to the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

Read rest of article at link above.


So, here it is, PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Why do I think Paul would have nothing to say about THESE folks' property rights?

It's a damn scam. A scam to rip off Black families from their land.


Period.

This is about wealth. This is about building wealth. And Black folks being able to control their own destinies.

It's also about Black families sitting down and making sure that you have, in legal documents, what you want to happen, so that you don't allow for this predator behavior to come in and hurt your family.

Why Rand Paul Matters - Rachel Maddow Explains

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rand Paul thinks you being a 2nd Class Citizen - in the laws of the land - is quite ok.

In a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Louisville Courier Journal, Republican Candidate for the United States Senate, Rand Paul, said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This is the teabaggers' boy, y'all.

He wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They are who we thought they were. Plain and simple.

Rand Paul is as much a racist as his father is.

He can talk all the bullshyt he wants to about 'commerce clauses', but at the end of the day, he's a proponent of STATES RIGHTS, and in his world, I guess my families in Mississippi and Tennessee just IMAGINED that they were oppressed by the foot of JIM CROW for nearly 100 years.

IF you say that you wouldn't have voted for making me a 1st Class Citizen in the laws of this land, then you are saying that it's ok that I don't have those rights. I consider that non-negotiable, and you a racist.

Watch him bob and weave on the Rachel Maddow Show.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

POST CONTINUED INSIDE


This is the entire interview with the Louisville Courier Journal Editorial Board.





And, he's not just for State's Rights for Black folks....

if you're disabled.....

get in the back of the bus...oh, I'm sorry, you can't get on the bus, because it hasn't been equipped.


From Think Progress

Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act, Citing Fairness ‘To The Business Owner’


U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), a darling of the tea party movement, has gained notoriety for his extreme views and close relationships with fringe leaders like Alex Jones. Part of Paul’s appeal has been his supposed support of individuals over large interests, like the government. But Paul appeared to reveal his true priorities during an interview with the candidate in Lexington over the weekend.

Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights.