[Biofuel] Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report Posted: 03/19/2013 7:38 pm EDT By Zach Carter WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan cadre of House lawmakers will move on legislation to deregulate Wall Street derivatives Wednesday, less than a week after Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) released a devastating report on the multibillion-dollar derivatives debacle at JPMorgan Chase. The road to hell is paved with these bills, said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), an advocate of financial reform. The House Agriculture Committee will mark up several derivatives bills on Wednesday despite opposition from a coalition of public interest and consumer advocacy groups known as Americans for Financial Reform. The effort to weaken regulation of these sophisticated financial instruments follows multiple in-depth autopsies of the London Whale debacle at JPMorgan, which has already cost the company $6.2 billion and tarnished its reputation as a prudent risk manager. It also comes less than three years after the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, set a host of new standards for the derivatives business, including heightened transparency and reduced taxpayer support. In a statement provided to The Huffington Post, Levin expressed exasperation at the House efforts. Last year, some members of Congress supported watering down Dodd-Frank derivative safeguards, but abandoned those efforts after the world learned that JPMorgan Chase had lost billions of dollars on derivative trades made out of its London office, Levin said. It is incredible that less than a week after new JPMorgan Whale hearings detailed how the bank's London office piled up risk, hid losses, and dodged regulatory oversight, that some House members are again supporting the weakening of derivative safeguards. Derivatives were at the heart of the 2008 financial collapse. The preferred financial vehicle for a host of risky bets on the U.S. mortgage market, they created artificial demand for subprime mortgages, encouraging banks and mortgage brokers to extend loans to doomed borrowers. Derivatives pushed insurance giant AIG to the brink of bankruptcy and proved a hotbed for abuse on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs famously settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for betting against the very derivatives it created and sold to its clients. Yet in an era of partisan gridlock in the nation's capital, Democrats and Republicans have come together to repeal or weaken those rules. Although Obama may not want to sign a standalone package of Wall Street deregulation into law, bipartisan legislation could be inserted into a broader bill that the president might find difficult to reject. Many of the supporters of the latest derivatives bills are longtime anti-regulation Republicans, including Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). But some Democratic supporters point to constituents off Wall Street when asked about the legislation by HuffPost. A staffer for Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Ill.) said that her bill was designed not to pad banking profits, but to relieve regulatory burdens on other companies that do business with banks. You have these huge corporations -- I'm just gonna use Caterpillar because I guess you know they're in our district. They do business in Russia and Canada. They do mining and sell huge pieces of equipment that take years to construct ... and they need to hedge those risks, said the staffer. Moore's bill would allow a company like Caterpillar to trade derivatives with its offshore affiliates -- firms that it owns in other countries -- without posting money to a third party guaranteeing that it can make the trade. Exempting such trades from oversight could also help foster tax avoidance, however, since companies have used sham derivatives transactions to dodge the Internal Revenue Service. Such activity is usually illegal, but the IRS has been short on resources to investigate and combat it. Requiring companies to post monetary guarantees creates an upfront cost to sham transactions that may serve as a deterrent. We have not taken a position on, nor advocated for this bill, Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan told HuffPost. According to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office, Caterpillar operates 49 subsidiaries in countries classified as tax havens, including 13 in Bermuda alone. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) is sponsoring a bill to help exempt companies that trade derivatives with public utilities from Dodd-Frank's business conduct standards. He said this would save money for the utilities and argued that his bill should not be considered as part and parcel with other derivatives legislation. I don't have an opinion about the other bills, Garamendi told HuffPost. I'm
[Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/the-nra-wins-again.html The N.R.A. Wins Again March 20, 2013 By Alex Koppelman After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a place where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some optimism among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats and Republicans could see the light—and the suffering—and revive the assault-weapons ban. It was a futile hope. Less than a week after Adam Lanza shot up an elementary school, it was already basically clear that an assault-weapons ban could not pass Congress—that it probably couldn’t even get through the Democratic-controlled Senate, never mind the House. So it was hardly a surprise when, three months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the ban would be removed from a larger gun-control package that is making its way through the upper chamber and given a separate vote that it will not survive. The scale of the defeat suffered by the ban’s supporters, though, is shocking. This wasn’t a close call; it was a body blow. On Tuesday, Reid told reporters that, “using the most optimistic numbers,” the ban sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat of California, will come to the floor with “less than forty” yes votes. If that’s true, it means that of the senators who were on the fence and might theoretically have been persuaded to support the legislation—there may have been as many as fifteen of them, and perhaps more—Feinstein and her allies lost almost every single one. Those gun-control supporters who tend toward the glass-half-full side of things can reasonably view this as Feinstein et. al realizing that the real goal of the post-Newtown anti-gun push was a law making background checks universal—that the ban was just a sacrifice offered up to ease that law’s path through Congress—and letting any Democrats nervous about the backlash against a pro-ban vote off the hook. There’s another way to interpret Reid’s vote count, though. Even after Tucson, and Aurora, and Sandy Hook, the N.R.A. won. Even with polls showing a majority of the country in favor of a ban and the President publicly behind it, more than a quarter of the Senate’s Democratic caucus would have voted against it, and there may not be any Senate Republicans who would have voted for it. Three months ago, there were pro-gun senators—including Reid—who were making noises about coming around on assault weapons. To a man, it appears, they have reconsidered. All of that is, most likely, very bad news for those pushing for expanded background checks. In order to trade a ban for background checks, gun-control advocates probably needed to show that there was at least a slim chance a ban could become law. They’ve failed to do that. So now what reason do moderate Republicans—whose votes will be necessary in both the Senate and the House—have to buck their party and vote for background-check legislation that the N.R.A. strongly opposes? What reason do Democrats in battleground states and districts have to put their reëlection on the line? That it’s the right thing to do? That most people in the U.S. support it? These things have never been enough. And indeed it does seem that the background-check proposal is in serious jeopardy. At some point in the near future, probably next month, Reid will bring a more tepid package of legislation to a vote. It will likely include increased penalties for straw purchasers—that is, people who buy guns for those who are not supposed to have them—and new money for school safety. It was also supposed to include background checks. Now, according to Reid, it may not. In fact, as the Times’s Jennifer Steinhauer notes, it’s entirely possible that by the time the Senate is done amending it, a bill that was supposed to be the culmination of months of work by gun-control advocates and an expression of the national anger over all these recent tragedies will end up as pro-gun legislation. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] US Supreme Court Considers ALEC Voting Bill
http://truth-out.org/news/item/15262-us-supreme-court-considers-alec-voting-bill US Supreme Court Considers ALEC Voting Bill Thursday, 21 March 2013 15:04 By Brendan Fischer, PR Watch | News The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on March 18 to decide whether an Arizona statute that imposes restrictions on voter registration conflicts with federal law. The case could potentially decide the balance between the state and federal governments when it comes to elections and voting rights. After becoming law in Arizona, the bill at issue was adopted as a model by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The case, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, arises in the wake of the state's efforts to narrow access to the ballot box through limits like restrictive voter ID requirements, and could have wider implications for the degree of latitude states have to regulate voting. In 2004, Arizona voters approved a law requiring election officials to reject voter registration forms that did not include certain forms of documentation proving citizenship. Like many GOP-led efforts that make it harder for Americans to vote, the bill was pushed through the spectre of voter fraud. There was little evidence of any widespread practice of undocumented workers voting in state or federal elections, and critics said the real intent of the law was to shut down successful community voter registration drives. The law also imposes additional burdens on naturalized citizens by, for example, requiring they bring their naturalization papers to the voter registrar, while native-born citizens use regular mail. Arizona rejected more than 30,000 registration applications, and the law was challenged by a variety of Native American, Latino, and Asian groups, as well as voting rights advocates. In April 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Arizona law is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). That decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Appeals Court Finds AZ Conflicts with Clinton's Motor Voter Act The NVRA, also known as the Motor Voter Act, is a federal law designed to make voter registration simpler and more uniform, perhaps most notably by requiring states to accept registration using a uniform federal mail application (sent on a postcard). Arizona's refusal to accept federal voter registration forms without proof of citizenship, the Ninth Circuit held in April 2012, imposed additional restrictions beyond what was called for under the federal law. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the requirements under the NVRA and Arizona's law do not operate harmoniously and are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways. The federal law requires states to accept and use the federal form which, the court found, is thwarted by Arizona rejecting forms that do not include the additional restrictions on proving citizenship that are imposed under the state law. The federal court also spelled out a formula for judging when state election laws are preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit issued its ruling under the Constitution's Election Clause, which gives Congress the final word over election procedures. According to the U.S. Constitution, states have authority to decide the time, place and manner of holding federal elections, but Congress is also authorized to make or alter such regulations. The Election Clause is distinct from the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which is often cited as a basis for federal law preempting state law. The latter, however, generally presumes that a state law is not preempted without clear direction from Congress. Under the Election Clause, the Ninth Circuit found, Congress did not have to provide that it had a clear intention in the NVRA to override state procedures. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Arizona is arguing that the Ninth Circuit's formulation of the Election Clause was incorrect and that the state's proof of citizenship requirement should stand. Arizona's broader argument, though, is that the Election Clause only applies to the time, place, and manner of elections, leaving states the exclusive power to determine voter qualifications. Under this theory, if the NVRA were interpreted as telling states which voter qualifications to accept, the NVRA would be an unconstitutional infringement on state's rights. If the Court were to accept Arizona's argument about the narrow scope of federal power under the Election Clause, such decision could significantly shift the power between states and federal government for regulating elections. Given the recent wave of legislation that makes it harder for many Americans to access the polls, voting rights advocates fear that giving states the exclusive power to determine voter qualifications could offer some state legislators with a new legal toehold to defend voter suppression efforts.
[Biofuel] Cordray, Warren, 2014
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/289445-cordray-warren-2014 Cordray, Warren, 2014 03/20/13 07:45 PM ET By Brent Budowsky Senate Republicans are on the brink of launching a filibuster against the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the new consumer agency that will rouse the progressive base of America, inspire a chorus of demands to reform Senate filibuster rules and propel Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to a national stature from the Senate reminiscent of Robert F. Kennedy. Since his recess appointment to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it is universally agreed that Cordray has served beyond the call of duty by acting fairly, thoughtfully and honorably to protect consumers in ways respectful to business. But that is not enough for Republicans, who are punch-drunk by the power of obstructing presidential nominees to agencies and courts by abusing the rules of the Senate. The GOP attack against consumer protection that would be embodied by a filibuster against Cordray is one more example of the abuse of democratic values and practices I wrote about in my column last week: “Scalia: Recuse or resign.” In the case of Cordray, the consumer agency was created after passing both houses of Congress and being signed by the president and enacted into law in the same manner as the Voting Rights Act and the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. The Republican agenda in a Cordray filibuster would be to destroy the consumer agency itself and attack the financial well-being of consumers it protects by seeking to blackmail the Senate into rewriting the law by threatening — again — to abuse the filibuster rules. If Republicans filibuster Cordray, Democratic leaders and/or Senate liberals should call their bluff and bring the nomination to the Senate floor for lengthy debate — or if needed, a talking liberal counter-filibuster in the manner that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took for nearly 13 hours to galvanize the attention of the media and the nation. Pro-Cordray senators should make lengthy presentations, with each pro-Cordray senator discussing — in detail — why he should be supported by voters victimized by credit card abuse, homeowners cheated by mortgage abuses, military families victimized by financial corruption, active-duty troops abused by payday lenders and all Americans harmed and outraged by the countless abuses, bailouts and inequities of the great financial crises of the Bush years. Republicans lack the votes in Congress to repeal the agency or amend its rules. They lack the courage to take their case to the country in elections because they do not want to tell workers, women, consumers, veterans, troops, military families, credit card holders, mortgage holders, Hispanics, blacks and other victims of financial abuse that the Republican filibuster is lobbied for by those who abuse consumers and paid for by campaign money given to filibustering Republicans by those whose dirty water they carry. Republicans would filibuster Cordray to fool the people by cloaking their agenda to destroy consumer protections that benefit all voters. Senate Democrats should respond by giving Republicans the extended debate they say they desire and, accompanied by a presidential address to the nation, inform voters of the threats to their financial lives if Republicans succeed. When the irresistible force of Republican filibuster against consumer protection meets the immovable object of the senior senator from Massachusetts, who is a great champion of working men and women, the stage will be set for the kind of campaign that Democrats for the House and Senate can champion and win in every region of the nation. The word on the street is that Warren is writing a book with a working title of Rigged that will probably be released in 2014 as she, and Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, and President Obama, will be campaigning throughout the nation for a Democratic House and Senate. Warren, like all Americans, wants a system that is not rigged, a game that is not fixed, a finance that is not crooked, a Senate that is not obstructed and a democracy that is not bought, and so: Let the extended debate begin. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again
Good Morning all; - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 7:58:14 AM Subject: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/the-nra-wins-again.html The N.R.A. Wins Again March 20, 2013 By Alex Koppelman After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a place where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some optimism among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats and Republicans could see the light—and the suffering—and revive the assault-weapons ban. It was a futile hope. SNIP Yes, one *could* see this as a NRA 'win', for some value of 'win' whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, Or, one could see this as much ado about nothing. As this lists -pretty much only- self-admitted 'reticent gun nut', I found the entire so-called 'conversation' completely devoid of any useful information, and all of it, on both, -or more accurately- on all sides as being completely vapid and insultingly myopic rhetoric and hyperbole. The 'gun issue' is much more vast than a preposterous and pointless piece of political pandering and posturing can address, not just in a meaningful way, but in any way whatsoever. The issues surrounding the gigantic global concept known as 'small arms' are massive. The people of the country known as the united states support, as in tacitly permit and even profit from massive small arms proliferation globally. With the break up of the soviet union, the US emerged as the biggest player in this wide open market place. (not that it was doing poorly before hand). Small Arms is a big part of what might be the biggest international business there is, hand in hand with oil, the Arms Trade. which is worth trillions. And yes, it's all part and parcel of an aegis we like to call the war machine: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. --President, (General) Dwight D. Eisenhower And he'd know, of course, having done his level best to model the post-war US on the wartime Third Reich. Despite whatever level on intention, you'll not wish 'bad guns' away through regulation. You may succeed in driving them further underground, with all the joys, fun and massive profit seeking known to the illicit drug trade, just like all prohibitions and contraband. OR, We *could* if we so desired, Take an open, fearless and honest look at the problem of how we in the US benefit through our implicit and explicit use of force and make some real choices as to whether it's all worth it or no. real studies, devoid of political pressure need to be done, real honest assessments of all facets of every aspect of 'guns' needs addressing, really, and badly. This ties directly into our attitudes about entitlement, health care, automobility, wealth, power, influence, etc, etc, etc. An NRA win? Hardly A loss for all humanity? Certainly. But had things gone the other way, it wouldn't have made any difference. But it would have made a big difference to all those folks who ran out and stocked up on 'bad guns' in the hope that they would be banned because the value of them would double overnight, quadruple over a year, just like they did after the Bush ban, which also changed not a damned thing, at all. --me ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Scientists: Degradation of Planet 'Undermines' Poverty Eradication
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/21-3 Scientists: Degradation of Planet 'Undermines' Poverty EradicationNew report calls on countries to combine environmental and development goals- Lauren McCauley, staff writerDegradation of the natural world is undermining efforts to reduce poverty, scientists warn in a new article published in the journal Nature on Wednesday.A farmer in the Lobesa valley of Bhutan, which pledges to be the first 100% organic country. (Photo: 10b Travelling via Flickr)The only way we can achieve a thriving global society and mitigate the combined effects of environmental destruction and global poverty, the authors write in Policy: Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet, is for international policymakers to adopt new targets that combine the need for planetary stability with poverty alleviation goals.Humans are transforming the planet in ways that could undermine any development gains, says lead author Professor David Griggs of Australia's Monash University.Mounting research shows that the stable functioning of Earth systems – including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles – is a prerequisite for a thriving global society, added co-author Professor Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Center.This call comes in the wake of a meeting last week of the United Nations' working group on sustainable development to discuss new international targets to implement after the internationally agreed-upon poverty alleviation targets, millennium development goals (MDG), run out in 2015.The researchers argue that, in the face of increasing global degradation, the classic model of sustainable development as three integrated pillars—economic, social and environmental—does not reflect reality and jeopardizes any potential progress that could be made.As the global population increases towards nine billion people, sustainable development should be seen as an economy serving society within Earth's life support system, not as three pillars, says co-author Dr. Priya Shyamsundar from the South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics in Nepal.Rather, they propose, a set of global environmental targets should be combined with the UN's MDGs to create new sustainable development goals (SDGs). Focusing on a set of six goals, the researchers urge policymakers to embrace a unified environmental and social framework [...] so that today's advances in development are not lost as our planet ceases to function for the benefit of a global population.The Guardian summarizes the researchers' six proposed SDGs:Goal one: Thriving lives and livelihoods.End poverty and improve wellbeing through access to education, employment and information, better health and housing. It should include targets on clean air that build on World Health Organisation guidelines for pollutants such as black carbon.Goal two: Sustainable food security.The MDG hunger target should be extended and targets added to limit nitrogen and phosphorus use in agriculture; phosphorus flow to the oceans should not exceed 10m tonnes a year; and phosphorus runoff to lakes and rivers should halve by 2030.Goal three: Sustainable water security.Achieve universal access to clean water and basic sanitation. This would contribute to MDG health targets, restrict global water runoff to less than 4,000 cubic kilometres a year and limit volumes withdrawn from river basins to no more than 50-80% of mean annual flow.Goal four: Universal clean energy.Improve affordable access to clean energy that minimises local pollution and health impacts and mitigates global warming. This contributes to the UN commitment to sustainable energy for all, and addresses MDG targets on education, gender equity and health.Goal five: Healthy and productive ecosystems.Sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services through better management, valuation, measurement, conservation and restoration. Extinctions should not exceed 10 times the natural background rate. At least 70% of species in any ecosystem and 70% of forests should be retained.Goal six: Governance for sustainable societies.Transform governance and institutions at all levels to address the other five sustainable development goals. This would build on MDG partnerships and incorporate environmental and social targets into global trade, investment and finance. Subsidies on fossil fuels and policies that support unsustainable agricultural and fisheries practices should be eliminated by 2020.The research was done in association with Future Earth, an international research program designed to develop the knowledge required for societies worldwide to face challenges posed by global environmental change and to identify opportunities for a transition to global sustainability._This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Re: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again
I have become disenfranchised with all the politics on this site. What ever happened to the biofuel!?!?!? But if we are going there! The NRA did NOT win again!!! I live in the state, where the largest mass killing in a school in the US took place (in Bath Michigan.) The creep did not even use a firearm. Look it up. I have an idea what loosing a child, to violence feels like. I also know only law abiding citizens will obey the laws. They are not the ones we need to worry about. When a criminal commits murder, risking life in prison or the death penalty, he will laugh at your gun laws and thank you for making his victims easy pray! After all there are no firearms allowed in schools. That worked out real well for Sandy Hook, didn't it! Aside from the victims at Sandy Hook, who are in our prayers. If anyone chooses to be a victim and does not have the courage to protect their families or themselves. That is their choice. Don't try to force the rest of us to be victims. Let us make our own choices. I personally know many people who use assault rifles for protection as well as hunting. And if you know anything about self defense, and I do! If you are defending your life, you can never be too well armed. That is why police use the weapons in question here. The 2nd amendment is in a bill of rights, not the bill of NEEDS! It says nothing about hunting. It is very evident in it's intent. It is intended to discourage evil from outside our borders or from within. Yes! That means OUR OWN GOVERNMENT as well as other tyrants! Do a little research and you will find our forefathers, in their wisdom, would not ratify anything, without the 2nd amendment! So if, God forbib, we ever have to go there, Do you really think Joe Biden is going to lead the charge with his double barrel shotgun Even he is not that dumb! Last I checked the tyrants were already well armed with weapons far more deadly than the so called assault weapons our government wants to deprive us of. Benjamin Franklin said “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote!” I say, let us hope we never have to contest with the wolves, but let us be well prepared! NO! THE NRA DID NOT WIN AGAIN! WE THE PEOPLE WON! From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again Good Morning all; - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 7:58:14 AM Subject: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/the-nra-wins-again.html The N.R.A. Wins Again March 20, 2013 By Alex Koppelman After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a place where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some optimism among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats and Republicans could see the light—and the suffering—and revive the assault-weapons ban. It was a futile hope. SNIP Yes, one *could* see this as a NRA 'win', for some value of 'win' whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, Or, one could see this as much ado about nothing. As this lists -pretty much only- self-admitted 'reticent gun nut', I found the entire so-called 'conversation' completely devoid of any useful information, and all of it, on both, -or more accurately- on all sides as being completely vapid and insultingly myopic rhetoric and hyperbole. The 'gun issue' is much more vast than a preposterous and pointless piece of political pandering and posturing can address, not just in a meaningful way, but in any way whatsoever. The issues surrounding the gigantic global concept known as 'small arms' are massive. The people of the country known as the united states support, as in tacitly permit and even profit from massive small arms proliferation globally. With the break up of the soviet union, the US emerged as the biggest player in this wide open market place. (not that it was doing poorly before hand). Small Arms is a big part of what might be the biggest international business there is, hand in hand with oil, the Arms Trade. which is worth trillions. And yes, it's all part and parcel of an aegis we like to call the war machine: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a
