AlterNet: Beyond Keystone: Three Controversial Pipelines You Probably Haven't Heard Of!

While the national debate remains largely focused on President Obama's impending decision regarding the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, communities across the U.S. and Canada are grappling with the oil and gas industry's rapidly expanding pipeline network, cutting through their backyards, threatening water supplies, and leaving them vulnerable to devastating spills. As production booms in Alberta's tar sands and fracking opens up vast oil and natural gas deposits around America, companies are increasingly desperate for new pipelines to get their product to market. "We've so narrowly focused on Keystone that a lot of these other projects aren't getting the scrutiny they probably need," said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust. He explains that as production skyrockets and companies look to cash in, no one is really in charge of it all. "We're leaving it up to these individual companies to come up with their own solutions to figure out how to move energy and we don't have any national policy guiding those decisions." According to a recent analysis of federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data, since 1986 there have been nearly 8,000 incidents, resulting in more than 500 deaths, more than 2,300 injuries, and nearly $ billion in damage. Here are three of the most recent pipeline controversies emerging around the country: 1. Bluegrass Pipeline. Opposition is growing to the proposed 500-mile bluegrass pipeline, which would transport flammable natural gas liquids across Kentucky to an existing line that terminates in the Gulf. Landowners and environmentalists gathered at the state capital last week to protest the project, which they fear would threaten water supplies and safety. Residents were caught off guard by the project, landowner Stacie Meyer said, she noticed survey markers going up near her property and had to search the internet and consult her neighbors to find out what they were for. Locals are concerned the company, Williams Co., could use imminent domain to seize the land if opposition proves too strong. As the Courier-Journal reported, "Brad Slutskin, a Woodford County landowner who spoke at the rally, said the pipeline companies are threatening condemnation based on a loose interpretation of Kentucky law, and most property owners don't have the money to mount a court challenge." Residents opposed to the pipeline - including a group of nuns and monks who are refusing to give up their land for the project, delivered a petition with more than 5,200 signatures asking Gov. Beshear to include pipeline and eminent domain-related issues in the upcoming special legislative session, which he refused. "Knowing a pipeline is coming through, is like waving a red flag to the creatures of the Earth. God created Earth as our land to use and not abuse," Sister Joetta Venneman told local WAVE News. As the gas fields north and east of Kentucky boom, the state will likely find itself in the cross-hairs of many battles to come.       

AlterNet: By Alex Kane; % Companies That Make Money By

keeping Americans terrified of terror attacks. Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency, has invaded America's television sets in recent weeks to warn about Edward Snowden's leaks and the continuing terrorist threat to America. But what often goes unmentioned, as the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald pointed out, is that Hayden has a financial stake in keeping Americans scared and on a permanent war footing against Islamist militants. And the private firm he works for, called the Chertoff Group, is not the only one making money by scaring Americans. Post -9/11 America has witnessed a boom in private firms dedicated to the hyped up threat of terrorism. The drive to privatize America's national security apparatus accelerated in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and it's gotten to the point where 70 percent of the national intelligence budget is now spent on private contractors, as author Tim Shorrock reported. The private intelligence contractors have profited to the tune of at least $6 billion a year. In 2010, the Washington Post revealed that there are 1,931 private firms across the country dedicated to fighting terrorism. What it all dds up to is a massive industry profited to the tune of at least $6 billion a year. In 2010, the Washington Post revealed that there are 1,931 private firms across the country dedicated to fighting terrorism. What it all adds up to is a massive industry profiting off government-induced fear of terrorism, even though Americans are more likely to be killed by a car crash or their own furniture than a terror attack. Here are five private companies cashing in on keeping you afraid. 1. The Chertoff Group. On August 11, former NSA head Michael Hayden, the man at the center of the Bush administration's 2005 surveillance scandal . Commenting on President Obama's half-hearted  promises to reform some NSA practices, Hayden told host Bob Schieffer that "the President is trying to take some steps to make the American people more comfortable about what we're doing. That's going to be hard because, frankly, Bob, some steps to make Americans more comfortable will actually make Americans less safe."Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff had a similar message when he appeared on ABC News August 4. Speaking about the purported threat from an Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen that led to the disclosure of 19 U.S. embassies, Chertoff said that "the affiliate in Yemen that led to the closure of 19 U.S. embassies, Chertoff said that "the collection of this warning information about Al Qaeda came from the kinds of programs we've been discussing about, the ability to capture communications overseas." CBS and ABC did not see fit to inform that both Hayden and Chertoff are employees of the Chertoff Group, a private firm created in 2009 that companies hire to consult on best practices for security and combating terrorism. Some of the companies the firm advises go on to win government contracts. Chertoff is the founder and chairman of the group, while Hayden serves as a principal. So they profit off a war on terror they say is crucial to keeping Americans safe.

From RT: Four journalists killed covering Egypt clashes!

Four journalists were killed covering Egypt clashes. Four journalists have been killed in violent clashes which swept Egypt on Wednesday, with a number of the press core suffering serious injuries in the clashes. At least 238 civilians died in total as security forces brutally broke up pro-Morsi rallies. Egypt has been swept by horrific street violence, showers of gunfire, blazing fires and tear gas as relentless clashes have shaken cities in government attempts to break up the demonstrations. Among the 238 protesters killed were children, including the 17-year old daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood official. Police stations were torched or stormed by pro-Morsi groups amid the ruthless government suppression. The violence also took the lives of Sky News cameraman Mick Deane and Dubai-based XPRESS journalist Habeeba Abdelaziz. Both had been covering the pro-Morsi protests in Egypt's capital which security forces began to 'disperse' earlier in the day. Deane, 61, was shot as he was documenting the turmoil in Cairo. Despite receiving medical treatment for his injuries he died shortly afterwards, according to a statement from Sky. "He was an astonishingly good cameraman, took some brilliant pictures," said John Ryley, head of Sky News. Habeeba Abdelazz was a 26 year old Egyptian reporter from Dubai, who worked for XPRESS, a sister publication to the country's Gulf News. "It's hard to believe she's gone. She was passionate about her work and had a promising career ahead, "XPRESS Deputy Editor Mazhar Farooqui told Gulf News, commenting that the entire team was in a state of shock.. Abdelaziz had been covering protests for over a month, and subsequently heavy-handed crackdown by governmental security forces. They reclaimed the area late on Wednesday. The third journalist killed was Egyptian Ahmed Abdel Gawad of Al Akhbar newspaper. He died while covering the clashes at Rabaah al-Adawiya. The Egyptian Press Syndicate, a journalist union, confirmed Gawad's death, but did not provide any details. The fourth reporter to have been confirmed killed is photojournalist Mosab El-Shami Rassd of the news website (RNN), an alternative pro-Islamist media network, Ahram online reports. The agency wrote that he "was killed by the hand of betrayal while covering the Rabaa massacre at the hands of those who executed the coup," wrote the network on its Facebook page. Reuters photojournalist Asmaa Waguih also suffered serious injuries after being shot in the leg during protests. Shortly afterwards, she was moved to the international medical center to receive treatment. The Committee to Protect Journalists has released a statement on the issue, saying that the group condemned the killing of Sky News cameraman Mick Deane, prior to hearing of the second death. "We call on Egyptian authorities to issue clear orders to security forces to respect the right of journalists to work freely and safely while covering events in Cairo and the rest of the country," said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "The killing of Mick Deane underscores the urgent need for such action and for all sides to show restraint and allow the media to do their job.
  

By Noam Chomsky: The U.S. Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy,

But You'll Never Hear About it in Our 'Free Press'. The following is a transcript of a recent speech delivered Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany. You can read more speeches by Chomsky here. I'd like to comment on topics that I think should regularly be on the front pages but are not and in many crucial cases are scarcely mentioned at all or are presented in ways that seem to me deceptive because they're framed almost reflexively in terms of doctrines of the powerful. In these comments I'll focus primarily on the United States for several reasons: One, it's the most important country in terms of power and influence. Second, it's the most advanced, not in its inherent character, but in the sense that
because of its power, other societies tend to move in that direction. The third reason is just that I know it better. But I think what I say generalizes much more widely, at least to my knowledge, obviously there are some variations. So I'll be concerned then with tendencies in American society and what they portend for the world, given American power. American power is diminishing, as it has been in fact since its peak in 1945, but it's still incomparable. And it's dangerous. Obama's remarkable global terror campaign and the limited, pathetic reaction to it in the West is one shocking example. And it is a campaign of international terrorism, by far the most extreme in the world. Those who harbor any doubts on that should read the report issued by Stanford University and New York University, and actually I'll return to even more serious examples than international terrorism, by far the most extreme in the world. Those who harbor any doubts on that should read the report issued by Stanford University and New York University, and actually I'll return to even more serious examples than international terrorism. According to received doctrine, we live in a capitalist democracies, which are the best possible system, despite some flaws. There's been an interesting debate over the years about the relation between capitalism and democracy, for example, are they even compatible? I won't be pursuing this because I'd like to discuss a different system, what we would call the "really existing capitalist democracy", RECD for short, pronounced "wrecked"by accident. To begin with, how does RECD compare with democracy? Well that depends on what we mean by "democracy". There are several versions of this. One, there is a kind of received version. It's soaring rhetoric of the Obama variety, patriotic speeches, what children are taught in school, and so on. In the U.S. version, it's government "of, by and for the people". And it's quite easy to compare that with RECD. In the United States, one of the one of the main topics of academic political science is the study of attitudes and policy and their correlation. The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and policy you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that's essentially the gold standard in the field, it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population, the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale, they have no influence on policy whatsoever. 

 

By Noam Chomsky: A Roadmap to a Just World!

I'd like to comment on topics that I think should regularly on the front pages nut are not, and in many crucial cases are scarcely mentioned at all or are presented in ways that seem to me deceptive because they're framed almost reflexively in terms of doctrines of the powerful. In these comments I'll focus primarily on the United States for several reasons: One, it's the most important country in terms of its power and influence. Second, it's the most advanced, not in its inherent character, but in the sense that because of its power, other societies tend to move in that direction. The third reason is just that I know it better. But I think what I say generalizes much more widely, at least to my knowledge, obviously there are some variations. So I'll be concerned then with tendencies in American society and what they portend for the world, given American power. American power is diminishing, as it has been in fact since its peak in 1945, but it's still incomparable. And it's dangerous. Obama's remarkable global terror campaign and the limited, pathetic reaction to it in the West is one shocking   example. And it is a campaign of international terrorism, by far the most extreme in the world. Those who harbor any doubts on that should read the report issued by Stanford University and New York University, and actually I'll return to even more serious examples than international terrorism. According to received doctrine, we live in capitalist democracies, which are the best possible system, despite some flaws. There's been an interesting debate over the years about the relation between capitalism and democracy, for example, are they even compatible? I won't be pursuing this because I'd like to discuss a different system, what we would call the "really existing capitalist democracy", RECD for short, pronounced "wrecked" by accident. To begin with, how does RECD compare with democracy? There are several versions of this. One, there is a kind of received version. Its soaring rhetoric of the Obama variety, patriotic speeches, what children are taught in school, and so on. In the U.S. version, it's government "of, by and for the people". And its quite easy to compare that with RECD. In the United States, one of the main topics of academic political science is the study of attitudes and policy and their correlation. The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that's essentially the gold standard in the field, it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population, the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale, they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy, it's plutocracy. Inquiries of this kind turn out to be dangerous stuff because they can tell people too much about the nature of society in which they live. So fortunately, Congress has banned funding them, so we won't have to worry about them in the future.

AlterNet. By Chris Hedges: The Massacres in Egypt are a Precursor to a Wider Global Conflict

Between the Elites and the World's Poor. Radical Islam is the last refuge of the Muslim poor. The mandated five prayers a day give the only real structure to the lives of impoverished believers. The careful rituals of washing before prayers in the mosque, the strict moral code that prohibits alcohol, along with the understanding that life has an ultimate purpose and meaning, keep hundreds of millions of destitute Muslims from despair. The fundamentalist ideology that rises from oppression is rigid and unforgiving. It radically splits the world into black and white, good and evil, apostates and believers. It is bigoted and cruel to women, Jews, Christians and secularists along gays and lesbians. But at the same time it offers to those on the very bottom of society a final refuge and hope. The massacres of hundreds of believers in the streets of Cairo signal not only an assault against a religious ideology, not only a return to the brutal police state of Hosni Mubarak, but the start of a holy war that will turn Egypt and other poor regions of the globe into a cauldron of blood  and suffering. The only way to break the hold of radical Islam is to give followers of the movement a stake in the wider economy, the possibility of a life where the future is not dominated by grinding poverty, repression and hopelessness. If you live in the sprawling slums of Cairo or the refugee camps in Gaza or the concrete hovels in New Delhi, every avenue of escape is closed. You cannot get an education. You cannot get a job. You cannot get married. You cannot challenge the domination of the economy by the oligarchs and the generals. The only way left to you to affirm yourself is to become a martyr or shahid. Then you will what will take place in Egypt will be defined as a religious war, and the acts of violence by the insurgents who will rise from the bloodied squares of Cairo will be defined as terrorism, the engine for this chaos is not religion but the collapsing global economy, a world where the wretched of the Earth are to be subjugated and starved or shot. The lines of battle are being drawn in Egypt and across the globe. Adli Mansour, the titular president appointed by the military dictator of Egypt, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el Sisi, has imposed a military-led government, a curfew and state of emergency. It will not be lifted soon. The lifeblood of radical movements is martyrdom. The Egyptian military has provided an ample supply. The faces and names of the sanctified dead will be used by enraged clerics to call for holy vengeance. And as violence grows and the lists of martyrs expand it will ignite a war that will tear Egypt apart. Police, Coptic Christians, secularists, westerners, businesses, banks, the tourism industry and the military will become targets. Those radical Islamists who were convinced by the Muslim Brotherhood that electoral politics could work and brought into the system will go back underground, and many of the rank-and-file of the Muslim Brotherhood will join them. Crude bombs and explosive devices will be set off. Random attacks and assassinations by gunmen will puncture daily life in Egypt as it did in the 1990s when I was in Cairo for the New York Times, although this time the scale of the attacks will become fiercer and wider, far harder to control or ultimately crush.       

AlterNet: By Pepe Eascobar: The New Axis of Evil: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Pentagon

Are backing Egypt's Bloody Crackdown. I have argued that what has happened in Egypt is a bloodbath, conducted by a military junta responsible for a coup that is not a coup, under the guise of an Egyptian "war on terror". Yet this news-peak gambit, which easily could have been written at the White House, is just part of the picture. Amid a thick fog of spin and competing agendas, a startling fact stands out. A poll only 10 days ago by the Egyptian Center for Media Studies and Public Opinion had already shown that 69% were against the July 3 military coup orchestrated by the Pinochet-esque Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. So the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath cannot possibly be considered legitimate, unless for a privileged coterie of Mubarakists, the so-called fulool, a bunch of corrupt oligarchs and the military-controlled Egyptian "deep state". The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government led by Mohamed Morsi may have been utterly incompetent trying to rewrite the Egyptian constitution, inciting hardcore fundamentalists, and bowing in debasement in front of the International Monetary Fund. But it should not be forgotten this was coupled with permanent, all-out sabotage by the "deep state". It's true that Egypt was, and remains, on the brink of total economic collapse, the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath only followed a change in the signature on the checks, from Quatar to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As Spengler has demonstrated on this site see Islam's civil war moves to Egypt, Asia Times Online, July 8, 2013, Egypt will remain a banana republic without the bananas and dependent on foreigners to eat any. The economic disaster won't go away, not to mention the MB's cosmic resentment. The winners, as it stands, are the House of Saud, Israel, Pentagon axis. How did they pull it off? When in doubt, call Bandar. In theory, Washington had been in relative control of both the MB and Sisi's Army. So on the surface this is a win-win situation. Essentially, Washington hawks are pro-Sisi's Army, while "liberal imperialists" are pro-MB, the perfect cover, because the MB is Islamic, indigenous, populist, economically neoliberal, it wants to work with the International Monetary Fund, and has not threatened Israel. The MB was not exactly a problem for either Washington and Tel Aviv, after all ambitious ally Quatar was there as a go-between. Qatar's foreign policy, as everyone knows, boils down to cheer-leading the MB everywhere. So Morsi must have crossed a pretty serious red line. It could have been his call for Sunni Egyptians to join a jihad against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria, although that's formally in tune with Barack Obama's "Assad must go" policy. Arguably, it was his push to install some sort of jihadi paradise from the Sinai all the way to Gaza. The Sinai, for all practical purposes, is run by Israel. So that points to a green light for the coup from both the Pentagon and Tel Aviv.