I Love Free Energy

Posts Tagged ‘washington’

Puget Sound Energy’s Wild Horse Wind and Solar Facility features 149 wind turbines. This video tour takes you inside the 351-foot-tall wind turbines, giving a first hand look at how renewable energy works. Directions to the Wild Horse visitors’ center can be found at PSE.com.

Washington Post Glows: ‘Left-leaning’ PR Firm Working Toward ‘Progressive’ Agenda
Post treats activist David Fenton, who once helped spread the Alar pesticide scare, with great care – unlike paper’s treatment of conservative PR executive.

With Al Gore’s global-warming-hysteria “Live Earth” concerts looming, the May 31 issue of The Washington Post reflected upon a similar effort in the late 1970s. In 1979, David Fenton organized an event call “No Nukes,” a concert that protested the use of nuclear energy.

In the story “Putting the Progressive in PR” by Linton Weeks, the Post depicted Fenton, now head of Fenton Communications, as an entrepreneurial Mahatma Gandhi figure – furthering causes deemed pure and wholesome by the Post, from the protection of swordfish to abolishing the death penalty. Weeks described Fenton’s PR firm as “left-leaning.” That’s an understatement to say the least.

Over the years, Fenton Communications clients have included many notoriously liberal institutions such as MoveOn.org, Greenpeace, the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club and George Soros. That list of names alone suggests a little more than “left-leaning.” But even Fenton saw things differently.

“‘Left’ is a pejorative term,” Fenton told the Post. “People I hang with use the word ‘progressive.’”

In 1996, Fenton was reported to be one of the architects of the discredited Alar pesticide scare, which he marketed to women’s magazines like Redbook and Woman’s Day. The Post didn’t question those exploits.

The 1,856-word story was presented as one man’s battle against nuclear power – from his “No Nukes” concert efforts to warnings of a potentially “ghastly scenario of a hazardous-waste spill in a densely populated urban area.” Yet nowhere in the story was a pro-nuclear point of view presented. Nor was any point of view that showed another side to any of Fenton’s causes.

But this isn’t the way the Post always does profiles.

In April 2005, the Post’s Caroline E. Mayer and Amy Joyce profiled another public affairs organization’s founder – the difference was that this organization advocated a free-market agenda. The Center for Consumer Freedom’s Executive Director and Berman & Co. President, Richard Berman, wasn’t handled with kid gloves as Fenton was.

The Post cited several left-wing advocacy groups that vilified Berman’s efforts. Liberal activist groups, from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, described edgy tactics employed by Berman’s nonprofit organization.

“I’m troubled by this message and this industry that sells unhealthy things and are so willing to sacrifice the health of consumers,” said Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, on Berman’s efforts to defend certain sectors of the food, beverage and tobacco industries.

The story also raised questions about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s tax-exempt status. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington accused Berman of using it to funnel money to himself and his company, asserting the organization’s activities are “not remotely charitable.”

But Fenton was treated much differently by the Post. Fenton’s accomplishments, from the beginning of his involvement with left-wing causes in the 1960s to his promotion of a nuclear-free energy policy, were glorified by Weeks’ story.

Fenton’s past tactics, including Web videos attacking Fox News and a television commercial against efforts to privatize Social Security, were never questioned by the Post, unlike the tactics employed by Berman.

“There’s no division between his [Fenton’s] life and his work,” beamed Arianna Huffington, founder of the left-of-center Web site, The Huffington Post, to The Washington Post. “The work that he does is exactly what he is passionate about.”

so washington has been hit really bad with wind/rain storms. power was out for over a million houses today and they dont expect to be able to get it all fixed for at least a couple days.there’s also trees fallen on houses, i believe a couple people have died. grocery stores have lost all of their perishable foods, etc. there’s a LOT of damage. is any of the rest of the west coast -or anywhere in the us for that matter- having storms like these? or is it just us up here?… just curious

The Mexican solution
FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR.
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
April 4, 2006

The Congress has received lots of free advice lately from Mexican government officials and illegal aliens waving Mexico’s flag in mass demonstrations coast-to-coast. Most of it takes the form of bitter complaints about our actual or prospective treatment of immigrants from that country who have gotten into this one illegally — or who aspire to do so.
If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against that was adopted last year by the House of Representatives — namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.
In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller ( www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Glass_House.pdf) points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called “racist” and “xenophobic.”
For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:
• Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
• Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”
• Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered “indispensable” include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be “a Mexican citizen by birth.” Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers, as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.
In accordance with Article 130, immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy, either.
• Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.”
• Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right.
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners — not just illegal immigrants — may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”
to pancho what a load of crap this is what you have to say wow so different rules and your here protesting instead of mexico oh its ok because were a poor what about the poor people who are trying to better their lives by getting into mexico because their country is even poorer its ok for mexicans but not anyone else sounds like mexicans are corrupt and they are bringing those values here no thanks