Skip to content
Quote of the Day:
The SAB’s 180-page letter makes clear that if the Obama administration claims that fracking has not led to “widespread, systemic impacts” to water, it bears the burden of proving that their assessment is actually supported by evidence. “This, of course, goes to the very heart of the issue, because it’s one thing if, occasionally, there have been some unfortunate accidents — but another if there is something inherent to the entire process of unconventional gas development that harms drinking water,” the Washington Post explained in its coverage of the SAB’s scathing letter. The EPA’s study had long been under fire for apparent coziness between researchers and the shale industry. Repeatedly, news outlets obtained drafts of the EPA’s study plans that showed a powerful industry influence over the study and a steady narrowing of the study’s scope — which would mean that real-world problems would not make it into EPA’s on-paper review of fracking’s potential hazards. In Scathing Review, EPA’s Science Advisors Tell Agency Not to Downplay Fracking-Related Water Contamination On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisors finished their review of EPA’s national study on fracking and sternly rebuked the EPA for claiming that its draft study had found no evidence of “widespread, systemic” impacts to drinking water.
Videos of the Day:
The Pro-Nuclear War Party According to a Wall Street Journal report, the following people and entities would like the United States to begin a nuclear war: Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, the U.K., France, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. If any of those people or entities believe they can prove a case of libel, it might be a huge one. (Are you listening, Rupert?) According to Mr. Murdoch’s newspaper, the White House has been discussing the possibility of declaring that the United States no longer has a policy of engaging in the first use of nuclear bombs. The trouble is that those individuals and nations named above object. They insist, we are told, that the United States should have the policy of beginning a nuclear war. Have the people of the UK, France, Japan, South Korea, Germany, or the United States itself been polled on this? Has any legislature pretending to represent any of those populations voted on this? Of course not. But what we could do, perhaps, is amend the policy to read: “When the United States begins the nuclear war, it shall announce that it is doing so in the name of democracy.” That should be good. By David Swanson
US Targeted Killing Rules Conflate Legality and Politics In January 2013, President Barack Obama promised to make the rules for the United States’ targeted killing program “more transparent to the American people and the world” because “in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way.” Three and a half years later, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the ACLU and resulting court order finally forced the administration to make public the Presidential Policy Guidance regarding the program. But much of it is redacted, or blacked out. That is the opposite of transparent. By Marjorie Cohn Lopsided Peace Talks Collapse, Saudis Resume Bombing Yemen and U.S. Sells More Weapons By Alex Emmons John Oliver: We Should Be Really Worried About the Subprime Car Loan Bubble About to Burst (Video) In a scary and important episode, the “Last Week Tonight” host explains why “the phrase a boom in subprime loans … making your eye twitch with flashbacks to the mortgage crisis” is probably an appropriate physical response to what’s going on in the auto loan industry at the moment. Environment: