Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>
Monday, 04 March 2019 09:36
Keillor writes: "I did not host the Academy Awards on Sunday for which I would like to thank the snowstorm that blew across Minnesota early on Sunday morning, high winds, blowing and drifting snow that began around 1 a.m. and got worse and worse."
Garrison Keillor. (photo: NPR)
Why You Didn't See Me at the Oscars
By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website
04 March 19
did not host the Academy Awards on Sunday for which I would like to thank the snowstorm that blew across Minnesota early on Sunday morning, high winds, blowing and drifting snow that began around 1 a.m. and got worse and worse. I was in Fergus Falls the night before and of course wanted to be available in case the Academy decided to book a host at the last minute and we saw the forecast of blizzard conditions to the south and decided to hit the road so we could catch a morning flight to LAX if the call came and my little troupe piled into the van with our tour manager Katharine at the wheel and we headed down I-94 toward Minneapolis at 70 mph with our phones at the ready.
Katharine is 25 and she is the drummer and singer in a band called Lunch Duchess when she isn’t working for me. I am 76 and am the former host of “A Prairie Home Companion,” which used to be heard on public radio, which is the FM station toward the bottom of your dial, the one with an hour-long talk show on which a woman interviews a man who has written a book decrying sight-abled bias on the part of art museums who offer no tactile experience of sculpture for the seeing-impaired.
At 76, I am a long shot to host a major awards show but that is what made it seem like a perfect idea. I grew up fundamentalist and was not allowed to go to movies and I did not set foot in a theater until I was 18 and saw “Elmer Gantry” starring Burt Lancaster as the womanizing evangelist and which might’ve made a good opening monologue, or might’ve been a disaster: AGED HOST LEAVES OSCAR CROWD COLD WITH MAUNDERING MONO: “BURT WHO?” MURMUR MANY.
I retired from radio in 2016 and was amazed at how quickly anonymity set in, like stepping off a cliff. People look at me in Kowalski’s supermarket in Minneapolis and think, “Who is the tall man with glasses? My geography teacher, Earl Spivack? An old panelist from ‘Who Do You Know?’ The guy in the news who sat down on the toilet with the coral snake inside it?” I don’t mind anonymity but what a pleasure if on Monday morning my email inbox overflowed with notes of astonishment: “I saw you on the Oscars! You looked great!” A man needs a boost now and then, especially at this age when simple online tasks such as ordering plane tickets can drive me into a frenzy. The honor of Oscar hosting would give me a chance to be nonchalant: “Well, I had the night free,” I’d say, “and my niece Erica is in LA so I figured, why not?”
So Katharine was driving and I was planning what to do if the call came. I know from my radio days that a good outfit can make up for weak material: I started wearing a tux in 1980, instead of a fringed vest and jeans and cowboy shirt, and radio listenership tripled. A tux isn’t enough for an Oscar host so I was thinking maybe I’d go for a mismatched look, a seersucker jacket, plaid pants, and a checked shirt and a tie with cartoon characters.
We hit some strong winds around 2 a.m. and blowing snow and then compacted snow but Katharine didn’t slow down, and I was impressed by the sureness of her driving. I was for many years the assumed driver, and here I was in the back seat, a young woman at the wheel, her iPhone plugged into the dash so we rode along listening to hipsterish singers and bands I’d never heard before. Somewhere between St. Cloud and Minneapolis, sailing past semis and pickups, it dawned on me that I’ve entered a new period of life when other people are in charge and I should accept this and not run for president like Bernie Sanders or try for a Vegas comeback like Lady Gaga. And that’s when I turned my phone off.
I got home and went to bed. I didn’t watch the Oscars. I hear that Tommy Hilfiger wore the outfit I’d imagined for myself and was roundly scorned for it. Who is Bradley Cooper anyway? I hope to attend a Lunch Duchess gig soon and see what all the fuss is about.
'Leaving Neverland': Wade Robson and James Safechuck's Stories Will Stain Michael Jackson Forever
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35003"><span class="small">Stereo Williams, The Daily Beast</span></a>
Monday, 04 March 2019 09:34
Williams writes: "This film will not be an easy watch for anyone - nor will it be an easy benediction on Jackson's image and legacy."
Wade Robson (bottom left) posing with his family and Michael Jackson. (photo: HBO)
'Leaving Neverland': Wade Robson and James Safechuck's Stories Will Stain Michael Jackson Forever
By Stereo Williams, The Daily Beast
04 March 19
The two-part HBO documentary features two men who claim the King of Pop sexually assaulted them as children. After this, Stereo Williams writes, there is no turning back.
eaving Neverland, the two-part, four-hour documentary that details allegations against Jackson by two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, drops like a cultural bomb.
The March 3rd premiere of the HBO documentary has loomed for weeks, with the filmmakers, Jackson fans and family, and media personalities all squaring off on what this project reveals, alleges, and will ultimately mean for Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and Michael Jackson’s legacy. Oprah Winfrey is hosting a special after the documentary premieres on HBO, an interview with the two men—who have accused Michael Jackson of sexually abusing them when they were young boys. Robson, 7, was a young dancer and Safechuck a 10-year-old child actor when they first came into Jackson’s megastar orbit in the 1980s, but became estranged from the pop singer into their adolescence. Robson would go on to a famous career as an in-demand choreographer for acts like N*Sync and Britney Spears; Safechuck would struggle as an aspiring filmmaker and musician before landing a stable career in software.
The Jackson estate is suing HBO for $100 million, and released a statement slamming the documentary and the two men. “Wade Robson and James Safechuck have both testified under oath that Michael never did anything inappropriate toward them,” the statement read.
Leaving Neverland is a harrowing film. The graphic details shared by Robson and Safechuck are gut-wrenching and devastating to hear, and the emotional roller coaster both of these young boys’ families were on and would stay on for the better part of 30 years ripped them apart in a variety of ways. The mental deterioration of Robson’s father, the strain between both Robson and Safechuck and their mothers—it’s all laid bare, sometimes in agonizing detail, via interviews with the two men and their families, as well as archival footage, including the famous 1986 commercial in which Safechuck starred as a young Michael Jackson fan and Robson’s performance onstage at a Jackson concert as a precocious young MJ impersonator.
Both men state that Jackson seduced their families, and the families were indeed enraptured with the famous entertainer. Robson, along with his mother and sister, relocated from Australia to Los Angeles where they maintained a friendship with Michael, and the Safechucks frequently had Jackson as a guest in their home. The film presents both families as lost in the whirlwind that was 1980s Michael Jackson, then the most famous man in the world, and seduced by the prospect of fame for their talented children. Things become expectedly daunting, as moms Stephanie Safechuck and Joy Robson share stories of Jackson offering the families help in the boys’ careers in show business and admitting those aspirations drove wedges within the respective families, ultimately leading to Jackson eventually isolating the youngsters from their parents and siblings.
“I didn’t characterize Jackson at all in the film,” director Dan Reed told The Hollywood Reporter. “It’s not a film about Michael… The film itself is an account of sexual abuse, how sexual abuse happens and then how the consequences play out later in life.”
The easy parallel is to compare the bombshell that is Leaving Neverland to the gripping Surviving R. Kelly, which aired on Lifetime in late January and reignited scrutiny against Kelly after years of allegations that the singer engaged in various acts of sexual abuse. Kelly turned himself into authorities on Feb. 22 after he was indicted on 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving four alleged victims. The charges span from 1998 to 2010, and Kelly faces three to seven years in prison for each count. Public opinion on Kelly has wavered for decades, but it sharply turned immediately after Surviving R. Kelly aired: he was dropped from his label, former collaborators like Lady Gaga denounced having worked with him, and radio stations vowed to remove his hits from their playlists going forward.
But with Kelly, despite his 2008 acquittal on child pornography charges, the public never presumed innocence inasmuch as they were willing to ignore what had seemed blatant proof on black market videotapes sold in neighborhood barbershops, and what had been accepted as fact in the wake of an annulled marriage to 15-year-old Aaliyah. With Michael Jackson, the public has had to decide who and what it wants to believe.
Since the film’s Sundance premiere in early February, Leaving Neverland has been the subject of scorn, celebration and scrutiny. There were reports of applause for Robson and Safechuck at the festival, as well as a damning New York Times piece by Wesley Morris which delved into what it means to be a fan witnessing these men share their horrifying stories: “But, eventually, all the suspension reaches a logical end. You run out of hooks to hang things on. There’s a moment in ‘Leaving Neverland,’ Dan Reed’s documentary about Jackson’s alleged pedophilia, where I simply ran out of hooks.”
In 1993, at age 11, Robson was subpoenaed to testify in Jordan Chandler’s child sexual abuse case against Jackson, where he denied that any abuse occurred. That case ended after Jackson reached a civil settlement with the Chandler family for a reported $20 million.
After the controversial 2003 documentary Living With Michael Jackson, wherein the star admitted to sharing his bed with children at his Neverland Ranch compound, Jackson was investigated and charged with partaking in lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14—based on allegations made by Gavin Arvizo, who appeared in the doc and later accused Jackson of molesting him. During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Robson again testified in his defense, stating that he’d stayed at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch more than 20 times and usually slept in Jackson’s room, but was never molested.
Entertainment Weekly addressed what it believed to be Leaving Neverland’s “one-sided” presentation that ignored certain imperative parts of the two men’s histories. “The only opposing commentary in the film comes courtesy of YouTube videos, featuring wild-eyed fans berating Robson for going public with his claims,” writes Kristen Baldwin. “And Neverland all but ignores Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against the Jackson estate…Though Robson’s suit is mentioned in the film, neither he nor Safechuck are questioned about the ongoing litigation or their motives for pursuing it.” Baldwin acknowledges that this doesn’t disprove anything Safechuck and Robson allege in the film.
In 2013, Robson alleged that he was molested by Jackson as a young boy over a seven-year period and filed a lawsuit, with Safechuck filing a lawsuit in 2014. Once Safechuck became a father, he “began to worry that he himself would have pedophilic urges,” according to Safechuck’s 2014 complaint, cited by the Los Angeles Times. He began seeing a psychiatrist and eventually filed suit after he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and depressive disorder.
Robson’s filing was past the statute of limitations on any claims made against Jackson’s estate, which left two defendants in MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc. In 2017, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff ruled against Robson, finding that the two Jackson-owned corporations that remained as defendants in the suit were not liable for Robson’s exposure to Jackson. Also that year, Judge Beckloff dismissed the case brought by Safechuck.
Both Safechuck and Robson’s suits are pending appeal.
This film will not be an easy watch for anyone—nor will it be an easy benediction on Jackson’s image and legacy. There are too many opposing forces to believe that the culture won’t wrestle at length with what Leaving Neverland presents. Oprah admitted that she was stepping into the eye of a hurricane, and that storm will likely rage beyond the usual social media news cycle. But there has to be a reckoning—with the cult of celebrity, our unfettered adulation, and how both can bend our sense of decency and morality.
There was never a time when the biggest star in the world jet-setting with what seemed like an endless line of young “traveling companions” should have been endorsed or normalized. There was never a time when him admitting he slept in beds with them should have been defended. As so many fans rage against what they feel is defamation, there is a sad obliviousness to how so many allow their adoration to make them cheerleaders for behavior that would be the most crimson of red flags were it not for their fandom. What we’re witnessing across popular culture is an indictment of that culture and how regularly we’ve been willing to look the other way. Staring down dark allegations surrounding one of the world’s most beloved entertainers, you know that we won’t ever be able to look away again. Neverland never existed. We can never go back. And we shouldn’t want to.
Trump Storms Out of McDonald's After Failing to Close Six-Dollar Meal Deal
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
Sunday, 03 March 2019 14:54
Borowitz writes: "Capping a singularly disastrous week for the Commander-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump stormed out of a Washington, D.C., McDonald's restaurant on Friday after failing to close a six-dollar Meal Deal at the establishment."
Trump Storms Out of McDonald's After Failing to Close Six-Dollar Meal Deal
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
03 March 19
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
apping a singularly disastrous week for the Commander-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump stormed out of a Washington, D.C., McDonald’s restaurant on Friday after failing to close a six-dollar Meal Deal at the establishment.
At approximately 12:30 P.M., Trump took a break from his designated “executive time” to travel to the nearby McDonald’s, where he placed an order for a Meal Deal consisting of a Quarter Pounder with cheese, fries, Coke, and an apple pie.
Tracy Klugian, the McDonald’s employee who took Trump’s order, said that he was aware of Trump’s difficulty in closing deals and therefore hiked the price of the Meal Deal to twelve dollars.
“I really thought he would drive a harder bargain, what with ‘The Art of the Deal’ and all,” the McDonald’s staffer said. “I was kind of surprised when he just bailed.”
With the McDonald’s deal in tatters, one White House aide acknowledged that Trump “really needs a win right now,” and that he was en route to Arby’s.
#StephonClark: No Criminal Charges for Officers Who Killed Unarmed Black Man
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43108"><span class="small">Monique Judge, The Root</span></a>
Sunday, 03 March 2019 14:51
Judge writes: "'Was a crime committed? It is a question that we answer every day in our profession as prosecutors,' Schubert said. In the case of Robinet and Mercadal, that answer - according to the Sacramento district attorney - is no."
Stephon Clark. (photo: The Root)
#StephonClark: No Criminal Charges for Officers Who Killed Unarmed Black Man
By Monique Judge, The Root
03 March 19
want to start by saying a few things, the most important of which is an apology to the Clark family.”
Those were the words of Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert as she took the podium just after 3 p.m. EST Saturday to begin the press conference in which she ultimately revealed that the two Sacramento police officers who shot and killed an unarmed 22-year-old Stephon Clark as he stood in his grandparents’ backyard would not face criminal liability for their actions.
“There is no question that the death of Stephon Clark was a tragedy not just for his family but for this community,” Schubert said.
“I can certainly understand that there is tremendous grief, anger and anxiety by the Clark family and by this community,” she continued.
Schubert said she met with Clark’s mother earlier Saturday, and her “grief was very apparent.”
“My job as the district attorney is to make sure that we conduct a full, fair and independent review of the shooting. That job means that I follow the facts and the law and that in the process of this review that we treat everyone with dignity, grace and caring,” she said before detailing her investigation and the evidence that went into her decision not to charge the officers.
It took Schubert nearly 90 minutes, going on and on about the evidence her office looked at before coming to announce the decision.
For the first time ever, the two officers in question were officially and publicly identified by Schubert as Terrence Mercadal and Jared Robinet. Previously, the department had declined to identify the officers for fear of their safety. Their names were made public by the office of Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris.
“Was a crime committed? It is a question that we answer every day in our profession as prosecutors,” Schubert said.
In the case of Robinet and Mercadal, that answer—according to the Sacramento district attorney—is no.
In a 40-page report (pdf), Schubert’s office detailed the evidence they reviewed in their investigation, which included the official police report from Sacramento PD; a report from the California Department of Justice; 911 audio recordings; dispatch recordings and logs; body-worn camera, helicopter, in-car camera, surveillance, and crime scene video recordings; photographs and diagrams; audio/video recordings of witness interviews; Sacramento DA Crime Lab reports; Cellebrite Extraction Report (cellphone analysis of Clark’s phone only); a report from an outside expert, David Blake; the Sacramento County Coroner’s report; a report of case review by Gregory Reiber, M.D.; and County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Department letter.
Schubert’s office has provided a website with links to a great deal of the evidence pertaining to the case.
A citizen called 911 on March 18, 2018, at 9:10 p.m. to report that an individual was walking down the street breaking car windows, including the windows on two cars that the caller owned.
Mercadal and Robinet responded to the call with assistance from Sacramento Sheriff’s Department helicopter in which “Sheriff’s Deputy Gomez was the observer in the helicopter and updated dispatch on what was seen from the air.”
Mercadal and Robinet made contact with the 911 caller and then began searching the backyard the caller said he saw Clark enter.
Gomez saw Clark jump a fence into another backyard, and he directed Mercadal and Robinet to that location.
One of the officers “spotted Mr. Clark looking into the windows of a dark SUV parked alongside of a home on 29th street.
As the officers approached Clark, Mercadal yelled loudly, “Stop. Stop. Show me your hands.”
Clark immediately ran along the side of the house turning into the backyard.
The officers could not see around the back corner of the house, and they were unaware that the house belonged to Clark’s grandparents.
“The backyard was dark with no exterior lighting. The only lighting was from the officers’ flashlights. As the officers rounded the corner of the house into the backyard, both officers saw Mr. Clark facing them, standing in a shooting position behind a picnic table. Both officers saw a flash of light coming from Mr. Clark’s position. Officer Mercadal believed he was being fired upon. Still frames captured from the body-worn cameras show Stephon Clark behind the picnic table. A flash of light can be seen consistent with the timing and position described by the officers.”
Mercadal then yelled, “Show me your hands. Gun,” and both officers took cover behind the corner of the house.
“As the officers peered around the corner of the house a second time, Mr. Clark was advancing toward them in a shooting stance. The helicopter video confirms that Stephon Clark was advancing on the officers. Officer Mercadal yelled, “Show me your hands. Gun, gun, gun.” Both officers then fired multiple shots, striking Stephon Clark seven times. The total time shots were fired was 4.5 seconds.“
The report also states:
The body worn cameras also captured the officers’ conduct immediately after the shooting. The officers yelled, “Show me your hands” and “Let’s see your hands.”
Officer Mercadal asked Officer Robinet, “You alright? You Hit?” Officer Robinet responded, “Yeah, I’m good.” Mercadal said, “Yeah, I’m alright. I don’t think I’m hit or anything.”
The officers then discussed how to safely approach Mr. Clark to remove the gun. Upon examination, it was discovered that the object Stephon Clark was holding was a cellphone, not a gun.
When asked whether any of the video corroborated the statement that Clark was standing in a “shooting stance,” Schubert could not say that was the case. She also revealed that the 911 caller had confronted Clark themselves with a baseball bat.
One question that was not asked and that we still do not have an answer for is, how was Clark to know who was coming into his backyard when the police had not identified themselves?
If he had previously been confronted by a neighbor with a baseball bat, how was he to know it was not that neighbor or another neighbor coming after him in the backyard? Was this even considered?
A fact clearly omitted from the press conference is that the officers did not identify themselves as Sacramento police until five minutes after the shooting when Clark lay on the ground—likely already dead.
When he was interviewed, Officer Mercadal said that he saw a flash of light that he thought was a muzzle flash from a gun. Did he ever hear a gunshot? Was he asked that?
Schubert went over the toxicology report done on Clark, and she discussed what was found on his cellphone after the shooting. She kept suggesting that Clark was despondent at the time of the shooting, but she did not go so far as to say he may have been trying to commit suicide by cop. When a reporter directly asked her if that was what she was implying, she said no.
“At the time the officers pursued Mr. Clark, they were unaware of his identity and his relationship to the homeowners. Based upon the facts known to the officers at that time, the suspect presented a potential danger to the residents of that home. Mr. Clark not only failed to comply with the officers’ lawful demands, he took a shooting stance and advanced towards the officers. Believing that he had a gun in his hand, the officers shot Mr. Clark,” the legal review summary says.
Just as the officers did not know that it was Clark’s grandparents’ home, Clark did not know they were police officers. Again, where was the consideration for that?
Schubert’s office determined that because Clark allegedly took a shooting stance and the officers saw a flash of light coming from his direction in the otherwise pitch-black darkness of the backyard, and because they believed that flash to be from a gun, and because Clark supposedly advanced toward them after they took cover, “both officers honestly and reasonably believed Stephon Clark was pointing a gun at them and was about to shoot or had already shot at them.”
The DA’s office says this is supported by the statements the officers made immediately after the shooting. Those statements were captured on body-worn cameras.
The DA’s office said in conclusion:
The evidence in this case demonstrates that both officers had an honest and reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Therefore, the shooting of Mr. Clark was lawful and no criminal charges will be filed.
Stephon Clark’s death was a tragedy that has had a devastating impact on his family and our community. A young man lost his life and many lives have been irreversibly changed. No decision or report will restore Stephon Clark’s life.
The fact that criminal charges are not appropriate under the law in this case in no way diminishes the frustrations and anger that many in our community have expressed since his death. Those who have raised their voices deserve to be heard. These are trying times, but in moments like these we must rise together to make our community a better place for everyone.
RSN: What Deadly Disaster Is the Criminal, Bankrupt PG&E So Desperately Hiding at Its Diablo Canyon Nukes
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Sunday, 03 March 2019 12:44
Wasserman writes: "Is the bankrupt federal felon Pacific Gas & Electric desperately hiding something very deadly at its Diablo Canyon Power Plant? Will we know by March 7, when the company wants to restart Unit One, which is currently shut for refueling? Will YOU sign our petition asking Governor Gavin Newsom and other officials to inspect that reactor before it can restart?"
Pacific Gas & Electric's Diablo Canyon plant in Avila Beach has California's last operating nuclear reactors. (photo: Michael Mariant/AP)
What Deadly Disaster Is the Criminal, Bankrupt PG&E So Desperately Hiding at Its Diablo Canyon Nukes
By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News
03 March 19
s the bankrupt federal felon Pacific Gas & Electric desperately hiding something very deadly at its Diablo Canyon Power Plant? Will we know by March 7, when the company wants to restart Unit One, which is currently shut for refueling? Will YOU sign our petition asking Governor Gavin Newsom and other officials to inspect that reactor before it can restart?
In 2010, PG&E blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno, killing eight people.
In 2018, it helped burn down much of northern California, killing more than eighty people. The company has now admitted its culpability in starting that infamous Camp Fire and has questioned its own ability to continue to operate.
On February 6, it incinerated five buildings in San Francisco.
The company is bankrupt. It has been convicted of numerous federal felonies. It actually has a probation officer.
But the real terror comes at its Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors, nine miles west of San Luis Obispo on the central California coast.
The reactors are embrittled. They may be cracked. As with the gas pipes in San Bruno and the power poles in northern California, PG&E’s maintenance at these huge reactors has been systematically neglected.
But the company does NOT want the public to inspect them. WHY?
Right now, Diablo Unit One is shut for refueling. Critical inspections for embrittlement, cracking and deferred maintenance could be easily and cheaply done. Public discussions could also be held on vulnerability to earthquakes, waste management, and corporate competence.
The public does not need Diablo’s power, which often overloads the grid, forcing the shutdown of cleaner, safer wind and solar capacity. Reopening a cracked reactor would turn the fuel assemblies on-site into high-level radioactive waste, converting a multi-million-dollar asset into a huge fiscal liability.
Diablo Unit One is in particular danger because it was designed in the 1960s. Its original blueprints did not account for the dozen earthquake faults since discovered nearby. Copper used in key welds is now known to be inferior. Older reactors like those at Diablo are susceptible to embrittlement and cracking, which could be catastrophic.
In 1991 the Yankee Rowe Reactor in Massachusetts was forced to shut because of embrittlement. It was younger then than Diablo One is now.
Because PG&E is in bankruptcy and on federal probation, the state has extraordinary power right now. Normally such issues are pre-empted by the feds.
But at this time the governor, state agencies, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the courts have the right to demand these inspections. Certainly the public has a legitimate expectation to be protected.
The downwind consequences of a major accident are beyond comprehension. Diablo is less than 200 miles upwind from Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud from a likely disaster would threaten the lives of millions. Damage to property and the natural ecology, including some of the world’s most productive farmland, would be essentially impossible to calculate.
US Representative Salud Carbajal (D-San Luis Obispo) has already questioned PG&E’s competence to run these two huge reactors. A number of Hollywood stars, along with State Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), San Luis Obispo Mayor Heidi Harmon, and numerous towns and party organizations, have already joined with more than a thousand grassroots activists to ask the governor to require these critical tests and to subject the findings to public scrutiny.
Given PG&E’s bankruptcy and criminal convictions, and the extreme vulnerability of reactors as old as those at Diablo Canyon, we must seriously wonder why the company would now ask to be exempt from a simple set of inspections.
To protect the health, safety, economy and ecology of our state, the governor, regulatory agencies, CPUC, and the courts must step in to demand these aged reactors be immediately subjected to painstaking public scrutiny.
There is no good reason not to do this, and no excuse for PG&E to be asking for an exemption from a simple, long-overdue inspection.
The last thing California can afford is a radioactive replay of what has happened with that pipeline explosion in San Bruno or those catastrophic fires in what’s left of the northern forests.
Next month marks the 40th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, and the release of The China Syndrome, which told a terrifying tale we also do not want to see repeated.
You can sign our petition asking Governor Newsom and our public officials to step in at Diablo Canyon NOW, before it is once again too late.
Harvey Wasserman’s Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm; California Solartopia is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica, 90.7 fm, Los Angeles. His Life & Death Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to Trump to Solartopia will soon be at www.solartopia.org.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.
did not host the Academy Awards on Sunday for which I would like to thank the snowstorm that blew across Minnesota early on Sunday morning, high winds, blowing and drifting snow that began around 1 a.m. and got worse and worse. I was in Fergus Falls the night before and of course wanted to be available in case the Academy decided to book a host at the last minute and we saw the forecast of blizzard conditions to the south and decided to hit the road so we could catch a morning flight to LAX if the call came and my little troupe piled into the van with our tour manager Katharine at the wheel and we headed down I-94 toward Minneapolis at 70 mph with our phones at the ready.
eaving Neverland, the two-part, four-hour documentary that 
apping a singularly disastrous week for the Commander-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump stormed out of a Washington, D.C., McDonald’s restaurant on Friday after failing to close a six-dollar Meal Deal at the establishment.
