Romulus wrote: 
There are probably several reasons; one is that Ford doesn't believe there is much of a market for diesel cars in the US.  Diesel engines are apparently more common and popular in Europe, and most European nations have lower emission restrictions for diesel vehicles than the US does.  There are, I imagine, other reasons and motives.

 lrobert wrote: 
In Europe, Ford is selling the 70mpg Focus. Why isn't it here? I have an idea.

 romeotuma wrote: 
Hello, I'm Ted Turner and I urge you to STOP the Keystone Pipeline! Why? Because I can afford expensive fuel! And two, it will run though my back yard! All 3,490 acres!! Stop the madness tree killers!!!!

 Manbird wrote: 
Bush's fault.

Why doesn't that stupid obama make my gas cheaper??? Why does he hate america so much???

Gas isn't going up.. the dollar is going down.

Stop Keystone pipeline before it's too late
by Ted Turner
CNN
February 24, 2012


I own a property in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, called the Bad River Ranch. It is a beautiful place, where we have worked very hard to restore the landscape, reintroduce native wildlife species and raise bison sustainably. But it sits about 15 miles downstream of the point where TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Bad River, and being that close has led me to examine more closely the potential risks and benefits of a project about which I have been highly skeptical from the beginning. After careful scrutiny, I believe it is not in our national interest to pursue it.

The purpose of Keystone XL is to bring tar sands crude oil through the United States to Gulf Coast refineries. The route through the United States is actually the oil industry's second choice: Transporting the oil west from Alberta to the Pacific Coast would be shorter and much cheaper, but Canadians concerned about environmental impacts and threats to native people's lands are challenging that route, and with good reason. The existing and potential environmental impacts along the 2,000-mile pipeline route are profound...

 

 cc_rider wrote: 
The camera rules have been in place for some time - they were not made up that day; though they likely have only been enforced then with such extreme prejudice.  His "attendance" was not the issue, and there are a whole lot of "public" places where the unapproved use of cameras is prohibited.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that Josh Fox's goal was to engage in this "civil disobedience" to point out that some of those committee members are trying to "hide things" or cloak fracking details from any further scrutiny.  He can obtain the footage of that hearing elsewhere since others were apparently filming it (with appropriate credentials), so I don't think the footage was his only goal.  Good for him - he's brought more attention and scrutiny to this.

 Proclivities wrote:
  Today, everybody has a camera. His camera was bigger, sure, but is that the new criteria? If the meeting is 'public', the committee cannot impose rules arbitrarily, which is what they did. Either the meeting is public or it is not: if you have a public meeting, you're not allowed to pick and choose who is allowed to attend. That is how freedom of speech and freedom of the press work.

If they were having a closed hearing, we would not be having this discussion.

More importantly, why did only Republican committee members object to his presence? Democrats did not object. What were the GOP members planning to do, that they did not want on the record? What's to prevent an audience member from using a smaller camera to record the same information? Obviously someone was filming the arrest, so cameras in general were not forbidden.

It was an arbitrary and capricious infringement upon civil liberties. Once again, perpetrated by Republicans. What do they have to hide? Why are they so afraid of public scrutiny?

 cc_rider wrote: 

There are committee rules for the use of cameras during the hearings and credentials are required for their use. Whether or not those rules are legal is another thing.  I'm not saying it was right what the committee decided; some of them, apparently, wanted to let him stay and film.  I agree that it's a stretch to charge him with trespassing; at most, they may have been able to confiscate his camera (under their rules) if he refused to stop filming.  In some ways, his being arrested there could do more for the cause (and his film) than being able to film the hearing would have - perhaps that's what he wanted.  I don't know - he never returns my texts.

 Proclivities wrote:
 
It was a public meeting. There were no credentials required for ANYONE to be in the meeting. There is no legal basis for a charge of trespassing.

 cc_rider wrote: 

He did not have appropriate press credentials and was thereby "trespassing" - according to the committee.  Newsgathering is not protected if obtained through illegal activities - such as trespassing.  The Supreme Court hasn't really defined how the First Amendment protects methods used before publication or broadcast.

 cc_rider wrote: 


Well said...  you are absolutely correct...

 

 Manbird wrote: 
"The battle-cry that could save the world!

 Proclivities wrote:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The press, practically by definition, is not supposed to 'make' the news, only to report upon what is happening. Which is LESS intrusive than, say, protesting. As a journalist he was not participating in the proceedings, merely reporting upon them.

The actions of the committee are a clear, unambiguous violation of the First Amendment.

 Manbird wrote: 

no

 Proclivities wrote: 
Destroy all monsters. 

 romeotuma wrote: 
I would imagine he'd want to use that footage.  If he can help stop fracking it wouldn't be a bad thing.

 Proclivities wrote: 


I hope his arrest got well-filmed and it is in the sequel...

 

 romeotuma wrote:  
Interesting, but I'm not sure that he was "within" his "First Amendment rights".  Newsgathering is not the same as "free speech"; it is largely a matter of conduct and not expressly protected by the First Amendment - yet.