User:Bdallman/Sandbox

I love writing Wikipedia articles.

Alpha Point Security Company

"We bring Justice to Pirates..." The Alpha Point Security company a Hybrid Private Military Company / Private Security Contractor. They consist of a Private Navy, Air Force and Maritime Commandos. This organization is devoted to the pro active defense against Pirates, Rebels, and Terrorists' Riverine and High Seas attacks. The APS launched it's first website in 2004 after decades of strict word of mouth referrals and contractual services with clients.

Piracy Today

The In 2004 a record 86 seafarers were kidnapped. Ships and Cargo destroyed and stolen by pirates in addition to Insurance has cost $16 billion to 25 Billion USD per year. The figures for 1998 of pirate attacks: 15 merchants vessels high jacked by pirates,138 merchant vessels boarded by pirates, 11 merchant vessels fired upon by pirates, 35 merchant crew members badly injured, Over 400 merchant crew members taken hostage by pirates, Over 75 merchant crew members were murdered. Only 10% of piracy is reported. In 2003, 92 seafarers were killed or reported missing and 359 were assaulted and taken hostage during the reported 445 attacks. 19 of these Ships were hijacked 311 were boarded.

Fighting Back

Alpha Point security is the leading private contractor for intelligence of global security and protection of Seas, coastal waterways, and landmasses against Pirates, terrorists, and rebels. The APS is specialized in providing contractual armed services and pin point state of the art intelligence. They use armed security and aerial intelligence to secure and protection of clients, using reconnaissance and surveillance data to assess the situation and act with maximum effect and security. With armored security teams the APS uses compensative defense and offensive tactics against the assaults of modern day Pirates on land or sea. "We focus on armed security and the global need for accurate aerial intelligence that can be used against the scourge of modern day pirates, terrorists and rebels, et al, anywhere. We have brilliant, well trained and experienced personnel in all aspects of our company which makes us extremely efficient at what we do!"

References

http://www.alphapointsecurity.com/

http://www.privatemilitary.org/security_contractors.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83606/gal-luft-anne-korin/terrorism-goes-to-sea.html

http://www.cargolaw.com/presentations_pirates.html

The League of Conservation Voters or the LCV, a nonprofit organization, is the independent political voice for environmental issues. They fight for environmental policies and elect pro environmental candidates to enforce the policies. Protecting Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a high priority for the environmental community. No other area in the United States has such a range of wildlife. The Bush administration centered their national energy strategy on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The senate used filibusters, or an attempt to extend the debate, on the Arctic drilling; but these were avoided by the administration when they attached drilling funds into the budget bills. In 2007 the budget resolution had measures to include Arctic drilling as part of the budget. On March 16, 2006 the resolution passed in the Senate by a 51-49 vote, with the pro-environment voting no. The pro-conservation House Republicans joined the Democrats to make sure Arctic drilling was not in the house budget resolution. The bills were never brought up again in conference. The Arctic refuge is still protected.

Bush administration's environmental record

Bush administration's spending on nuclear weapons stockpile < As of April 13, 2004, the Bush administration has spent twelve times more on nuclear weapons research and production than on nonproliferation efforts to retrieve, secure and dispose of nuclear weapons materials worldwide. According to the NRDC analysis of the Department of Energy Programs, the =administration is funding costly projects that are "irrelevant to the defense and security challenges" that confront the nation. Much of the spending on these projects, costing $6.5 billion, goes towards the research and production of weapons. The current level of annual U.S. spending (in 2004 dollars) exceeds the amount during the Cold War. The Nation spent $4.2 billion on the average year of the Cold War as compared to the $6.5 billion annual U.S. spending in 2004. The Cold War was a time span of 43 years. Over the next five years the Bush administration plans to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and laboratory production complex which will cost $36.6 billion. The Administration also is investing $485 million into the development of nuclear earth penetrating warhead. (See for more information on Earth Penetrating Weapons). The senior policy analyst at NRDC's nuclear program and author of the report, Christopher Paine said "Spending billions to extend the life of thousands of Cold War nuclear warheads is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. The government could keep a small fraction of those weapons in the stockpile and spend the rest of the money to make the world safer by eliminating nuclear threats."

Bush administration criticized for using science to undermine environmental protection

July 08, 2004: The Union of Concerned Scientists and critics have agreed that the Bush administration is using political ideas to guide it's scientific policy. They are charging the administration with restricting international communication on scientific research. The USC and 4,000 scientists, 48 Nobel laureates, and 127 members of the National Academy of science, say that the administration could discourage the best candidates from working at governmental agencies. The Bush administrations anti-science bias is undercutting scientific integrity. The UCS also states that the government has affected areas in the health and environment. The mountain top coal mining and the endangered fish and wild life protection. Jennifer Sass with the NRDC's health program said that, "Four thousand scientists can't be wrong. And they agree that the Bush administration is manipulating science to undermine environmental protection."

Bush administration trying to overturn mountain top mining

On March 18, 2005, the Bush administration was trying to overturn the federal court rule blocking Valley fills. The administration argued that District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, in July 2004, overstepped his authority. The coal mining technique of Mountain top removal requires blasting off hilltops to uncover coal seams. In a draft study in 2003, by the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies, found 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been directly affected by Mountain top removal. The Corps has authorized "valley fills" under a general permit. These permits are only given when they have minimal effect on the environment. In October 2003, the NRDC, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and the Coal River Mountian Watched sued the Corps for using general permits for actions that had a greater impact on the environment. Goodwin ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers approach was illegal because the impact on the environment was to high. The NRDC attorney Daniel Rosenburg said, "There is nothing 'minimal' in the burial of hundreds of miles of mountain streams under thousands of tons of mining waste, The devastating impacts of these valley fills on the environment, both individually and cumulatively, are well documented by the government's own studies."

                                     Oct 26, 2007

Bush Administration's Environmental Record

"I'll protect the environment, I swear!" The Bush administraion has a restrained 50 regulations during his start in office in January, also letting the regulations additional substances in water slide. The Administration will be in office until January 20th, 2009.

Bush Campaign and Environmental Policy

George Bush's campaign was promoted as a new environmental policy. Shortly after he was elected in January 20, 2001, 50 regulations were directed to be restrained by the White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. A memo was sent out to all the cabinet members to stop these rules approved by the Clinot administration. The White House Office of Managment and Budget had to prove that the regulation's benifits justified their cost to the U.S. economy for the regulations to be enacted. Of the 50 regulations iced more than a dozen were environmental. These included: calling for less arsenic in drinking water, a ban on snowmobiles in national parks, controls for raw sewage overflow, stronger energy-efficiency standards, and protections against commercial logging, mining, and drilling on national lands. Only half of the environmental regulations made it past the cost-benifit analysis and into the Federal Register.

EPA Water Regulation

"Today's rule approves the analytical method and an associated Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) to support the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation's (UCMR) List 2 Aeromonas monitoring. This List 2 monitoring will be conducted at 120 large and 180 small Public Water Systems (PWS) from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003." In April 2004, recommendations of the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concerning the regulation of additional substances not currentaly listed under the law, were ignored by the EPA. The EPA is allowing drinking water contamination to be unregulated. The consideration of the NAS recommendments was postponed till a new list of containment is issued in 2007 or later. Rocket fuel is one of many drinking water contaminants that the EPA has declined to regulate which conatminates over 20 million americans drinking water. The Epa has missed Congressional deadlines for controlling new containments for driking water and strengtening current standard over the past fou years. They have also missed the deadlines from the mandate of Congress of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, conducting a pivortal reveiw of the extent of waterborne diseases.

References

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2003/09/04/rollback/

www.cafepress.com/endoferrorshirt

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/October/Day-29/w27133.htm

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/rollbacksinx.asp