Tweetingdonal's Stump

Is this your idea of what the Internet should look like? SOPA Infographic

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:22:00 +0000

If you follow such things, today marks the beginning of the 5115th year of the Kali Yuga

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:40:00 +0000

Kali yuga is known as the age of the male demon, Kali. The scriptures, like Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.2, teach that during the 432,000 year age of Kali, humanity deteriorates and falls into barbarism. “Religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, physical strength and memory diminish with each passing day.” Severe droughts and plagues are everywhere. Slovenliness, illness, hunger and fear spread. Nations are continually at war with one another. People in this age will be lazy, greedy and deceitful. The end of Kali Yuga is marked by the return of the Kalki, the last reincarnation of Vishnu, who will battle the demon Kali.

According to another tale, there are 4 ages, Krita/Satya Yuga (Golden Age), Treta Yaga (Silver Age), Dvapara Yuga (Copper/Bronze Age), and the Kali Yuga (Iron Age). In one of the oldest Vedic writings, attributed to the god-man Manu, the four yugas are said to add up to 24,000 years, but when they are enumerated they only come to 12,000 years. The Krita/Satya Yuga lasts 4,800 years; the Treta Yuga lasts 3,600; the Dvapara lasts 2,400 years and the Kali Yuga lasts 1,200 years. The “descent into darkness”- Kali Yuga – started when the summer solstice (June) Sun was aligned with the apparent Galactic Center, around 10,800 BC. The “Ascent back into light” takes place now, when the winter solstice (December) Sun aligns with the apparent Galactic Center around 2002-2012.

It would seem that no matter who you are or what sort of worship practice you follow, things around the world point to the human race being fed up with current human behaviour.

Keep Shell Out of the Arctic! | Save BioGems

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:07:00 +0000

For years, Shell has been vying for one environmental jewel that has remained off-limits to the company’s drill rigs: the Polar Bear Seas off the northern coast of Alaska, including the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Obama Administration has just given Shell a tentative go-ahead to begin drilling this summer off the coastline of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the polar bear's most important denning ground in Alaska. An oil spill is all but assured if the company moves forward with full-scale oil production. Even worse, the oil industry has no proven method for cleaning up oil in the Arctic's ice-filled waters. So the death toll of oil-soaked and poisoned polar bears, whales and seals would be unimaginable.
-Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., NRDC Senior Attorney

via savebiogems.org

Looks like Shell Oil, you know, Royal Dutch Shell?, is finally going to get their way in the Arctic. Despite the fact that they don't have a plan to handle a spill, don't have effective technology to handle an accident, and our government lacks technology or money to handle a problem, we've given them a shot at creating another Deepwater Horizon for the Arctic. Oh, and to make a lot of money exporting petroleum.

In case you think this drilling will cut your gas bill, guess again. Our number 1 export last year was, wait for it, Gasoline! ("Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export – USATODAY.com") We're using less gas, so they're selling it offshore to South America rather than cutting prices. They won't cut prices, they'll keep them high and sell whatever we don't use offshore and pocket the profits.

Which is why they want to drill in the Arctic so badly. Not to reduce our energy dependence on foreign oil. Just to make more money while soaking your wallet.

I do, indeed, have a problem with this. If you do too, have a look at the attached.

KEEP SHELL OUT OF THE ARCTIC! http://www.savebiogems.org/stop-shell/

Despair? Hopelessness? Uh Oh.

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:23:00 +0000

I distributed the Miller-McCune article: "Why Isn't Climate Change on More Lips?"- http://bit.ly/vl17wI - to several very intelligent, very rational people who don't spend much time in the Climate Science world. I asked for feedback about the article and whether it reflected their views.

I'm quoting one of the responses as representative of the general feeling below.

"read it...i think it is right on point. it describes alot of what i personally feel.
not so much denial...but the hopelessness. after you know you are going to die, then you
just wait for it. the sense of powerlessness is overwhelming."

Time to work on messaging, doncha think?

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:00 +0000

Abstract

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 49, PAGE 464, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO490014

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)

Published 6 December 2011.

Citation: Schultz, C. (2011), Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(49), 464, doi:10.1029/2011EO490014.

via agu.org

This work does not discount the work due to be presented by Drs Semiletov and Shakhova sometime mid-year next year (2012). While the article from December 6th, above, indicates that the current evolution of methane may be from the condition change 8,000 years ago, it does not mean that we aren't seeing some speed up due to localized warming, similar to stirring or scraping the bottom of a pan on the stove.

Regardless, this problem and the apparent acceleration of methane release has to be added to the efforts to deal with carbon gas emissions. So an increase now is not helping.

Peak Oil - Club Of Rome - Ian Dunlop - YouTube

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:18:00 +0000

via youtube.com

A nice infographic about where all that energy comes from at 2GreenEnergy!

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:10:00 +0000

As a part of our ongoing quest to produce “infographics” that lay out the basics of energy, I invite you to check out the chart here, presenting the notion that all the energy we harness and use here on Earth came to us indirectly from the Big Bang. Whether we’re talking about nuclear, fossil fuels, or the many different forms of renewables, those forms of energy have been made available to us via one of four different pathways through time and space since that event 13.7 billion years ago.

Tags: alternative energy, Big Bang, biomass, clean energy, geothermal, green energy, Hydrokinetics, ocean thermal, Renewable Energy, solar energy, Tidal Energy, wave energy, Wind Energy

via 2greenenergy.com

Daily Kos: The way conservatives sound to liberals

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:46:00 +0000

Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM MST

The way conservatives sound to liberals

by sujigu

I had a good conversation with a right leaning friend of mine who is leaning libertarian. He thinks government action always causes negative consequences, but he is FAR from a Rush-head right wing talking points person. Bachmann and Cain are embarrassments to him and he would like to see Glass Steagal reinstated as well as setup the consumer finance bureau. He liked the Tea Party at the beginning and I think he still likes their libertarian wing, but he doesn't think I'm trying to burn down America and he will listen when I explain liberal viewpoints. I'm not highly liberal myself, but much more liberal than what he has to deal with on a regular basis. I often read comments left on websites for political articles and have heard a lot of right wing arguments and viewpoints. He always lets me know how liberal stuff sounds to a conservative, so today, I thought I'd return the favor by listing some talking points/philosophical points and showing how my brain processes the same information.

1. Personal Responsibility

I put this in the category of right wing phrases that sound so obvious they don't require saying. It's why when I hear it I give a blank look. Everyone is responsible for their actions, both in a legal sense and in a cause and effect sense. The legal sense being if I go out and shoot your parents, then the police will catch me, I will be brought before a judge, and then punished. If I don't study hard in school and get really poor grades, I might not make it into a first rate college and have to settle for something third rate. Job prospects, marriage prospects, where I live, etc. will hinge on these decisions as a natural course. I know many Teabaggers immediately bring up affirmative action, but in most cases, schools only give a few extra points on the basis of race if you happen to list it on your application, and you still have to get through school and graduate. Even if you were surrounded with liberal professors who don't fail minorities (which is a total myth) if you go to a job that requires a GPA then they still may/may not bump you up even in that regard. Even without equalizing factors my future would look pretty bleak, and I might leave college and find myself flipping burgers or working 80 hours at 30k a year job. Conservatives in many ways, I think, relish the thought of someone they deem to be incompetent being punished by this imaginary meritocracy in their bid for pure social efficiency. Herman Cain is a living example that we do not live in a meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is not something you have to go out of your way to say; it's a part of everyone's existence. You cannot be a slave to efficiency to the point where you are willing to sacrifice people who are able and willing, but need a leg up, to get your revenge on a person you deem a failure. Government intervention can cause inefficiency, but so what? Removing hurdles is not a bad thing. Hurdles aren't necessarily holy, and to be honest, if a person is of the mind to jump over them, no one is going to stop them.

I know, you are dreaming of the welfare queen with her 3 children she had to get more money for child credits, who gets her heat bill, gas, and lights paid at the local welfare office and figures she'll never work a day in her life. Well, guess what, that's fine for several reasons. #1 I don't see churches helping people on a regular basis with their bills. I understand they have budget restraints, but I have gone to a church before and they are not reliable, because of funding or many times because the church is about enriching itself. If churches did a better job of doing their job, then there wouldn't be a need for welfare, but since so much of their money is diverted to stopping gay people from being married or the next personhood bill, it looks like a lot of those funds won't make it to feeding, clothing, and keeping people warm. #2 Telling her to get married to her father is not going to work. You can't force people to marry. You can minister to them to let them know how to make better choices. The Catherine Ferguson academy in Detroit does an excellent job of this, and does it without arrogant Christian admonishment! #3 She might decide to work later. Heck, it's happened right before my very eyes. I've seen people who used welfare later decide that they needed a profession, because they knew the money wouldn't last forever, and because they had their own dreams and ideas. They had a basis to do this because of the help they received. Besides, a lot of people use federal programs to help them, just ask Michele Bachmann!

2. Liberals want to punish success.

We must have completely different definitions of success. I don't judge people by how much money they make. That would be absurd. That would make Rupert Murdoch better than the Dalai Lama. Elizabeth Warren put it best when she said no one ever made it in this country on their own. I think most conservatives have an atomized view of the individual with Ayn Randian libertarians at the furthest extreme. You have a hard time seeing success, even in monetary terms, in context. Again, we come to a crossroads where you argue something liberals don't even think about saying out loud: people are individuals. No duh. Even in highly collectivist cultures like S. Korea or Japan, people have lots of individuality and their experiences in life are defined by their characteristics. I'm not trying to change that because I know there is no changing that as long as humans are humans. However we also exist as groups within groups, each interconnected. Liberals think in context. It's the way we're made. We know that in order to be rich you had to have a society of people willing to buy your product and could afford it. I write books. I need a literate populace filled with intellectually curious people who have the time to read books! You have parents, a neighborhood, a school, the media, books written by other people, a vast interconnected world of human beings both living and dead in a constant conversation. The atomized individual becomes blurred in this context, so when conservatives set themselves up as better based on the amount of money they make, it comes out as you thinking of yourselves as autocrats with the peasants below, and even more arrogant, thinking that those roles could never change!

3. The government has invaded our lives

Sorry Mr. Tin Foil hat, but this one doesn't scare me. I don't think in religious terms about the government. I find many conservatives believe things as articles of faith. I prefer reason. The government as an institution can do a great deal of good, has done a great deal of good, and will do a great deal of good in the future. Is it running smoothly and perfectly? HA! However, I think your attitude towards it and your confusion about it is the reason why we're having a hard time having a conversation. When a Tea Bagger is afraid the Democrats want to destroy Social Security, we have a serious messaging problem on our hands. When I hear you rail on the government I think to myself, "Does this person just want revenge on people he/she doesn't like, or are they really concerned with how this country is run?" If you're concerned that student loans are inflating the price of education and flood the market with too many college grads with majors that aren't easily monetized, well, why don't you put forth a means of making sure we can have a college educated populace without the six figure fees? When you take government out, you're not doing it so that you can make sure that degrees are available to anyone that wants them, you just want to satisfy some puritan fantasy. Paul Ryan is a great example of this. He falls into the trap of seeing people as only atomized individuals. "I did it so why can't you?" We live in different times, come from different areas of the country, and have different options available to us. Does he realize most college kids work and that many of them don't have enough money left over to pay down their college bills? Does he realize the market requires a college education nowadays to even do 30-40k work? Does he realize that those loans help people who are dirt poor get into a college, and is an important step on the rung of making sure intelligent people aren't working at McDonalds? Your answer cannot be "well some people don't make it regardless." I want a world where if you want to make it, you can try.

4. Liberals solve things with the government, they don't rely on God

Oh this one steams me. I'm Christian, recently converted from being an atheist. I find it strange that self professed Christians who are supposed to give 10% of their income to charity, which is a handout, would hate that someone was getting assistance from the government. Especially with the amount of graft in churches! Maybe it's a reminder that your charity is insufficient or misguided? You can feed kids in Africa and help to cure AIDS without lecturing their parents on working, but turn around and refuse to do the same in your own country? Geographical location does not link directly to how much opportunity exists. Besides, whenever I say why someone can't do something, you have some logical quip about how person X could do Y and Z to clear whatever hurdle is in their path. Why don't you do that when you give to charities in other countries? If you hate welfare so much, recognize that people are still hungry and start finding new ways to make sure people get food, clothing, and shelter and don't have to fear for it. You'd be giving it away of your own free will, right, and that's really the only part of this matter that makes you angry, since taxation in all forms is somehow a crime. You don't want taxation to pay for welfare, then do a better job yourself. Oh wait, that's right, your pastor is busy buying snakeskin shoes and building a new juice bar in his megachurch so people can chat about who they're having adultery with. My bad.

In the end, I don't think everyone is going to be a millionaire and financial inequality between people is not bad per se; again, natural consequences. There are plenty of people who work at Wal-Mart for 20k a year and that's pretty much their speed. The future is not set though! Maybe they work there for 5 years, find out nursing is a much better field, and then try that out to raise the amount of money they make. I want people to have lots of options and markets shut people out after a certain point because they busy themselves servicing smaller and smaller parts of the population. It's not their job to include people, so why not open the window? I don't want to take everything you have and give it to someone you hate (although I do relish the idea of putting O'Reilly in a 100% tax bracket of 1), but even if you do hate them, because it helps the group, because I know it gives someone else a chance or helps them have a platform to be what they want to be, your hatred or dislike is largely irrelevant. Efficiency or adhering to your Puritan views is irrelevant.

Originally posted to sujigu on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM MST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

via dailykos.com

I've seen many many screeds pushed by the various conservative blogs about what liberals say, and what they "really" mean when they say it.

It seems that "liberals" as defined in the overheated minds of some commentators are incapable of speaking plainly. Everything is code for the opposite of what it said. A sort of DoubleSpeak that these individuals have created. Demonizing your opponents is a great way to overturn said opponents, but it leaves no room for discussion or negotiation.

I think it's useful to provide a calm, clear view of how things sound on the other side. Perhaps it will reach out to the vast middle ground of people who aren't on either extreme and spend more of the day worrying about how to get through the week without catastrophe.

Thanks Sujigu for putting this post up!

U.S. should lead the way to halt climate change

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:38:00 +0000

The following editorial appeared in the Miami Herald on Friday, Dec. 2:
The U.N. Climate Summit opened over the weekend in Durban, South Africa, amid still more evidence of dangerous changes in extreme weather patterns. The drought in Texas and across the southern United States, along with record flooding in parts of Africa and Asia, are signs of an ominous trend supported by recent reports based on scientific data:
-Thirteen of the world's hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. As if to put an exclamation point on this alarming pattern, this year was also the hottest ever to coincide with the cooling effect of La Nina, the weather system in the Pacific that is supposed to reduce global temperatures.
-This year was the 10th hottest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began. This phenomenon brought higher temperatures all over the globe. In northern Russia, October temperatures were 7 degrees above average. Next-door Finland had the hottest summer in 200 years.
-Closer to home, sea ice in the Arctic shrank to its second lowest surface area after 2007, with measurements at record levels of thin ice. In the coming weeks, another scientific report is expected to declare that the risk posed by undeniably increasing levels in the ocean raises the prospect of destroying low-lying coastal areas of the Northern Hemisphere - including parts of Florida.
These findings were disclosed by credible, science-based groups, including the World Meteorological Organization and Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in separate but complementary reports that support what most climate experts have been saying for decades: The world is warming, and the warming is due to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity and exploding carbon levels.
Climate skeptics will doubtless brush this aside as the work of forces that want to impose government controls on carbon emissions and every conceivable human activity that affects the air we breathe, but it's harder to brush aside the conversion of one of the most prominent skeptics in academia, Richard Muller, a respected physicist at UC-Berkeley.
"Global warming is real," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal last October. Mr. Muller said the findings of his own research team confirmed the accepted conventional wisdom that he and others once scorned as the product of "activist frenzy" within the scientific community.
All of this lends a new level of urgency to the meeting in Durban, where politics and ideology threaten to obstruct progress toward concerted action by the world community to halt, or even reverse, the global warming trend. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists say the Obama administration has failed to live up to the president's promise as a candidate to lead the way to decisive action on climate change.
Specifically, the administration has been dragging its feet on the issue of what to do with the Kyoto Treaty - which focuses on emission reductions - when it expires next year. Instead of holding off until 2020 before any new treaty can take effect, as the administration has proposed, it should work to achieve consensus to strengthen the treaty before any more damage is done.
The point is rapidly approaching, scientists say, when global warming becomes irreversible. Action should be taken today to save the world of a devastating tomorrow.

via kansascity.com

These short summaries are showing up everywhere. Is anyone reading them?

I can't tell.

[Infographic] Get More Out of Google: Not for the Google impaired.

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:44:00 +0000

The good folks at HackCollege provided this infographic. See if you know all of these techniques.

Created by: HackCollege

MinnPost - Don Shelby: A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:15:00 +0000

A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

By Don Shelby | Published Tue, Nov 22 2011 10:55 am

On Nov. 18 the celebrated historian, Dr. Douglas Brinkley, testified before the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. The committee was taking testimony on another congressional effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling.
Brinkley was there to suggest that the ANWR be designated a national monument, preserved and protected. Brinkley knows about conservation. Among his award-winning publications and best-selling books is "Wilderness Warrior" about Theodore Roosevelt's environmental policies. His most recent book, "The Quiet World," traces the history of Alaska's wilderness. He's currently writing a new history on the conservation movement in America.
After Brinkley delivered his testimony, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, walked into the hearing late. Please watch this short clip of what happened:

By way of full disclosure, Dr. Brinkley is a friend of mine, but had Dr. Brinkley been a stranger to me, I would still be mortified that a United States congressman would treat a guest of the House in such a fashion. I hope this piece of video is seen by as many Americans as possible. I shouldn't like people in other countries to see it. We still have an image to uphold in the world. Young makes it look like the most powerful nation on earth is run by the inmates of the asylum.
You may also notice that Dr. Brinkley doesn't suffer fools gladly. I talked to him about the confrontation. He told me: "I felt like I needed to hold my own against them. I feel good about it."
He continued: "I'm a historian and I read a lot of testimony. It is important to me to have an accurate record. I thought I needed to set the record straight for CongressmanYoung. My name is not Dr. Rice, it is Dr. Brinkley."
That is certainly part of it. It is likely, as well, that Brinkley had studied the history of Congressman Young before he arrived at the hearing. Brinkley told me he knew that Congressman Young, at another hearing, had waved a walrus penis bone at Mollie Beattie, the incoming chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Brinkley may have read the Rolling Stone article about Young that quotes the congressman as saying, "Environmentalists are a self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots." The quote continues, "[They] are not Americans, never have been Americans and never will be Americans."
I don't think Congressman Young would have dared say such a thing to Teddy Roosevelt's face.
Missed votes
Brinkley should not have been surprised that Congressman Young showed up late and missed the bulk of the historian's testimony. Young is often cited as the congressman missing more votes than any other member of the House. Brinkley would have known that Young was the co-sponsor, with discredited Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, of the bill to pay for the infamous "bridge to nowhere."
Brinkley told me: "Everyone knows that Young is just a menacing blowhard. He has a history of being rude, he browbeats and he's snotty toward anyone who cares about the environment."
I asked Brinkley if he was surprised that Committee Chair Doc Hastings took Young's side and continued lecturing the historian. "No," said Brinkley. "They are tied together at the hip. They are both oil company factotums. They are a tag team."
Had Young been in the room for Brinkley's testimony, he would have heard an interesting history lesson. Brinkley told those present that President Dwight D. Eisenhower had set aside the ANWR, and protected it the same way Ike had protected Antarctica. Brinkley is proposing that President Obama set aside the ANWR as a national monument using the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Dr. Douglas Brinkley

"Eisenhower created it as a refuge," Brinkley said.
So Brinkley suggests a new name and new status for ANWR. "I think it should be called the Dwight Eisenhower National Monument," he said.
But what about the oil?
According to the United States Geological Survey, there is a good deal of oil beneath the coastal plains of the ANWR. But there is, in relative terms, very little when compared to world demand. Pump it dry and it would be emptied in less than a year.
Another Republican congressman, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, always votes against drilling the ANWR. It makes him unpopular in the caucus room. But the old biology teacher-turned congressman doesn't object to drilling on environmental grounds. Bartlett told me that he votes against draining it now. He thinks it is smarter to save it for future generations who might need it, and use it more efficiently.
Bartlett doesn't think it is wise to pump the ANWR dry just to consume it in highly inefficient cars and trucks. Bartlett drives a Prius, which is another thing that drives the caucus a little crazy.
Same argument
Young chided Brinkley by saying that no one ever goes to the ANWR. Brinkley told me, "They used the same argument when considering whether to set aside the Grand Canyon. 'Nobody ever goes there,' they said."
The Grand Canyon is back up for debate, by the same forces who wish to open the ANWR for oil drilling. Congress is considering bills to open up areas near the Grand Canyon for uranium mining. It was being rushed through until someone noticed that the company doing the mining was from Russia, and no one had checked whether there were any safeguards preventing Grand Canyon uranium from going into Iranian nukes.
"Our park lands, our treasured areas are under attack," Brinkley told me. "We fought hard to protect these wild places and that makes the United States unique. China is destroying its landscape. We have a history of preserving ours."
Brinkley believes Young and his ilk have another reasons for going into the ANWR, and it has nothing to do with oil. "I think they believe," he said, "if they can open up the ANWR, molest it piece by piece, they will demoralize the whole environmental movement."
Brinkley believes, as Young has made clear, there are members of Congress who see people who would protect wild places as the enemy of the country. "The Coastal Plain of the ANWR has an unbelievably rich marine environment," Brinkley said. "It is where the caribou calve. It is where the polar bear den."
To Congressman Don Young's ears, such talk borders on treason.
Brinkley has a ready response. "Congressman Don Young is a low-grade Joseph McCarthy."

via minnpost.com

Rep Young, the old fool, keeps getting reelected by the money machine in Alaska. I suspect that Alaska is the only place he could keep getting re-elected, since he'd be dumped by any electorate that actually cared who represented them.

Alaska has the fortunate distinction of remaining a frontier, which means that moneyed interests have huge legislative influence, and for most folks, if the law leaves them alone, they're happy.

I suspect most Alaskans (I only know a few) are pretty blase about politics until it gets in their way, like most frontier cultures. It's a position I understand, and used to support.

However, a penchant for ignoring politicians also means that sometimes they're in the chicken coop and are making plans to steal the barn before you know they're even there. And since they'll do it "all legal and proper", the sheriff is on their side, when he'd rather be on yours.

Dirtbag Don continues to go after a teeny puddle of oil that will have no long term effect on oil prices, because he's blinded by the dollar signs in his eyes, not because he's out for the good of Alaskans. He remains stuck on oil, when there are tremendous opportunities for Alaska business and citizens in the future technologies, not the expiring one he's so desperate to pursue.

Unfortunately, he'll probably still be around long after petroleum is viable, doing everything in his power to hold Alaska back while claiming he's looking out for the state and it's people.

He can't see what is in front of him, understand what the future holds, a task he was sent to DC to perform. So he will doom his state to long term poverty by sticking to a dying industry. The oil dividends to Alaska's citizens won't last forever. And "Get Rich Quick" Don Young just wants to please the Oil Lobby in his state, instead of figuring out how to make the future of its people viable.

"Such is the way of fools."

A Call To Arms on Climate Change

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:01:00 +0000

I found this in Forbes, to my personal surprise. Perhaps I've become too jaundiced from the insanity that now passes for "reality" inside Washington D.C.'s Beltway these days. I no longer expected a prestigious magazine like Forbes to permit a truly balanced comment. I must thank William Pentland for posting this in such an elite publication, and thank Senator Whitehouse for taking a strong and informed stand, where so many have lacked the moral substance, or just the plain backbone to say what needed to be said. I hope he does not end up retreating or recanting, and I hope the people of Rhode Island see fit to re-elect someone who is so clearly a leader.

Enough of my babble, first the comments from Mr. Pentland, and then the Senator's statement. Ooooorah! Senator!

I explain my allegiance with Al Gore the way John F. Kennedy explained his relationship with the Vatican. “I don’t speak for Al Gore and Al Gore doesn’t speak for me.”

I would not say the same about Rhode Island’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

In a speech delivered before the U.S. Congress a few days ago, Sheldon argued that America has a duty to respond to the risks posed by global warming. Sheldon concluded:

Right now I must come before the Chamber and remind this body that we are failing in that duty. The men and women in this Chamber are indeed catastrophically failing in that duty. We are earning the scorn and condemnation of history — not this week, perhaps, and not next week. The spin doctors can see to that. But ultimately and assuredly, the harsh judgment that it is history’s power to inflict on wrong will fall upon us . . .

It is magical thinking to imagine that somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our failure of duty. There is no wizard’s hat and wand with which to wish this away. These laws of nature are known; the Earth’s message to us is clear; our failure is blameworthy; its consequences are profound; and the costs will be very high.

I have posted the entire transcript of Sheldon’s speech below. Thank you, Senator. Semper Fi.

Mr. President, I am here to speak about what is currently an unpopular topic in this town. It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.
This is a peculiar condition of Washington. If you go out into, say, our military and intelligence communities, they understand and are planning for the effects of carbon pollution on climate change. They see it as a national security risk. If you go out into our nonpolluting business and financial communities, they see this as a real and important problem. And, of course, it goes without saying our scientific community is all over this concern. But as I said, Washington is a peculiar place, and here it is getting very little traction.

Here in Washington we feel the dark hand of the polluters tapping so many shoulders. And where there is power and money behind that dark hand, therefore, a lot of attention is paid to that little tap on the shoulder. What we overlook is that nature — God’s Earth — is also tapping us all on the shoulder, with messages we ignore at our peril. We ignore the messages of nature — of God’s Earth — and we ignore the laws of nature — of God’s Earth — at our very grave peril.

There is a wave of very justifiable economic frustration that has swept through our Capitol. The problem is that some of the special interests — the polluters — have insinuated themselves into that wave, sort of like parasites that creep into the body of a host animal, and from there they are working terrible mischief. They are propagating two big lies. One is that environmental regulations are a burden to the economy and we need to lift those burdens to spur our economic recovery. The second is the jury is still out on climate changes caused by carbon pollution, so we don’t need to worry about it or even take precautions. Both are, frankly, outright false.

Environmental regulation is well established to be good for the economy. It may add costs to you if you are a polluter, but polluters usually exaggerate about that.

For instance, before the 1990 acid rain rules went into effect, Peabody Coal estimated that compliance would cost $3.9 billion. The Edison Electric Institute chimed in and estimated that compliance would cost $4 to $5 billion. Well, in fact, the Energy Information Administration calculated the program actually cost $836 million, about one-sixth of the Edison Electric Institute estimate.

When polluters were required to phase out the chemicals they were emitting that were literally burning a hole through our Earth’s atmosphere, they warned that it would create “severe economic and social disruption” due to “shutdowns of refrigeration equipment in supermarkets, office buildings, hotels, and hospitals.” Well, in fact, the phaseout happened 4 years to 6 years faster than predicted; it cost 30 percent less than predicted; and the American refrigeration industry innovated and created new export markets for its environmentally friendly products.

Anyway, the real point is we are not just in this Chamber to represent the polluters. We are supposed to be here to represent all Americans, and Americans benefit from environmental regulation big time.

Over the lifetime of the Clean Air Act, for instance, for every $1 it costs to add pollution controls, Americans have received about $30 in health and other benefits. By the way, installing those pollution controls created jobs because they went to manufacturers to build the controls and to Americans to install them. But setting that aside, a 30-to-1 benefit ratio to keep our air clean sounds like a mighty wise investment to me. That 30-to-1 ratio doesn’t even count the intangible benefits — intangible but very real benefits — of clear air and clean water, the benefits of the heart and the soul, the benefits to a grandfather of taking his granddaughter to the fishing hole and still finding fish there or of the city kid being able to go to a beach and have it clean enough to swim there or the benefit to a mom who is spared the burden of worry, of sitting next to her asthmatic baby on the emergency room albuterol inhaler waiting for his infant lungs to clear.

Well, unfortunately, polluters rule in certain circles in Washington, and they emit propaganda as well as pollution, and they have been emitting too much of both lately.

Their other big lie the jury is still out on is whether human-made carbon pollution causes dangerous climate change and oceanic change. Virtually all of our most prestigious scientific and academic institutions have stated that climate change is happening and that human activities are the driving cause of this change. Many of us in Congress received a letter from those institutions in October 2009. Let me quote from that letter.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

Let me repeat that last quote.

Contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

This letter was signed by the heads of the following organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the American Statistical Association, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

These are highly esteemed scientific organizations. They are the real deal. They don’t think the jury is still out. They recognize that, in fact, the verdict is in, and it is time to act.

More than 97 percent of the climate scientists most actively publishing accept that the verdict is actually in on carbon pollution causing climate and oceanic changes — 97 percent. Think of that.

Imagine if your child were sick and the doctor said she needed treatment, and out of prudence you went and got a second opinion. Then you went around and you actually got 99 second opinions. When you were done, you found that 97 out of 100 expert doctors agreed your child was sick and needed treatment. Imagine further that of the three who disagreed, some took money from the insurance company that would have to pay for your child’s treatment. Imagine further that none of those three could say they were sure your child was OK, just that they weren’t sure what her illness was or that she needed treatment, that there was some doubt.
On those facts, name one decent father or mother who wouldn’t start treatment for their child. No decent parent would turn away from the considered judgment of 97 percent of 100 doctors just because they weren’t all absolutely certain.

How solid is the science behind this? Rock solid. The fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the Sun was discovered at the time of the Civil War. This is not new stuff. In 1863 the Irish scientist John Tyndall determined that carbon dioxide and water vapor trapped more heat in the atmosphere as their concentrations increased. A 1955 textbook, “Our Astonishing Atmosphere,” notes that nearly a century ago the scientist, John Tyndall, suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the Earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would make it warmer.

In the early 1900s, a century ago, it became clear that changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might account for significant increases and decreases in the Earth’s average annual temperatures and that carbon dioxide released from manmade sources, anthropogenic sources — primarily by the burning of coal — would contribute to those atmospheric changes. This is not new stuff. These are well-established scientific principles.

Let me look for a moment at the book I talked about, “Our Astonishing Atmosphere,” published in 1955 — the year I was born, more than half a century ago — for the “Science for Every Man Series.” Let me read:

Although the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains at a concentration of 0.03 percent all over the world, the amount in the air has not always been the same. There have been periods in the world’s history when the air became charged with more carbon dioxide than it now carries. There have also been periods when the concentration has fallen unusually low. The effects of these changes have been profound. They are believed to have influenced the climate of the earth by controlling the amount of energy that is lost by the earth into space. Nearly a century ago, the British scientist John Tyndall suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the earth to cool whereas a rise in the carbon dioxide would make it warmer. With the help of its carbon dioxide, the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse that traps the heat of the sun. Radiations reaching the atmosphere as sunshine can penetrate to the surface of the earth. Here, they are absorbed, providing the world with warmth. But the earth itself radiating energy outwards in the form of long-wave heat rays. If these could penetrate the air as the sunshine does, they could carry off much of the heat provided by the sun. Carbon dioxide in the air helps to stop the escape of heat radiations. It acts like a blanket to keep the world warm. And the more carbon dioxide the air contains, the more efficiently does it smother the escape of the earth’s heat. Fluctuation in the carbon dioxide of the air has helped to bring about major climate changes experienced by the world in the past.

This is 1955. This is “Our Astonishing Atmosphere,” out of the “Science for Every Man Series.” This is not something that was just invented.

Let’s look at the facts that we actually observe in our changing planet. Over the last 800,000 years — 8,000 centuries — until very recently the atmosphere has stayed within a bandwidth of between 170 parts per million and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That is not theory, that is measurement. Scientists measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by, for example, locating trapped bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. So we know, over time — and over long periods of time — what the range has been.

What else do we know? We know since the industrial revolution, we — humankind — have been burning carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing amounts. We know we release up to 7 to 8 gigatons of carbon dioxide each year. A gigaton, by the way, is 1 billion metric tons. So if you are going to release 7 to 8 billion metric tons a year into the atmosphere, predictably that increases carbon concentration in our atmosphere. “Put more in and find more there” is not a complex scientific theory. It is not a difficult proposition. And 7 to 8 billion metric tons a year into the atmosphere is a very big thing in the historical sweep.

So we now measure carbon concentrations climbing in the Earth’s atmosphere. Again, this is a measurement, not a theory. The present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million.

So 800,000 years and a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million, and now we are over 390.

This increase has a trajectory. Plotting trajectories is nothing new either. It is something scientists, businesspeople, and our military service people do every day. The trajectory for our carbon pollution predicts that 688 parts per million will be in the atmosphere in the year 2095 and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. These are carbon concentrations not outside of the bounds of 800,000 years but outside of the bounds of millions of years. As Tyndall determined at the time of the Civil War, increasing carbon concentrations will absorb more of the Sun’s heat and raise global temperatures.

Let me end by reviewing the scale of the peril that we are facing if we fail to act. Over the last 800,000 years, as I said, it has been 170 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, that concentration is now up to 390 parts per million. If we continue on the trajectory that we find ourselves, our grandchildren will see carbon concentrations in the atmosphere top 700 parts per million by the end of the century, twice the bandwidth top that we have lived in for 8,000 centuries.

To put that in perspective, mankind has engaged in agriculture for about 10,000 years. It is not clear we had yet mastered fire 800,000 years ago. The entire development of human civilization has taken place in that 800,000 years, and within that 170 to 300 parts per million bandwidth. If we go back, we are back into geologic time.

In April of this year, a group of scientific experts came together at the University of Oxford to discuss the current state of our oceans. The workshop report stated:

Human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of the oceans and are now causing increasing hypoxia.

Acidification is obvious — the ocean is becoming more acid; hypoxia means low oxygen levels.

Studies of the Earth’s past indicate that these are the three symptoms . . . associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on Earth.

We experienced two mass ocean extinctions 55 and 251 million years ago. The rates of carbon entering the atmosphere in the lead-up to these extinctions are estimated to have been 2.2 and 1 to 2 gigatons of carbon per year respectively, over several thousand years.

As the group of Oxford scientists noted:

Both these estimates are dwarfed in comparison to today’s emissions.

As I said earlier, those are 7 to 8 gigatons per year. The workshop participants concluded with this quote:

Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, overexploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean.

The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry and the laws of science, these are laws of nature. These are laws of God’s Earth. We can repeal some laws around here but we can’t repeal those. Senators are used to our opinions mattering a lot around here, but these laws are not affected by our opinions. These laws do not care who peddles influence, how many lobbyists you have or how big your corporate bankroll is. Those considerations, so important in this town, do not matter at all to the laws of nature.

As regards these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal nor influence them, we bear a duty, a duty of stewardship to see and respond to the facts that are before our faces according to nature’s laws. We bear a duty to shun the siren song of well-paying polluters. We bear a duty to make the right decisions for our children and grandchildren and for our God-given Earth.

Right now I must come before the Chamber and remind this body that we are failing in that duty. The men and women in this Chamber are indeed catastrophically failing in that duty. We are earning the scorn and condemnation of history — not this week, perhaps, and not next week. The spin doctors can see to that. But ultimately and assuredly, the harsh judgment that it is history’s power to inflict on wrong will fall upon us. The Supreme Being who gave us this Earth and its abundance created a world not just of abundance but of consequence and that Supreme Being gave us reason to allow us to plan for and foresee the various consequences that those laws of nature impose.

It is magical thinking to imagine that somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our failure of duty. There is no wizard’s hat and wand with which to wish this away. These laws of nature are known; the Earth’s message to us is clear; our failure is blameworthy; its consequences are profound; and the costs will be very high.

I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his indulgence for the extra time, and I yield the floor.

Washington's Failure To Act On Climate Change Is Blameworthy & The Consequences Profound (climateinsight.wordpress.com)
A Call to Arms on Climate Change (forbes.com)
Rhode Island Senator Does The Unthinkable: Takes A Strong Public Stand on Climate (Video) (treehugger.com)
What if the GOP were the Climate Change Party? (tdhideout.wordpress.com)
Climate change : Where Did Global Warming Go? (environmentaleducationuk.wordpress.com)
Brad Friedman and Desi Doyen: 'Green News Report' - October 20, 2011 (huffingtonpost.com)
Cities in CA, NC Latest to Voice Support for Combating Carbon Pollution With Clean Air Act (yubanet.com)
America the "Outlier" in the World's Fight against Climate Change (onebluestocking.wordpress.com)

Is it possible that we could elect this person? I hope so.

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:37:00 +0000

Created by: Online MBA Programs

The Maddow Blog - Getting out the vote versus getting rid of the vote

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:29:00 +0000

The news day got away from me a little bit yesterday but I don't want to miss the opportunity to highlight Tuesday's most-gasped-at graphics. In the segment introducing Denver election clerk and recorder, Debra Johnson, Rachel compared the Denver Elections Division map of percentage of "inactive voters" per precinct (pdf) with a map of 2010 Census block data on race/ethnicity (pdf).

And then, sitting alone on my couch, I heard the internet gasp.
On the surface it looks like if you wanted to make it harder for blacks and Hispanics in Denver to vote, you could start by not sending "inactive voters" a ballot. I think the actual answer is a little different but not much more complicated. An inactive voter is defined as someone who didn't vote in the 2010 elections or more recent municipal elections, and hasn't taken care of re-upping. In other words, if you came out for Obama in 2008 and then went back to your life ignoring politics, the state regards you as "inactive" and the Secretary of State doesn't want to send you a ballot to vote (for Obama again?) in 2012.
It's doubly disappointing that people who are less engaged in politics are being encouraged to disengage further.

via maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com

Square State Democrats, are you paying attention?

The 48 Laws of Power

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:21:00 +0000

by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers

Law 1

Never Outshine the Master

Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.

Law 2

Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies

Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.

Law 3

Conceal your Intentions

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

Law 4

Always Say Less than Necessary

When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.

Law 5

So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life

Reputation is the cornerstone of power. Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once you slip, however, you are vulnerable, and will be attacked on all sides. Make your reputation unassailable. Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations. Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.

Law 6

Court Attention at all Cost

Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious, than the bland and timid masses.

Law 7

Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

Law 8

Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary

When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack. You hold the cards.

Law 9

Win through your Actions, Never through Argument

Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.

Law 10

Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

Law 11

Learn to Keep People Dependent on You

To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.

Law 12

Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim

One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.

Law 13

When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest,

Never to their Mercy or Gratitude

If you need to turn to an ally for help, do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead, uncover something in your request, or in your alliance with him, that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion. He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.

Law 14

Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy

Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters, learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.

Law 15

Crush your Enemy Totally

All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.

Law 16

Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor

Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from, the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group, temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about, even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.

Law 17

Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

Law 18

Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous

The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

Law 19

Know Who You’re Dealing with – Do Not Offend the Wrong Person

There are many different kinds of people in the world, and you can never assume that everyone will react to your strategies in the same way. Deceive or outmaneuver some people and they will spend the rest of their lives seeking revenge. They are wolves in lambs’ clothing. Choose your victims and opponents carefully, then – never offend or deceive the wrong person.

Law 20

Do Not Commit to Anyone

It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.

Law 21

Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker – Seem Dumber than your Mark

No one likes feeling stupider than the next persons. The trick, is to make your victims feel smart – and not just smart, but smarter than you are. Once convinced of this, they will never suspect that you may have ulterior motives.

Law 22

Use the Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power

When you are weaker, never fight for honor’s sake; choose surrender instead. Surrender gives you time to recover, time to torment and irritate your conqueror, time to wait for his power to wane. Do not give him the satisfaction of fighting and defeating you – surrender first. By turning the other check you infuriate and unsettle him. Make surrender a tool of power.

Law 23

Concentrate Your Forces

Conserve your forces and energies by keeping them concentrated at their strongest point. You gain more by finding a rich mine and mining it deeper, than by flitting from one shallow mine to another – intensity defeats extensity every time. When looking for sources of power to elevate you, find the one key patron, the fat cow who will give you milk for a long time to come.

Law 24

Play the Perfect Courtier

The perfect courtier thrives in a world where everything revolves around power and political dexterity. He has mastered the art of indirection; he flatters, yields to superiors, and asserts power over others in the mot oblique and graceful manner. Learn and apply the laws of courtiership and there will be no limit to how far you can rise in the court.

Law 25

Re-Create Yourself

Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define if for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions – your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

Law 26

Keep Your Hands Clean

You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: Your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat’s-paws to disguise your involvement.

Law 27

Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following

People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.

Law 28

Enter Action with Boldness

If you are unsure of a course of action, do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: Better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honors the timid.

Law 29

Plan All the Way to the End

The ending is everything. Plan all the way to it, taking into account all the possible consequences, obstacles, and twists of fortune that might reverse your hard work and give the glory to others. By planning to the end you will not be overwhelmed by circumstances and you will know when to stop. Gently guide fortune and help determine the future by thinking far ahead.

Law 30

Make your Accomplishments Seem Effortless

Your actions must seem natural and executed with ease. All the toil and practice that go into them, and also all the clever tricks, must be concealed. When you act, act effortlessly, as if you could do much more. Avoid the temptation of revealing how hard you work – it only raises questions. Teach no one your tricks or they will be used against you.

Law 31

Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal

The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.

Law 32

Play to People’s Fantasies

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes for disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

Law 33

Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew

Everyone has a weakness, a gap in the castle wall. That weakness is usual y an insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure. Either way, once found, it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.

Law 34

Be Royal in your Own Fashion: Act like a King to be treated like one

The way you carry yourself will often determine how you are treated; In the long run, appearing vulgar or common will make people disrespect you. For a king respects himself and inspires the same sentiment in others. By acting regally and confident of your powers, you make yourself seem destined to wear a crown.

Law 35

Master the Art of Timing

Never seem to be in a hurry – hurrying betrays a lack of control over yourself, and over time. Always seem patient, as if you know that everything will come to you eventually. Become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times, the trends that will carry you to power. Learn to stand back when the time is not yet ripe, and to strike fiercely when it has reached fruition.

Law 36

Disdain Things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best Revenge

By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.

Law 37

Create Compelling Spectacles

Striking imagery and grand symbolic gestures create the aura of power – everyone responds to them. Stage spectacles for those around you, then full of arresting visuals and radiant symbols that heighten your presence. Dazzled by appearances, no one will notice what you are really doing.

Law 38

Think as you like but Behave like others

If you make a show of going against the times, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness.

Law 39

Stir up Waters to Catch Fish

Anger and emotion are strategically counterproductive. You must always stay calm and objective. But if you can make your enemies angry while staying calm yourself, you gain a decided advantage. Put your enemies off-balance: Find the chink in their vanity through which you can rattle them and you hold the strings.

Law 40

Despise the Free Lunch

What is offered for free is dangerous – it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit. It is also often wise to pay the full price – there is no cutting corners with excellence. Be lavish with your money and keep it circulating, for generosity is a sign and a magnet for power.

Law 41

Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes

What happens first always appears better and more original than what comes after. If you succeed a great man or have a famous parent, you will have to accomplish double their achievements to outshine them. Do not get lost in their shadow, or stuck in a past not of your own making: Establish your own name and identity by changing course. Slay the overbearing father, disparage his legacy, and gain power by shining in your own way.

Law 42

Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter

Trouble can often be traced to a single strong individual – the stirrer, the arrogant underling, the poisoned of goodwill. If you allow such people room to operate, others will succumb to their influence. Do not wait for the troubles they cause to multiply, do not try to negotiate with them – they are irredeemable. Neutralize their influence by isolating or banishing them. Strike at the source of the trouble and the sheep will scatter.

Law 43

Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others

Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions, playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.

Law 44

Disarm and Infuriate with the Mirror Effect

The mirror reflects reality, but it is also the perfect tool for deception: When you mirror your enemies, doing exactly as they do, they cannot figure out your strategy. The Mirror Effect mocks and humiliates them, making them overreact. By holding up a mirror to their psyches, you seduce them with the illusion that you share their values; by holding up a mirror to their actions, you teach them a lesson. Few can resist the power of Mirror Effect.

Law 45

Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

Law 46

Never appear too Perfect

Appearing better than others is always dangerous, but most dangerous of all is to appear to have no faults or weaknesses. Envy creates silent enemies. It is smart to occasionally display defects, and admit to harmless vices, in order to deflect envy and appear more human and approachable. Only gods and the dead can seem perfect with impunity.

Law 47

Do not go Past the Mark you Aimed for; In Victory, Learn when to Stop

The moment of victory is often the moment of greatest peril. In the heat of victory, arrogance and overconfidence can push you past the goal you had aimed for, and by going too far, you make more enemies than you defeat. Do not allow success to go to your head. There is no substitute for strategy and careful planning. Set a goal, and when you reach it, stop.

Law 48

Assume Formlessness

By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp, keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:13:00 +0000

It is indeed fascinating, the things that exist in history. These things are so clear, so lucid, that it's hard to believe that even the most mentally challenged haven't retained some shred of the information.

Hitler is often credited with this statement:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

While the statement above captures the essence of the practice, here's what was really said:

"In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick. This is a fact that all the great liars and liars’ societies (meaning the Jewish press) in this world know only too well and use regularly."
Page 205 Mein Kampf, Ford Translation.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” ~ Joseph Goebbels

This approach is being applied in many areas, facilitated by something Goebbels would have killed a million Romani to have, today's mass media.

Next time you park yourself in front of your favorite cable news channel, try reflecting on what you're hearing. Does it make sense? Does it simply cater to your biases?

Could the "echo chamber" be repeating the same "messaging" for your reprogramming needs? Does the same message come out of the babble box over and over and over? Different words, but the same message?

Think it over.

What if the GOP was the Climate Change Party?

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:52:00 +0000

(ed. note: This needs to be spread around... if you like it, pass it on!)

By James Thindwa

Some of us say what we believe, and believe what we say. Some of us even fight for what we believe. There are also those who claim to believe something or other, but won't fight for it. That's the way of the world. So let's imagine a world only slightly different, with only the names changed to protect the guilty...

What If the GOP Was the Climate Change Party?

By James Thindwa

Imagine if you will, an alternative universe, in which the GOP believes in climate change, and the Democrats are the naysayers? How would a climate crusading Republican Party approach this most consequential issue?

In their customary hard-nosed fashion, the GOP would no doubt have made more progress on climate change—replete with tough regulations and high-minded international treaties—than we have seen so far. GOP politicians and talking heads would be making hay from all the horrible weather, beating the drums about the grave danger to our “national security” and way of life posed by climate change. They would be warning of gloom and doom and calling for—to hell with cap-and-trade—new legislation with stricter timetables for cutting greenhouse emissions, higher carbon taxes and stiffer penalties for polluters. And they would dare the president to veto it!

Republican politicians would be talking about climate change in town hall meetings, with obligatory reference to the increasingly ferocious tornadoes and hurricanes. “Climate change” and “green jobs” would become synonymous—a mantra seared into GOP political lexicon as Republicans declare that their legislation simultaneously creates jobs, limits greenhouse gases and stimulates the economy. Yes, Republicans would be ready to steamroll Democrats on this one.

For GOP leaders, Irene would be an opportunity to stoke the passions of environmentalists. They would urge activists to hold rallies in Washington and across the country. The GOP media machine—led by Roger Ailes at Fox—would parade environmental leaders on television and talk radio pontificating about local struggles to shut down polluting coal-fired plants, the imperative to raise CAFE standards for autos, insulate buildings and retrofit solar panels—the whole kitchen sink. Rightwing talking heads would be in full swing, prodding activists to hunt down “Democrat” lawmakers at “town halls” to demand they stop protecting Big Oil’s profits at the expense of our country’s future.

For GOP lighting rods like Michelle Bachmann and Sara Palin, climate change would be manna from heaven—red meat for the party faithful. They would be browbeating Democrats for standing in the way of strong regulations and shilling for corporate polluters (yes, they’d say it despite both parties’ footsy-playing with industry—they don’t care about the hypocrisy). Palin and Bachmann would be mocking Democrats for aligning themselves with a fringe element that hates science and would endanger our national security and the planet. Of course, GOP candidates would already have made climate change a central issue in the presidential election, and aiming to place it high up on the 2012 party platform.

As expected, GOP strategists would have learned how to capitalize on disasters from their successful experiment in New Orleans, where they quickly moved in after Katrina and expanded charter schools. Thus, a salivating GOP would seize this moment to remind all Americans affected by Irene that climate change is real and urge them to demand immediate congressional action.

For maximum impact, rightwing pundits would cite the Pentagon’s finding that climate change constitutes “a grave national security threat” and the military’s plans to cope. On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol would advise that invoking the military in this debate “is strategically brilliant” because Democratic are vulnerable on anything to do with "our men and women in uniform."

On the O’Reilly Factor, Ann Coulter would taunt President Obama for lacking “the kahunas” to take on corporate polluters. She would point to Obama’s cozy relationship with the likes of Exelon, and his silence on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. Sean Hannity would harangue the “liberal media” for ignoring the words “climate change” in their coverage of Hurricane Irene. Rightwing hothead and former UN ambassador John Bolton would announce on Fox his new campaign for a new international climate treaty. It would carry heavy sanctions—even military action—against countries that did not sign on.

Finally, GOP leaders would be all over the hypocrisy of Democratic governors for stoking hatred of government even as they, in this crisis moment, expect emergency relief from the federal government. On the campaign trail and in presidential debates, GOP candidates would use Irene to highlight the indispensable role of government not just in public safety, but in healthcare access, infrastructure investment, helping foreclosure victims and reining in predatory banks, and alleviating poverty—that silent but ongoing emergency for millions of women, men and children. They would forc efully explain to voters that paying taxes is not a subversive notion, but an act of patriotism.

Yes, sir, that’s exactly what the GOP would do if it were the party of climate change.

(Are you listening, Democrats?)

Fortunately, James Thindwa lives very much in the real world, where he is a Chicago-based labor and community activist. He also writes for In These Times and serves on its board of directors.

via blackagendareport.com

Scorching August sets record as Fort Collins' hottest ever | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 01:21:00 +0000

Interestingly enough, we were just discussing the change in summers here in northern Colorado. My conversation partner is a young woman who has lived a large percentage of her life here, and we were both remarking that things began to change during her High School years, how the heat had increased to the point that many times in summer it was a challenge to make yourself go outside.

This is quite a statement from someone who is clearly a fan of sun and warmth.

Northern Colorado was a wonderfully temperate place. When I was young and visited the Centennial State, the weather and the people were profoundly different enough to make me determined to move back to Colorado once I'd "grown up".

Well, after almost a decade of struggles in the job market, I finally made it back. By this time it was 1988 and Colorado's climate had begun to change. In 1998, due to the vagaries of life and work around the Defense Department, I moved to northern Colorado, just 50 miles south of the Wyoming border.

Here I am, in 2011, it's hotter, drier, and the weather is weirder than I've seen in almost 24 years. Unfortunately, this all just confirms what I already know is happening around the world. Since I tolerate floods better than I tolerate heat, I may be looking to move farther north, possibly even moving to the other side of the Continental Divide. I haven't decided yet. At present, we'll see how things go. This chunk of Colorado is one of the few that has relatively minimal impacts, so it may be worth staying.

We'll see.

Blazing summer proves to be fourth hottest

12:26 AM, Sep. 2, 2011 |

Written by

Bobby Magill
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com

-->

If this summer has seemed hotter than usual, it's no illusion.

Last month was the hottest and fifth-driest August recorded in Fort Collins, and this summer has shaped up to be the fourth-hottest in 123 years of recordkeeping at Colorado State University.

This summer's heat is part of a trend: The eight-hottest summers on record here have all occurred since 2000.

"The fact of the matter is, the state as a whole has had many of the warm summers since the late 1990s," said Colorado State Climatologist Nolan Doesken.

"That's consistent with what many climate scientists predict will be part of a response to greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we can make that direct tie, I don't know, but it's certainly a correlation."

Eight temperature records were either tied or broken in August, with one of the hottest records shattered on Thursday when Fort Collins' high of 97 degrees broke the previous Aug. 31 record of 95 set in 1960, according to Colorado Climate Center data released Thursday.

The highest temperature of the month was reached on Aug. 23, when the high of 98 degrees that day shattered the previous record of 94 set in 1919.

On Aug. 28, the nighttime temperature failed to dip below 65 degrees, shattering the record for highest low temperature for that date - 61 degrees - tied in 1929, 2002 and 2010.

The average temperature for August was 74.3 degrees, or 4.1 degrees above normal for the month, putting last month atop the list of hottest Augusts on record.

Not only was the month hot, but it was exceptionally dry, too. The city received only 0.16 inches of rain, 1.43 inches below normal for the month, which was the fifth driest ever in the city. The last year August saw less rain was 1974.

For the three-month summer season - June, July and August - this summer is the fourth hottest on record, with an average temperature of 72.2 degrees, only a few tenths of a degree below the all-time record set in 2006 when the average summer temperature was 72.8 degrees.

"We were clearly part of a large-scale regional persisting weather pattern," Doesken said. "That heat wave and drought over Texas extended out in all directions."

With the heat in Fort Collins rising to 91 degrees or higher, the first day of September didn't break the heat wave.

However, it isn't rare for 90-degree temperatures to occur in late summer and early fall. Fort Collins has even seen 90-degree heat in October, Doesken said.

The heat won't last, though, said Don Day of DayWeather in Cheyenne, Wyo.

Cool air is expected to settle in over the weekend, with some areas of Northern Colorado expected to see high temperatures around 80 degrees on Saturday and Sunday.

The high on Sunday in Fort Collins is expected to be 75.

"The temperatures are going to start to inch back up Sunday and Monday," Day said. "Next week, it looks very September-like. There's a bit of a weak cool front coming in the middle to the end of next week. We'll be returning a lot closer to normal."

via coloradoan.com

Can This Facebook Status Share Widely Enough To Reach Obama’s Job Czar?

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 17:35:00 +0000

GE used to “bring good things to life”. Now, they just bring good jobs to China.

COPY and PASTE the text below in your status when you share this link on Facebook!

2010: GE paid $0 in taxes when profits soared and U.S. revenue suffered.
2011: GE is spending $2 billion to create jobs in China when U.S. unemployment is at 9.1%. For GE, “imagination is at work” but Americans sure aren’t! REPOST IF YOU WANT MORE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA!

via front.moveon.org

This is quite clear.

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:08:00 +0000

The national campaign to Abolish Corporate Personhood and Defend Democracy.
Sign the Petition: http://MoveToAmend.org/motion-to-amend

* * *

Great work to our team at Boulder Move to Amend!

Special shout outs to Carolyn Bninski, Judy Lubow, Rick Casey, Scott Silber, Dan Gould, Regina
Cowles, Elena Nunez, all the volunteers who phonebanked to turn out the crowd, and to the folks
who gave public comment at the meetings. Thanks also to Councilman Macon Cowles for
introducing the measure.

Stay tuned: Missoula, Montana is up next - on Monday their City Council will consider placing a
similar resolution on their November ballot as well.

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

BOULDER, CO - Just days after Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney angered attendees
at the Iowa State Fair by declaring that “corporations are people,” the court-created doctrine of
“corporate personhood” is once again making headlines.

On Tuesday evening the City Council of Boulder, Colorado voted to place a referendum on the
November ballot calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that corporations are
not people and money is not speech. Boulder’s decision came after months of grassroots
organizing by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood.

“This is a very important development at exactly the right time,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a
national spokesperson for Move to Amend. “Americans are fed up with corporate dominance of our
political system. The people of Boulder have an opportunity to lead the way for other communities
throughout the country by taking a strong stand.”

Boulder’s decision comes just months after voters in Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin
overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal
status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively.

"Wow. What an outpouring of emotion and feeling and sincere interest in making changes, which
I don't think anybody in the room would deny we need at the highest level," Councilman Ken Wilson
told the crowd before he voted in favor of putting the referendum on the ballot. "My family and I were
very, very disappointed in the Citizens United decision. I think it's a real threat to our government,
and whatever we can do to change that, I think we should."

Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also
been introduced in the state legislatures of Vermont, Washington, Montana, and New Mexico. The City
Council of Missoula, Montana will be considering placing such a measure on the ballot next week.

“We are excited to be a part of this rapidly growing national effort,” said Carolyn Bninksi, a local
organizer with Boulder Move to Amend. “The strength of Move to Amend’s strategy is that it is based
on grassroots work at the local level. This is the only way to build a movement powerful enough to take
on entrenched corporate interests.”

Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and 130,000 individuals. The group
is committed to building a grassroots movement to demand corporate accountability to the public by
abolishing corporate personhood through an amendment to the US Constitution.

For more information visit http://www.MoveToAmend.org.

###

Move to Amend

P.O. Box 260217

Madison

, WI 53726-0217
United States

End Corporate Rule. Legalize Democracy. Move to Amend.

We're on Facebook & Twitter!

About Us | Move to Amend

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:02:00 +0000

“Today the business once transacted by individuals in every community is in the control of corporations, and many of the men who once conducted an independent business are gathered into the organization, and all personal identity, and all individualities lost. Each man has become a mere cog in one of the wheels of a complicated mechanism. It is the business of the corporations to get money. It exacts but one thing of its employees: Obedience to orders. It cares not about their relations to the community, the church, society, or the family. It wants full hours and faithful service, and when they die, wear out or are discharged, it quickly replaces them with new material.

The corporation is a machine for making money, but it reduces men to the insignificance of mere numerical figures, as certainly as the private ranks of the regular army.

~ Fighting Bob La Follette, speech on the Dangers Threatening Representative Government, Mineral Point, Wisconsin, July 4, 1897

via movetoamend.org

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for. - YouTube

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:45:00 +0000

via youtube.com

USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:26:00 +0000

August 15, 2011

The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service today released new regulations on livestock handling, which for the first time defines “egregious cruelties”: Here’s the USDA’s brand new list of no-nos.

1. Making cuts on or skinning conscious animals;
2. Excessive beating or prodding of ambulatory or nonambulatory disabled animals or dragging of conscious animals;
3. Driving animals off semi-trailers over a drop off without providing adequate unloading facilities (animals are falling to the ground);
4. Running equipment over conscious animals;
5. Stunning of animals and then allowing them to regain consciousness;
6. Multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an animal immediately unconscious;
7. Dismembering conscious animals, for example, cutting off ears or removing feet;
8. Leaving disabled livestock exposed to adverse climate conditions while awaiting disposition, or
9. Otherwise causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, including situations on trucks.
Remember, everyone: no more “excessive beating,” or skinning animals alive.
Worth noting that none of these items were pulled out of thin air. Each of these items is known to happen or it would not have made the list. And the reason for the list is that, without being explicitly told these actions are unacceptably cruel, slaughterhouse inspectors couldn’t be counted on to report them. (Via Jolley and AMI.) Link [PDF].

via vegan.com

Mixed feelings. Glad that the USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”. Truly pissed off that it had to be defined. http://bit.ly/nM2uNh

Crosspost: Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | updated 15 Aug 2011

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:08:00 +0000

Being the pain I usually am, I've provided some "emphasis" for some of the text. George has stopped short of making some comments that he's almost GOT to be thinking, so I'm going to provide a few of my own in the stream of the article. You'll know it when you see it. lwo :)

Why is Top Gear apparently exempt from the BBC's editorial guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts?

• Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race
• The Nissan Leaf electric car – review

Jeremy "Lying sack of bantha poodoo" Clarkson sabotages
a test drive of the Leaf electric car Photograph: BBC

What distinguishes the BBC from the rest of this country's media? There's the lack of advertising, and the lack of a proprietor with specific business interests to defend.

(lwo Note: I now watch Top Gear on BBC America, which does indeed produce revenue for BBC Worldwide; perhaps I should now assume that BBC has no standards for the BBC America services?)

But perhaps the most important factor is its editorial guidelines, which are supposed to ensure that the corporation achieves "the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive[s] to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences."

Here's a few of the things they say:

"Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest."

"We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live."

"We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them."

Top Gear Paradise?
Image via Wikipedia

Woe betide the producer or presenter who breaches these guidelines. Unless, that is, they work for Top Gear. If so, they are permitted to drive a coach and horses – or a Hummer H3 - through them whenever they please.

Take, for example, Top Gear's line on electric cars. Casting aside any pretence of impartiality or rigour, it has set out to show that electric cars are useless. If the facts don't fit, it bends them until they do.

Tesla Roadster
Image via Wikipedia

It's currently being sued by electric car maker Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster's true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), and that it unexpectedly ran out of charge. Tesla says "the breakdowns were staged and the statements are untrue". But the BBC keeps syndicating the episode to other networks. So much for "acknowledging mistakes when they are made".

Now it's been caught red-handed faking another trial, in this case of the Nissan LEAF.

Nissan Leaf
Image via Wikipedia

Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy "We're only entertainment so our recommendations are as full of exrement as I am" Clarkson and James "time for me to drink my way across the UK" May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car "unexpectedly" ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future".

(lwo Note: But it's clear from Clarkson's Lists that he will whore out his reputation just to get a self serving edge with whomever he fancies at the moment. Here's a recent and from what I can tell, fairly accurate review of Clarkson's abilities found out on the "Ultimate Car" forum:

People enjoy Clarkson's hard opinions and dry sense of humour. However, they seem to forget that he knows nothing about how cars handle, nor has after 20 years of driving supercars has any skills behind the wheel. A good example is when he put the current ZR1 against an Audi R8 and constantly said that the ZR1 was impossible to drive faster than the R8. Then in the hands of the stig it blitzed the R8.
I also remember him slagging off the Carrera GT calling it bland and uninteresting, reviewing it against the Enzo Ferrari.

and
AND Clarkson's comments are about getting readers/viewers attention and to sell his column, mag, book, video, tv show.

and
This guy has driven every major badass ultimately exotic supercar on this planet and he puts a Mazda CX7 on his top 25? Nothing against the CX7, is a nice SUV or crossover, or whatever, I drove it myself when I was checking them out a few months ago while considering one for my wife, but come on... Jeremy Clarkson's top 25?
In short, Jeremy Clarkson seems to emerge as the combined Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of the automotive
entertainment industry. He's full of unsupportable theories and doesn't hesitate to lie or dissemble to raise his ratings or further his agenda. So long as you don't actually believe anything he or his show have to say then you've lost nothing. If you start believing in his fairy tales, you'll soon be lost in their fabricated world. lwo)

But it wasn't unexpected: Nissan has a monitoring device in the car which transmits information on the state of the battery. This shows that, while the company delivered the car to Top Gear fully charged, the programme-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off, until only 40% of the charge was left. Moreover, they must have known this, as the electronic display tells the driver how many miles' worth of electricity they have, and the sat-nav tells them if they don't have enough charge to reach their destination. In this case it told them – before they set out on their 60-mile journey – that they had 30 miles' worth of electricity. But, as Ben Webster of the Times reported earlier this week, "at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip."

It gets worse. As Webster points out, in order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, "it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat."

When Jeremy "lying used car salesman" Clarkson was challenged about this, he admitted that he knew the car had only a small charge before he set out. But, he said: "That's how TV works". Not on the BBC it isn't, or not unless your programme is called Top Gear.

Top Gear's response, by its executive producer Andy Wilman, is a masterpiece of distraction and obfuscation. He insists that the programme wasn't testing the range claims of the vehicles, and nor did it state that the vehicles wouldn't achieve their claimed range. But the point is that it creates the strong impression that the car ran out of juice unexpectedly, leaving the presenters stranded in Lincoln, a city with no public charging points.

Yes, this is an entertainment programme, yes it's larking about, and sometimes it's very funny. But none of this exempts it from the BBC's guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts.

Jeremy Clarkson - Britain's new Sarah Palin?
Image via Wikipedia

The issue is made all the more potent by the fact that Top Gear has a political agenda. It's a mouthpiece for an extreme form of libertarianism and individualism. It derides attempts to protect the environment, and promotes the kind of driving that threatens other people's peace and other people's lives. It often creates the impression that the rules and restraints which seek to protect us from each other are there to be broken.

This is dangerous territory. Boy racers, in many parts of the countryside, are among the greatest hazards to local people's lives. Where I live, in rural mid-Wales, the roads are treated as race tracks. Many of the young lads who use them compete to see who can clock up the fastest speeds on a given stretch. The consequences are terrible: a series of hideous crashes involving young men and women driving too fast, which kill other people or maim them for life. In the latest horror, just down the road from where I live, a young man bumped another car through a fence and into a reservoir. Four of the five passengers drowned.

Of course I'm not blaming only Top Gear for this, but it plays a major role in creating a comfort zone within which edgy driving is considered acceptable, even admirable. Top Gear's political agenda also persists in stark contradiction to BBC rules on impartiality.

So how does it get away with it? It's simple. It makes the BBC a fortune. Both the 15th and 16th series of Top Gear were among the top five TV programmes sold internationally by BBC Worldwide over the last financial year. Another section of the editorial guidelines tells us that "our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures". (lwo Note: Perhaps Clarkson, Wilman, and the production crew are leading the new UK arm of the American Tea Party Patriots? How um, patriotic for a UK citizen...) But in this case we can't be. I suggest that it is purely because of commercial pressures that Top Gear is allowed to rig the evidence, fake its trials, pour petrol over the BBC's standards and put a match to them. The money drives all before it.

monbiot.com

Posted by George Monbiot Friday 5 August 2011 15.42 BST guardian.co.uk

Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race

Car-maker to sue BBC for libel and malicious falsehood as faked race continues to be shown uncorrected on repeats and DVD

via guardian.co.uk

Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | George Monbiot (guardian.co.uk)
Is 'Top Gear' Really Out to Kill the Electric Car? (techland.time.com)
Top Gear's Leaf presentation considered misleading by Nissan (inautonews.com)
Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson being accused of fake driving (inautonews.com)
Nissan blasts Top Gear for misleading Leaf EV critique (slashgear.com)
Green news roundup: Top Gear, Rhino horn thefts and Fish Fight (guardian.co.uk)
Top Gear Pretends to Run Out of Juice in Nissan LEAF. Guardian Says "Who Cares?" (treehugger.com)
Electric Car Wars (i.doubt.it)
Nissan calls out Top Gear on electric car sabotage (dvice.com)
Report: Top Gear airs controversial Nissan Leaf segment, responds to critics (autoblog.com)

Too subtle?

noreply@blogger.com (TweetingDonal) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:35:00 +0000

I don't think most of the Texans agree with the "End of Days" schtick. They've been roughed up pretty thoroughly by drought already, enough to get their dander up. A real Texan is one tough hombre. A guy calling himself a preacher, sipping from his coffee mug and shouting into a camera on You Tube isn't enough to make them quit struggling, give up hope, drop to their knees and pray.

Texas Lake Turns Blood-Red - Texas - Fox Nation http://bit.ly/o68IlO

That doesn't seem to extend to Indiana however.

And now for the not so 'subtle' part.

The Deluge - Image via Wikipedia

There once was an old man who had great faith. He lived in a flood-plain. One day after a particularly hard rain, a Ranger pulls up in front of the house in a 4x4. The Ranger tells the old man that a great flood is coming, that he needs to evacuate. The old man insists on staying saying, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" The Ranger argues, but to no avail, and finally leaves to save more sensible people.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

The next day, the floodwaters have covered the old man's yard, and are lapping at his porch. The same Ranger pulls up in a john-boat and begs the old man once more to evacuate. The old man remains firm, saying, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" The Ranger argues to no avail, and finally leaves.

Helicopter Rescue - Image by SixFourG via Flickr

The next day, the floodwaters have covered the 1st and 2nd stories, and a helicopter flies in to hover over the old man perched upon the roof. The Ranger yells to the old man, "Climb up! We need to get you out of here!" Once again, the old man replies, "I have faith! God will save me from the flood!" As they argue, a wave sweeps the old man off the roof and he drowns.

The old man arrives at the gates of Heaven, and is greeted by the Angel Gabriel. The old man says, "I want to speak with God." Gabriel smiles and says that God wants to talk to him, too. The old man is ushered into the presence of God, and says, "Lord, I don't understand! I had faith that you would save me! What happened?"

God looks at him, sighs, and says, "I sent you a 4x4, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want???"

Could it be that the messages for the last 30 years were sent to save us?

This story is usually paired with something crisp like, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." Life isn't about passively standing around, waiting for the big guy in the sky to take care of you. You've got to participate.

"I sent you a scientist, a group of scientists, and an international coalition of scientists to tell you how to avoid this, what more did you want???"

Image by UNclimatechange via Flickr

Winners and losers in the Mississippi floods (guardian.co.uk)
East Dubuque flood victims blast city (thegazette.com)
Thousands remain isolated as floodwaters ease (theage.com.au)
Floodwaters Devastate Mississippi Delta (newser.com)
Flash floods force evacuations (mirror.co.uk)
Flood-hit residents start clean-up (autonetinsurance.co.uk)

Tweetingdonal's Stump

Is this your idea of what the Internet should look like? SOPA Infographic

If you follow such things, today marks the beginning of the 5115th year of the Kali Yuga

Keep Shell Out of the Arctic! | Save BioGems

Related articles

Despair? Hopelessness? Uh Oh.

Related articles

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Peak Oil - Club Of Rome - Ian Dunlop - YouTube

A nice infographic about where all that energy comes from at 2GreenEnergy!

Daily Kos: The way conservatives sound to liberals

The way conservatives sound to liberals

Originally posted to sujigu on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM MST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

U.S. should lead the way to halt climate change

[Infographic] Get More Out of Google: Not for the Google impaired.

MinnPost - Don Shelby: A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

A Call To Arms on Climate Change

Related articles

Is it possible that we could elect this person? I hope so.

The Maddow Blog - Getting out the vote versus getting rid of the vote

The 48 Laws of Power

by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

What if the GOP was the Climate Change Party?

Scorching August sets record as Fort Collins' hottest ever | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

Blazing summer proves to be fourth hottest

Written by

Bobby Magill BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com

Can This Facebook Status Share Widely Enough To Reach Obama’s Job Czar?

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

About Us | Move to Amend

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for. - YouTube

USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”

Crosspost: Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | updated 15 Aug 2011

Why is Top Gear apparently exempt from the BBC's editorial guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts?

Related articles

Too subtle?

"I sent you a scientist, a group of scientists, and an international coalition of scientists to tell you how to avoid this, what more did you want???"

Bobby Magill
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com