Obama was always a poor debater, so the only surprise in last week's match-up was Romney's gusto.
Obama is a poor debater because he does not stand for anything. He is essentially a servant of Wall Street hiding in cliché liberal rhetoric. He is moderator-in-chief.
He can not respond to critics from the left, because he wants to believe he is on their side but would have to admit they are right, that he is not at all on their side.
And he can not respond to critics from the right, because he would have to show that they are wrong, which he can not do, because he needs his liberal supporters to believe he is on their side.
Poor man: how to reassure the fascists as well as the vestigial liberals.
And any challenger can easily upset his delicate balancing act by upping the ante, forcing him to defend one or the other, to take on the role of conservative or liberal in the charade of U.S. elections. The incumbent wants to remain neither, throwing rhetorical and occasional executive sops to one constituency or another, and the challenger, if victorious, will become neither in the same way (and in turn challenged in the same way). Thus we are asked to choose between Coke and Pepsi, and those that would choose neither (thinking a cup of tea, perhaps, or glass of seltzer would better serve) are ostracized, clearing the field for this mock politics.
Update, Oct. 18: When Romney tells you that Obama's responses to the Bush recession didn't help middle class families, he should be asked how his family fared. But that would reveal that Obama has done very well by Romney, which neither of them want to publicize.
anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
October 8, 2012
October 7, 2012
Billionaires versus society
Michael Hiltzik wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Walker's own initiative, like others carrying the Peterson imprimatur, properly acknowledges that fiscal responsibility requires tax increases as well as spending cuts, though people can argue in good faith about how to balance the two. But the hallmark of [billionaire Peter] Peterson's worldview is to view social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare strictly as fiscal expense items, ignoring their roots as moral commitments to American citizens that cross generations and unite economic classes.That's an important characterization: Social Security and Medicare — and their future expansion — are not “safety nets” but rather the very fabric of a vital society.
These programs form the warp and woof of the American fabric. Portraying them, as Peterson does, as "safety net" initiatives that have outlived their relevance for all but the most destitute Americans is an artful way of destroying their universal appeal.
The danger in the economic debate in Washington comes from treating our fiscal problems as if they spring from the structure of our emblematic public social insurance programs, when the truth is that ill-advised tax cuts and unrestrained military spending have played a more important role.
The shame of Washington, on the other hand, comes from the fact that almost every organization promoting the grand fiscal bargain in which those programs will be on the table has accepted, somewhere and somehow, money from Pete Peterson.
human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
October 6, 2012
Four (4) candidates for President debate the economy
Click here for the transcript.
Click here for the entire 3-hour broadcast.
You have 100 people in a room and 100 loaves of bread: One person gets 35 loaves, four people get seven loaves each, 45 people each get four-fifths of a loaf, and fifty people (the baker among them) get to share one loaf. That's how our economy is working right now. And that's not a society worth the name. (adapted from Jill Stein, Green Party)
October 1, 2012
NIMBY: Correction
In this month's Windtech International column by Tiff Thompson, important information was inadvertently deleted and due to an editing error, Thompson's column was printed in a way that made it appear illogical in some places. We apologize for these errors, and provide corrections below.
A sentence acknowledging that fossil fuel subsidies include heating, transportation, and "clean" coal research as well as traditional electricity, and that renewables subsidies have included ethanol research and production, was also mistakenly deleted, as was another acknowledging that the figures for the renewables industry do not include the cost of the double-declining accelerated depreciation that is made available to it.
Thompson should also have noted that many states further subsidize the renewables industry by requiring utilities to buy a certain percentage of their energy from it. Furthermore, as this journal is particularly concerned with the wind industry, the particular costs to taxpayers of wind, not of all renewables together, should have been more carefully indicated.
Thompson should also have emphasized that subsidies should be viewed in terms of not just gross numbers, but the recipients' actual contributions to the country's energy mix.
Finally, Thompson's article cited federal subsidy figures for the years 2002-2007 of $13.8 billion for fossil fuels and $2.7 billion for the renewable energy industry, but the figures for more recent years were accidentally deleted.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information Administration, for electricity in 2007, traditional coal received $854 million, "clean" coal received $2,156 million, and natural gas and petroleum received $227 million. Renewables received $1,008 million, with wind receiving $724 million of that. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, coal received $0.44, "clean" coal $29.81, natural gas and petroleum $0.25, all renewables $2.80, and wind $23.37.
In 2010, the direct subsidies for wind had increased to $4,986 million, a 10.5-fold (inflation-adjusted) increase from 3 years before. Subsidies for electricity from traditional coal rose slightly to $1,189 million and natural gas and petroleum to $654 million, while the subsidies for "clean" coal were cut to 0.
Per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2010, coal received $0.64, natural gas and petroleum $0.63, and wind $52.48.
The editors also regret any implication that the U.S. government's own spending on renewable energy (eg, for army bases) and opening 16 million acres of public land to renewable energy developers is an argument in support of more spending on renewables or indeed of any development of open and wild spaces. One need only look at the military budget to see that expanded activity and spending do not equal wisdom.
ADDENDUM: Several readers have asked us about Ms Thompson's comparison of Obama and Romney concerning renewable energy. Again, it appears that some sentences were deleted from the printed column showing that, except for Obama's stated support of and Romney's stated opposition to renewing the Production Tax Credit (which reduces a developer's taxes for 10 years by $22 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year), there is in fact no substantial difference in energy policies between the two.
wind power, wind energy
A sentence acknowledging that fossil fuel subsidies include heating, transportation, and "clean" coal research as well as traditional electricity, and that renewables subsidies have included ethanol research and production, was also mistakenly deleted, as was another acknowledging that the figures for the renewables industry do not include the cost of the double-declining accelerated depreciation that is made available to it.
Thompson should also have noted that many states further subsidize the renewables industry by requiring utilities to buy a certain percentage of their energy from it. Furthermore, as this journal is particularly concerned with the wind industry, the particular costs to taxpayers of wind, not of all renewables together, should have been more carefully indicated.
Thompson should also have emphasized that subsidies should be viewed in terms of not just gross numbers, but the recipients' actual contributions to the country's energy mix.
Finally, Thompson's article cited federal subsidy figures for the years 2002-2007 of $13.8 billion for fossil fuels and $2.7 billion for the renewable energy industry, but the figures for more recent years were accidentally deleted.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information Administration, for electricity in 2007, traditional coal received $854 million, "clean" coal received $2,156 million, and natural gas and petroleum received $227 million. Renewables received $1,008 million, with wind receiving $724 million of that. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, coal received $0.44, "clean" coal $29.81, natural gas and petroleum $0.25, all renewables $2.80, and wind $23.37.
In 2010, the direct subsidies for wind had increased to $4,986 million, a 10.5-fold (inflation-adjusted) increase from 3 years before. Subsidies for electricity from traditional coal rose slightly to $1,189 million and natural gas and petroleum to $654 million, while the subsidies for "clean" coal were cut to 0.
Per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2010, coal received $0.64, natural gas and petroleum $0.63, and wind $52.48.
The editors also regret any implication that the U.S. government's own spending on renewable energy (eg, for army bases) and opening 16 million acres of public land to renewable energy developers is an argument in support of more spending on renewables or indeed of any development of open and wild spaces. One need only look at the military budget to see that expanded activity and spending do not equal wisdom.
ADDENDUM: Several readers have asked us about Ms Thompson's comparison of Obama and Romney concerning renewable energy. Again, it appears that some sentences were deleted from the printed column showing that, except for Obama's stated support of and Romney's stated opposition to renewing the Production Tax Credit (which reduces a developer's taxes for 10 years by $22 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year), there is in fact no substantial difference in energy policies between the two.
wind power, wind energy
September 29, 2012
Wind and U.S. Electricity Data, 2000-2011
Columns:
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
2011 : 46,919 : 6,652 : 43,593 : 119,747 : .31 : 2,790,291 2010 : 40,267 : 5,404 : 37,565 : 94,652 : .29 : 2,883,361 2009 : 34,863 : 9,453 : 30,136.5 : 73,886 : .28 : 2,726,451 2008 : 25,410 : 8,503 : 21,158.5 : 55,363 : .30 : 2,926,731 2007 : 16,907 : 5,332 : 14,241 : 34,450 : .28 : 2,992,238 2006 : 11,575 : 2,428 : 10,361 : 26,589 : .29 : 2,885,295 2005 : 9,147 : 2,424 : 7,935 : 17,811 : .26 : 2,909,522 2004 : 6,723 : 373 : 6,536.5 : 14,144 : .25 : 2,824,798 2003 : 6,350 : 1,663 : 5,518.5 : 11,187 : .23 : 2,758,651 2002 : 4,687 : 455 : 4,459.5 : 10,354 : .27 : 2,730,167 2001 : 4,232 : 1,693 : 3,385.5 : 6,737 : .23 : 2,677,004 2000 : 2,539 : 65 : 2,505.5 : 5,593 : .25 : 2,692,479 1999 : 2,472Sources:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
September 27, 2012
There they go again
Benjamin Netanyahu used a cartoon at the U.N. General Assembly today to demonstrate the extent of Iran's nuclear program, a frightening parody of Colin Powell's cartoon presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, demonstrating Iraq's chemical weapons program.
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
September 22, 2012
Stewart Alexander for President!
The Real Deal.
The Alexander-Mendoza social safety net model supports:
The Alexander-Mendoza social safety net model supports:
- A system based upon basic human rights and basic economic rights that eliminate suffering
- The provision of comprehensive high-quality healthcare, using Single-payer healthcare as a stepping stone into a fully socialized medical system
- Increased and expanded unemployment insurance at 100% of the worker’s wage or the minimum wage, whichever is higher. Fully funded Federal job re-training programs.
- Moving to a policy of full-time employment and the provision of livable guaranteed annual income
- The right to affordable high-quality housing, the expansion of Section 8 housing and the creation of a Federally funded Community Land Trust program that will help homeowners remove their homes from the marketplace.
- Easy access to high quality food that is organically grown or locally sourced.
- The right to civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to political choice and expression.
- Cut the amount of Federal funds going to the military by 50%
- End all foreign military interventions in the Middle East / Central Asia by removing remaining troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the secret war in Pakistan by ending drone attacks and clandestine (black) operations throughout the region.
- Close all US military bases throughout the world and demilitarize US embassies around the world
- End the US membership and participation in NATO.
- Dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency, end all clandestine (black) operations, and all other covert operations that contravene international law and the domestic laws of nations
- Criminally prosecute military and civilian officials responsible for involving the United States in undeclared, unconstitutional, or illegal wars and prosecute those officials who planned for the utilization of torture and the creation of illegal confinement facilities to include Guantanamo Bay.
- Prosecute all American military, civilian, and contract personal who ordered, executed, or covered-up offenses under International Humanitarian and Human Rights law. Prosecute commanders who tolerated a criminally permissive command climate that engendered contempt for humanitarian standards.
- Abolish all private armies by cancellation of all private contractors providing armed military, police, and security services abroad.
- Immediately end all international military, police, and security assistance and training programs, especially funding to Israel, Egypt and Colombia
- Full and equal funding of public education and the restoration of a comprehensive K-12 curriculum, including art, music, world languages, and physical education
- Comprehensive Early Childhood Education including free or low-cost childcare from birth to age three and high quality universal nursery and pre-k programs for 3 and 4 year olds. These programs will be staffed with highly qualified early childhood teachers and professionals.
- An egalitarian educational system that accommodates a wide range of teaching and learning styles and provides all students with the means to obtain post-secondary education
- Student, parent, and teacher control of curriculum formation, and in the hiring and dismissal procedures of school personnel through local school/community committees
- Vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student-body of all schools reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and economic background
- Opportunities for lifelong self-education, with retraining programs and transitional financial support for workers displaced by technological advances
- Full funding for Adult Education - We pledge to keep the GED test under public control and administered free of charge. We support full funding for a variety of adult education and ESOL classes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)