Page 2 of 83
Posted on July 27 at 7:26 a.m.
Also, I refuse to sign up for Facebook, because of their privacy problems.
On Germany Awake, America Asleep?
Posted on July 27 at 7:24 a.m.
German intelligence is nothing to be sneezed at. Although they did not participate in the NATO Libyan action, they supplied the intelligence. I do not believe Merkel is a fool
"During the Libyan conflict in 2011 British forces had to use maps supplied by German intelligence because of cut backs in the Ministry of Defence, it has emerged."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
As for Snowdon, he has frequently exaggerated and lied. If he wanted to blow the whistle, he should have done so within the US and not sought haven in a country that is worse than the US.
"So, once again, we see that as usual, just as he has done with examples of abuses where analysts were eavesdropping on Americans, Greenwald is taking a Bush-era abuse and trying to lay it at Obama's feet. The Bush Administration ran this program for 7-8 years, Obama takes office, begins a full review of the NSA, and upon completion of that review, shuts down the program within 2 years of taking office. So, who does Greenwald blame for the program? The Obama Administration, of course: "NSA collected US email records in bulk for more than two years under Obama" Good grief. Greenwald's bs never ends."
This is an OP from that Daily Kos, --- liberal blog.
I have little respect for either Snowdon or Greenwald, and certainly neither deserve a Nobel Prize. If they wanted to blow the whistle, they should have done so under Bush. Snowdon applied for the job with the express purpose of finding dirt. He also lied on his resume.
"According to Reuters, a source "with detailed knowledge on the matter" stated that Booz Allen's hiring screeners found some details of his education "did not check out precisely", but decided to hire him anyway; Reuters stated that the element which triggered these concerns, or the manner in which Snowden satisfied the concerns, were not known. The résumé stated that Snowden attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University. A spokesperson for Johns Hopkins said that the university did not find records to show that Snowden attended the university, and suggested that he may instead have attended Advanced Career Technologies, a private for-profit organization which operated as "Computer Career Institute at Johns Hopkins." The University College of the University of Maryland acknowledged that Snowden had attended a summer session at a UM campus in Asia. Snowden's resume stated that he estimated that he would receive a University of Liverpool computer security master's degree in 2013. The university said that Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security in 2011 but that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program.""
Posted on July 26 at 8:59 a.m.
Alan Dershowitz is libertarian.
Ted Cruz is brilliant, but if his judgement is clouded by ideology, which it is, then only his ideology will benefit from his smarts. Hence, he fell flat on his face during the government shutdown.
And it is not just the left who have problems with Ted Cruz - a lot of Republicans in Congress are pissed at him.
And the RW noise machine is far louder than the LW din. How many stations is Rush on?
JJ, wrong again.
So far, I have not heard anything of any value from Ted Cruz. This with the proviso, that I do not consider everything Republican wrong. There are times when I have agreed with John McCain (and far more, when I have not), and there are some Republicans (generally old school) that I admire. However, thus far, Ted Cruz has proven to be a brilliant nutcase.
On Mission & State Closes Down
Posted on July 26 at 8:46 a.m.
To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
According to a 2012 study from the Worldwatch Institute (WWI), global energy subsidies total between $775 billion and more than $1 trillion in 2012, while renewables clocked in at around $66 billion in 2010. (WWI, http://bit.ly/Snkb8T)
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial repeated a common line in the discussion on energy subsidies: “Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies?” To do this, the government would need to eliminate approximately $111 billion over the next ten years in traditional energy subsidies, on top of eliminating provisions for renewable energy. (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, http://bit.ly/NMMOvy)
A 2011 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 74% of Americans support “eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries” in order to “reduce the current federal budget deficit.” (Source: Wall Street Journal, http://on.wsj.com/jRJmqU)
By contrast, the 2012 United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll found that “almost two-thirds—64 percent—of those surveyed said that Congress should extend federal tax credits that encourage production of alternative-energy sources.” (Source: National Journal, http://bit.ly/KRLSzx)
On Measure P Preserves and Protects
Posted on July 26 at 8:44 a.m.
14noscams - that was a quote from Bloomberg about global energy subsidies. As for the US, look at the history (this is a quote from the link provided below, in case you miss it. Also note that all of the quotes in the link are also sourced. I could not include all bullet points, they are in the next post.)
All energy production in the U.S. receives significant federal support, dating back to the first oil subsidies in early 20th century. Here are the facts on energy subsidies:
In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO, http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO, http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
Renewable energy investments are working. The cost of renewable energy has dropped dramatically since the 1970s, with the greatest improvements occurring in the past 5-10 years. The average price of a solar panel has declined by 47% since the beginning of 2011. Wind energy has fallen over 90% since incentives for wind began in the 1980s, and attracted an average annual private investment of $15 billion for the past five years. (Sources: Solar Energy Industries Association, http://seia.us/MlIdcy; American Wind Energy Association, http://bit.ly/wys7NI)
So try facts before ridicule; but it is probably too much work.
Posted on July 25 at 9:10 p.m.
Fossil-fuel consumers worldwide received about six times more government subsidies than were given to the renewable-energy industry, according to the chief adviser to oil-importing nations.
State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said today in its World Energy Outlook. Aid for biofuels, wind power and solar energy, rose 10 percent to $66 billion.
While fossil fuels meet about 80 percent of world energy demand, its subsidies are “creating market distortions that encourage wasteful consumption,” the agency said. “The costs of subsidies to fossil fuels generally outweigh the benefits.”
Thus, I would guess that the oil industry is far more socialist/communist than the renewable energy industry - if one can use that half-baked logic.
Posted on July 25 at 9:04 p.m.
And how does keeping water clean turn a country into a socialist country or communist country? Absolutely absurd statement.
Do you consider government subsidies socialist? If you do, then the US is already socialist, because subsidies to oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars. More to the oil industry than any other industry.
"As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates the total value of U.S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at $37.5 billion annually, including international finance. This does not include military, health, climate, or local pollution costs. These subsidies have increased dramatically as U.S. oil and gas production has increased."
Posted on July 25 at 8:49 p.m.
Crimea is where all the wealth is - that is why Russia took it over as quickly as possible, after the uprising (from a Russian visiting the US).
We are not invading the Ukraine - there are no troops there. The Ukraine was almost bankrupted by the corrupt, Russian-supported head of state that had to flee.
One of the strongest and smartest surveillance operations is by the Syrian Electronic Army. Russia and China are not too shabby either. And probably Germany does much the same as the US.
Posted on July 24 at 12:59 p.m.
He does not, but I enjoy adding a few facts now and then to counter rubbish.
And he seems to have no clue about how politics in DC works - corporations (the rich) are writing the bills - votes don't count, especially as the rich are restricting voting hours to target certain voting demographics. There should be mandatory voting on weekends when the poor who are struggling with 2-3 jobs can get a chance to vote. Or a public holiday.
And I believe most people vote on issues, not the highest bidder.
On Water Politics
Posted on July 24 at 11:01 a.m.
Global banning of fracking.
On Economic Terrorists?