HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 89 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 04:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,293

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

recognizing the contribution of Military activities to Global Warming - something EPA refuses to do.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3181:the-military-assault-on-global-climate


By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy ... Yet, the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements ... Any talk of climate change which does not include the military is nothing but hot air, according to Sara Flounders.

It's a loophole big enough to drive a tank through, according to the report " A Climate of War."

~~
~~

Correspondingly, militarism is the most oil-exhaustive activity on the planet, growing more so with faster, bigger, more fuel-guzzling planes, tanks and naval vessels employed in more intensive air and ground wars. At the outset of the Iraq war in March 2003, the Army estimated it would need more than 40 million gallons of gasoline for three weeks of combat, exceeding the total quantity used by all Allied forces in the four years of World War 1. Among the Army's armamentarium were 2,000 staunch M-1 Abrams tanks fired up for the war and burning 250 gallons of fuel per hour.(2)

~~

Only recently has the momentous issue of military fuel use and its massive, yet concealed role in global climate change come to the foreground, thanks to a handful of perspicacious researchers. Liska and Perrin contend that, in addition to tailpipe emissions, immense "hidden" greenhouse gas pollution stems from our use of gasoline. This impact on climate change should be calculated into the full lifecycle analysis of gasoline. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compares gasoline and biofuels for their respective atmospheric pollution, the greenhouse gas emissions calculated for gasoline should include the military activities related to securing foreign crude oil, from which gasoline is derived. (But they do not, thanks to the Kyoto Accords military exemption.) Oil security comprises both military protection against sabotage to pipelines and tankers and also US-led wars in oil-rich regions to assure long-term access. Nearly 1,000 US military bases trace an arc from the Andes to North Africa across the Middle East to Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea, sweeping over all major oil resources - all related, in part, to projecting force for the sake of energy security. Further, the "upstream emissions" of greenhouse gases from the manufacture of military equipment, infrastructure, vehicles and munitions used in oil supply protection and oil-driven wars should also be included in the overall environmental impact of using gasoline. Adding these factors into their calculations, the authors conclude that about "20 percent of the conventional DoD budget ... is attributable to the objective of oil security."

(more)



Securing Foreign Oil: A Case for Including Military Operations in the Climate Change Impact of Fuels - Liska & Perrin

Military operations are major industrial activities that use massive amounts of fuel and materials that significantly contribute to climate change. In this article, we assert that military activity to protect international oil trade is a direct production component for importing foreign oil—as necessary for imports as are pipelines and supertankers—and therefore the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from that military activity are relevant to U.S. fuel policies related to climate change. Military security for protection of global maritime petroleum distribution is part of the acquisition process, but in addition, recent Middle Eastern wars may also be related to securing petroleum reserves.

~~
~~



~~
~~

The elimination of Middle East oil imports would allow cessation of military oil security activity, equivalent to a 20-percent reduction in conventional U.S. military activity and emissions, which in turn is equivalent to 17.5 g CO2e per MJ of gasoline energy now imported from the Middle East (Table 3). If this consequence is a plausible and reasonable prediction, regulatory authorities should include these indirect military emissions as they compare the GHG consequences of substituting biofuels for gasoline from the Persian Gulf.


"Dems can disagree .... but they don't believe in silencing those who don't agree with them"- do you

... mean I was wrong to say true Bernie supporters, being Democrats, would not silence or ban people for not agreeing with their choice of candidate? ... You are saying I am wrong to think that about actual Democratic Party Bernie supporters????

All the rest of my comment was about GOPers who are pretending to be Bernie supporters and using that artifice to attack Clinton --- and hoping this will .....

1) cause doubts in some minds about Clinton - since (ostensibly) it is Democrats making the same criticisms of Clinton that the GOP throws out - regardless of the lack of substance to any of the innuendos or insinuations.

2) create mutual animosity and hopefully, dissension and division, among Democrats by making Clinton supporters angry at (supposed) Bernie supporters for engaging in the same McCarthyist campaign tactics that the GOP are using .... and hopefully (from the GOPers perspective) causing some Clinton supporters to make harsh and perhaps untoward statements about Sanders - or more likely - about pseudo Sanders supporters (i.e. GOPers "for" Bernie) for using inflammatory rhetoric and making unfounded charges. Such responses from HRC supporters will likely cause some true Bernie supporters (i.e. Democratic Party Bernie supporters) to get angry with Clinton supporters and thus, a bar-room brawl ensues. Just what the GOP would like to see.

IT seems to me TRUE Bernie Sanders supporters could find positive things to say about Sanders which make their point that Sanders is the guy to support. It further seems to me that a rather large proportion of the comments supporting Sanders are just attacks on Clinton parroting the same McCarthyist rhetoric the GOP uses against Clinton.

I just don't like the tactics of McCarthyism - insinuation and innuendo. I think Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, find that sort of thing repulsive and indefensible.







Hillary should take off the gloves & say the Donald sounds like a 14 yr old boy trying to impress

the other boys at school with how 'bad' his language is. THis is impressive if you are still a child which is where the Donald is 'frozen'. He, like other's who lack authentic confidence has to talk 'tough' (in his childish mind) and use Punk Talk to try to impress. It works with 14 year olds but not with grown-ups.

it's amazing how often Sanders "supporters" use the same rhetoric of the GOP.. claiming

anybody they disagree with engages in the very practices they use relentlessly. I had several comments hidden by Bernie "supporters" that were ridiculous hides. To assert that they were in violation of any standards of this site was nonsense.

the reason I put the word supporters (Sanders "supporters") in quotes, above, is because I so often see Sanders "supporters" using the same rhetoric as is used relentlessly by RWers. I have decided that many of those Sanders 'supporters' are actually GOPers 'for' Sanders - engaging in 'fifth column' work here on DU. I just can't imagine Democrats behaving that way. Democrats can disagree on issues or candidates but they don't believe in silencing those who dont' agree with them.

You have accused people who are for Clinton as guilty of having anyone who is not a Clinton supporter banned. This is typical RW style rhetoric and just as legitimate as any other RW propaganda. Democrats can disagree on many issues but they don't believe in silencing those who disagree with them - even nut-job RWers. That's a Right Wingers way of engaging in 'debate' of the issues or merits of candidates.

M$M is the GOP's ventriloqust's dummy, trying to legitimize the Conservative Alternate Universe

for several years the GOP has been running a perrenial witch hunt they call Benghazi Hearings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ad infinitum.

While one GOP toady of the Corporate media asked HRC:"Is this the 'real' Hillary Clinton?"

Not one of the M$M grovellers before the GOP have ever asked any of the GOP Inquisitors:

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 1 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 2 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 3 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 4 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 5 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 6 a REAL search for the truth?"

"Is this Benghazi Inquiry no. 7 a REAL search for the truth?"


The M$M television networks are merely the GOP's ventriloquist dummies.



great post. recommended, kicked.



company that raised drug price from $13.50 to $750; CEO was formerly a HEDGE FUND MANAGER!

Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html


Former Hedge Fund Manager Buys Rights To Drug For Pregnant Women, Increases Price 5500 Percent
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/21/3703739/drug-price-spike-overnight/
A decades-old drug that’s used to treat a common parasite has jumped in price by more than $700, after a pharmaceutical company purchased it and raised the price tag practically overnight — triggering protests from members of the medical community, who say that the treatment may now be out of reach even for patients with insurance coverage.

Daraprim helps treat toxoplasmosis, a parasite that mainly affects pregnant women and other people with compromised immune systems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, toxoplasmosis is “a leading cause of death attributed to foodborne illness in the United States,” though it’s typically not dangerous for healthy people.

A start-up company named Turing Pharmaceuticals bought Derapim last month and now has exclusive rights to market the name brand drug, which has been on the market since 1953. Turing, which is run by a former hedge fund manager named Martin Shkreli, quickly upped the drug’s price from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill.
(MORE)


CBS' Dickerson asks HRC: "Is this the 'real' Hillary Clinton?".. Is Dickerson a real journalist, or

.. just a boot-licking campaign errand boy for the GOP? Did Dickerson ever ask, over the last several years, any of the GOP Benghazi Inquisitioners - of any of the 7 investigations of Benghazi - did he ever ask any of these McCarthyites:

"Is this a 'REAL' investigation seeking to find the truth about what happened in Benghazi, or is it just a McCarhtyist hounding of Hillary Clinton?"


.. Come-on Dickerson, tell us how much you enjoy being on your knees, grovelling before the GOP. Here's a question for a real journalist, not you Dickerson: "What would the GOP do for a campaign if it wasn't for McCarthyism?"


McCarthyist Witch hunt
There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released. But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.




Face the Nation interview of Hillary Clinton: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/full-interview-hillary-clinton-september-20/

UN Data Shows That Ethanol is Not Causing Food Price Rises - on no, what to do with the superstition

.. that ethanol increases food prices (even though it decreases Oil prices by adding to the light transportation sector fuel supply!)



UN Data Shows That Ethanol is Not Causing Food Price Rises
(emphases my own)

TORONTO — The UN FAO has released data showing that global food prices have experienced the steepest monthly drop since 2008, casting doubt upon concerns about the impact of ethanol production in food price increases. The recent decline in food prices has coincided with a period of record ethanol production expansion, reaching a high of 94 billion litres in 2014 from 83.5 billion litres in 2012, a 10% increase over this period. This contrast clearly demonstrates that increased ethanol production has not driven up food prices.

The UN FAO Food Price Index averaged 155.7 points in August, down 5.2% from July, representing the steepest monthly drop since December 2008 with virtually all major food commodities registering marked dips. This drop coincides with a fall in crude oil prices in July of 19%, closing at $48.25USD per barrel on July 31.

The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA) has for several years argued that the price of oil and energy inputs are the single most influential drivers of food and commodity prices. A number of international institutions including the World Bank, International Energy Agency (IEA) and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) have also recognised the strong relationship between oil prices and food prices.

A 2013 World Bank publication, Long-Term Drivers of Food Prices, concluded that almost two thirds of food price increases are caused by rising oil prices. The report states that between 1997-2012 the price of crude oil caused maize and wheat prices to increase by 52 percent and 64 percent, respectively. The report also found that biofuels had a negligible impact on food prices during this period.
(more)

Why is the media more interested in Hillary's email than in Jeb's profoundly dishonest tax pitch?

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9300871/jeb-bush-tax-plan

The formative experience of my political life was the 2000 presidential campaign, in which the media mercilessly persecuted Al Gore over a series of trivial exaggerations and now-forgotten pseudo-scandals while giving George W. Bush a pass on the fact that the central premises of his economic agenda were lies.

People too young to remember the campaign may wonder how Bush persuaded the country that budget-busting tax cuts for the richest Americans were the prescription the country needed. The answer is that he simply misdescribed his plan. In speeches, in televised debates, and in advertisements he represented his plan as consistent with a continued budget surplus and as primarily benefiting middle-class taxpayers.

Bush won the election and enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Surpluses turned into deficits, and the promised economic boom never materialized.

None of this was surprising or unpredictable to anyone who cared to dig into the details. The problem was political reporters had found those details much less interesting than snarking about Al Gore's wooden speaking style and complaining that his "demeanor" was disrespectful during a debate exchange in which Bush repeatedly attacked Gore with bogus math.
(more)

High-paying jobs outpacing others in recovery - contrary to the popular lament



http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/08/17/high-paying-jobs/31335779/


A new study concludes that high-paying jobs have grown the fastest in the economic recovery, casting doubt on the widespread lament that low-wage jobs have dominated payroll growth since 2010.

The report, by Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce, says its findings are more accurate than prior analyses that cite a prevalence of low-paid jobs because it evaluated occupations rather than industries.

Based on that measure, nearly 3 million, or 44%, of the jobs added from 2010 to 2014 were high-paying positions with salaries above $53,000. Only 1.9 million, or 29%, of the newly formed jobs were middle-wage ($32,000 to $53,000) and 1.8 million, or 27%, were low-wage (less than $32,000).

"We're not just creating lousy jobs," says Anthony Carnevale, head of the Georgetown center and co-author of the report. "It's more good jobs than bad jobs."
(more)


NOTE: nowhere in this post will you find the words "we're in Heaven". That lack notwithstanding, this is good news.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 89 Next »