HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MindMover » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 31, 2011, 05:36 PM
Number of posts: 5,016

Journal Archives

Right Wing smears the Clintons

What will they not try to smear with there trashy media outlets ....?

President Clinton Refutes NY Times Errors In Foundation Story, But Will It Silence Right-Wing Smears?

A New York Times story on the philanthropic Clinton Foundation contained flawed details about the Foundation's finances, former President Bill Clinton clarified today. As a result of its errors, the story provided predictable fodder for attacks from right-wing media -- rabid for new opportunities to smear former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in anticipation of a yet-unannounced 2016 presidential campaign.

The Clinton Foundation, recently renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, was the subject of an August 13 Times report which speculated the non-profit was experiencing "unease" over financial and management issues. The paper noted that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff will soon move into the Foundation's Manhattan headquarters, and questioned the capabilities of senior Foundation employees. The Times also asserted that the Foundation "ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in." As purported evidence, the paper claimed the charity ran a $40 million deficit in 2007 and 2008 and an $8 million deficit in 2012, citing tax returns.

But the Foundation corrected the record today in a letter from former President Bill Clinton. He explained that the Times failed to provide the context and facts essential to its story and misconstrued the Foundation's basic accounting according to the law, casting a shadow based on a false premise. That is because the IRS requires tax-exempt organizations such as the Foundation to report multi-year financial commitments occurring in the year the commitment was made. So in 2005 and 2006, the Foundation reported a surplus exceeding one hundred million dollars. In subsequent years, that money is reported as spending, but not cash inflow. Clinton also pointed out the difficult reality all non-profits face fundraising during a recession.

The Times was also incorrect in its assessment of 2012 deficits, Clinton stated. The paper relied on unaudited numbers from the 2012 annual report, but audited financials will reveal a surplus.


Taming Capitalism Run Wild (Bill Moyers)

Modern American capitalism is a story of continued inequality and hardship. Even a modest increase in the minimum wage faces opposition from those who seem to show allegiance first and foremost to America's wealthy and powerful. Yet some aren't just wringing their hands about our economic crisis; they're fighting back.

In an encore broadcast, Economist Richard Wolff joins Bill to shine light on the disaster left behind in capitalism's wake, and to discuss the fight for economic justice, including a fair minimum wage. A Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, and currently Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School, Wolff has written many books on the effects of rampant capitalism, including Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It.

"We have this disparity getting wider and wider between those for whom capitalism continues to deliver the goods by all means, [and] a growing majority in this society facing harder and harder times," Wolff tells Bill. "And that's what provokes some of us to say it's a systemic problem."



Like pushing a monsters head underwater = the last gasps of capitalism ....

Finally talking some sense about climate change....but then you digress

to making a patently false statement about retrievable energy in sun and wind....

"If you took the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth in one second and converted it into matter, how much would it weigh? How much energy is this in practical terms?
This is an excellent question, which puts the energy balance on Earth into perspective. Let me answer this question in two steps, and then let me compare the amount of energy from the Sun to the amount humankind is using right now.

The energy per time put out by the Sun is its luminosity, 3.8 x 1026 Joules per second (or Watts). Using Einstein's renowned formula that describes how much mass is transformed into energy, when energy is being produced, E = M * c2 (or: Energy = Mass * (Speed of Light)2), as 1 Joule = 1 kg m2/s2 and c = 300,000,000 m/s, the mass the Sun burns into energy every second is:

Mass/Time = 3.8 x 1026/(3 x 108)2 kg/s = 4.4 x 109 kg/s

or roughly 4 million tons per second.
At its distance of 1 Astronomical Unit (150 million km), the Earth is hit by the Sun's energy flux F = 1400 Joules/s/m2. We call this quantity the "solar constant", as this value averaged over each year is constant within better than 1% over time. With an Earth radius of approx 6400 km, the area, which is (pi * Earth's radius)2, with which the Earth intercepts sunlight is (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.3 x 1014 m2 making the amount of energy captured by the Earth each second:

F * (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.8 x 1017 Joules/s
According to the same procedure as above this makes the mass to produce this amount of energy per second:

Mass captured as sunlight per second = 1.8 x 1017 / (3 x 108)2 kg/s = 2 kg/s

This is about 4.5 lbs/s or close to 5 lbs/s.

To put these numbers into a perspective with highly practical relevance, on average, humankind is only using about 1/10,000 of that amount for its total energy consumption. In other words, sunlight seems to be a viable option for our energy needs, at least from the perspective of the total amount needed. Or from the point of view of mass, we are transforming about 20 kg of mass per day into energy for our energy consumption.

If we were to use much more energy, say a sizeable fraction of the amount that the Earth gets from the Sun, the Earth would have to heat up considerably in order to get rid of the waste heat. Every power plant needs a cooler to get rid of its heat; the Earth as a whole can only do this by getting hotter."

Dr. Eberhard Moebius
(January 2005)

Is there any way to see all my posts ... I am not talking about my journal

where I can see my discussion threads, I am talking about all my comments in other peoples threads.

Capitalism, A Norwegian Rat And Some Cockroaches

Often, for some reason, when you want to make a simple point, before you know it it mushrooms into something much bigger. Like in this case, blasphemy. All I started out with was the notion that if we put a dollar value on something like an Arctic melt, or the extinction of species, we are making fundamental mistakes. Which invariably show in the way we reach the conclusions, presented as "scientific", that make us put such values on potential or already final events.

It may be getting increasingly hard to accept in our present worldview, but it's still true that not everything can be expressed in dollar terms. We may still find this to be obvious when we talk about losing our loved ones, our children, but other than that, there are hardly any questions raised when some individual or institution reports a $100 billion price tag for the loss of the bumble bee, or, the example that led me here, that a sudden Arctic "methane belch" could cost $60 trillion.

These reports come with such regularity these days that we have come to see them as normal. In reality what they depict is our loss of values, and a tendency towards moral bankruptcy. The problem in all this is that as long as we keep expressing the damage done by climate change, pollution or extinction in dollar terms, we have no chance of turning any of it around. Putting a dollar value on our very own destruction of our very own and sole habitat (which we share with all other species) carries with it an unspoken suggestion that there also must be a dollar value price tag we can put on halting the destruction, as well as undoing and repairing it. Which is, just like the original claim that an arctic melt would cost $60 trillion, the peak of absurdity.

But still, for 99% of people who read a headline with such numbers, their first reaction will be: that's a lot of money. If you are one of those people, you have some thinking to do. It makes no difference whatsoever what the financial cost is of an animal going extinct, or half the arctic melting. The fact that we increasingly tend to describe destruction in monetary terms is precisely why it will continue, since if a dollar value is all you have left, you might as well have no values.

- See more at: http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/capitalism-a-norwegian-rat-and-some-cockroaches.html#sthash.X2zlFaiJ.dpuf

Reuters Ingrassia says he wants to see more hurricanes ...

Reuters' climate-change coverage fell by nearly 50% after a climate sceptic joined the news agency as a senior editor, a study has found.

The sharp decline in coverage since 2011, recorded by the Media Matters for America advocacy group, reinforces charges from a former staffer that Reuters cut back on climate stories under the influence of Paul Ingrassia, who is now the agency's managing editor.

Media Matters found a 48% decline in climate-change coverage over a six-month period, after Ingrassia joined the agency in 2011.

The New York Times and other news organisations have cut back on climate coverage, closing down blogs and redeploying correspondents, at times citing financial constraints. However, Bloomberg, Reuters' main competitor, has deepened its investment in climate change and sustainability coverage. The agency's founder, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been a strong advocate for action on climate change.


Big Mac says get another job

Since I last knocked heads with The Atlantic's David Freedman over Big Food and its potential to "end obesity"—see his piece, my response, his (odd) response to my response, our joint appearance on a Minnesota Public Radio show, and one more follow-up by me—there has been more fast food news than I can keep up with, most of it involving McDonald's, a company Freedman places at the vanguard of the anti-obesity effort.

The first item involves wages. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Freedman that one way Big Food contributes to our national weight problem is by paying its vast army of workers a pittance. Poverty is heavily associated with obesity and other chronic health conditions. The industry profits by holding costs down, and it does that in part by paying as little as possible. A 2012 analysis by the Food Chain Workers Alliance found that 86 percent of the 20 million people who work within the food chain—that's a sixth of the overall US workforce—bring home less than a living wage. Food-system workers are 50 percent more likely to rely on food stamp (SNAP) benefits than the overall working population, the report found. Not surprisingly, the food-system workforce is getting restive—hence recent strikes by Walmart workers, as well as walk-offs by fast-food employees in New York City, Detroit, Seattle, and St. Louis and fast-food/retail worker strikes in Chicago and Milwaukee. Fast-food workers in seven cities plan to strike next week.

Perhaps in response to such mounting pressures, McDonald's was recently moved to gift its employees with a "Practical Money Skills Budget Journal," "brought to you by Visa Inc. and Wealth Watchers International." Get a load of the "sample monthly budget," which has generated much hilarity across the internet:


In the Dead Zone of Capitalism: Lessons on the Violence of Inequality from Chicago

"I consider the survival of [fascism] within democracy to be potentially more menacing that the survival of fascist tendencies against democracy."
Theodor W. Adorno

Americans are confronted daily with the violence of inequality. The rich have longer life spans, better health care, access to better educational opportunities and an abundance of food. [1] Many live in palatial homes in gated communities and wield a disproportionate amount of control and power over the major social, cultural, and political apparatuses that shape everyday life.[2] Unlike most Americans, the extravagantly rich are protected from the massive degree of violence produced by poverty, poor health, joblessness, inadequate social provisions, decrepit housing, unsafe neighborhoods, and even environmental disasters. While the superrich also live in an age of precarity due to the free-market economic models they support, they largely escape its consequences through the obscene amount of wealth at their disposal that enables them to buy private solutions to public problems.[3] As Naomi Klein points out, such wealth offers more than economic advantages. It also creates a world in which the penthouse and mansion set
protect themselves from the less savory effects of the economic model that made them so wealthy. In the past six years, we have seen the emergence of private firefighters in the United States, hired by insurance companies to offer a ‘concierge’ service to their wealthier clients, as well as the short-lived ‘HelpJet’—a charter airline in Florida that offered five-star evacuation services from hurricane zones [whose ad shamelessly states]: ‘No standing in lines, no hassle with crowds, just a first class experience that turns a problem into a vacation. [4]


I can only see 2 posts in May ?????

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

Monsanto controls our food, poisons our land, and influences all three branches of government.

This article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org.

Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »