Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - agelbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 749
1
No, it's not a lie. I still remember the thread where you went off on me for daring not to blindly believe your theories about ancient aliens and high-tech Atlantis type societies. What happened to all of those theories, AG?    Did you finally realize it was all nonsense you were following because it sounded intellectual and made you feel superior to those without the secret "knowledge"?   

Only among tarantulas could be it "trolling" or "sophistry" to simply be honest and admit you do not know something well enough to write intelligently about it.  This is what you should be doing when it comes to a great many things you have written about, but wanna-be tyrants will never admit their intellectual blind spots and personal weaknesses.

If their is one thing you have NEVER done, it's "admit intellectual blind spots and weaknesses". You are always too busy inventing said "blind spots" and "weaknesses" in your perceived opponent. Disingenuous posturing does not qualify as an admission of ZIP, counselor. 

Deny all you want and keep up the false accusations, as is your wont. I understand that "works for you" so you can avoid discussing the Climate Crises issue objectively. So, go head, continue keeping your Denier head firmly ensconced in your status quo worshipping descending colon. The fact that you consistently refuse to acknowledge the validity of the dire need for a worldwide effort to get the global economy off of fossil fuels (and other biosphere degrading human activities), to the point that you disingenuously claim that "tinkering" with this complex CAPITALIST system this way will "unjustly hurt the poor" (a Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Denier talking point for the last TWO decades, at least) means that you, like the others that cheerlead the status quo, have blood ☠️ on your hands. Those of us advocating a clean energy based economy for a viable biosphere, do not, despite your Orwellian attempts to demonize us.   

Be sure and IGNORE the following post because, if you read it, it will make your head hurt.

Have a nice deluded day.

Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections – Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldn’t support candidates who claim to be progressive, but don’t prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given what’s at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane O’Meara Sanders, who’s co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.


JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going in—and I heard this a little bit in the email back and forth—is we don’t want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We came—you mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is they’re not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. They’re leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may be—the coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesn’t take effective action, we’re kind of screwed. We’re already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees above—in terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each other’s voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, I’m sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. It’s leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But I’m not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates it’s like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although he’s certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not like—it’s got to be front and center. We’re often, it’s like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesn’t matter if you get $15 an hour if we ain’t here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis you’re just going to scare people. Well, shouldn’t we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think you’re absolutely right. And we have to start—I believe a lot of people have conferences, and that’s the end game. Let’s have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. It’s not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Don’t talk to me about in sound bites, don’t talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, I’m not going to fight the pipelines in the states. I’m not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you don’t do this, I don’t care how progressive you are, supposedly, it’s not—we’re not interested.

PAUL JAY: It’s got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that we’ve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, we’ve done work around Baltimore where we’re based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. It’s not some great future prospect. And it’s your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing that’s happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they don’t ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But they’re not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: We’re going to be, we are. and we’re going to be every day doing science. Because what’s missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand what’s going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but there’s still this feeling that you can’t tell people that because it’s going to overwhelm them. It’s like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people don’t want to have—want to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes don’t want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support they’re giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If you’re not going to do something, thank you very much, we’re not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, that’s what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green deal—Green New Deal. Most people don’t even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things we’ll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. You’ve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. That’s not what we—I mean, protests are very important. That’s not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they don’t take money from pipeline, they don’t support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.

JANE SANDERS: Okay.

PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like here’s what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, here’s what a city can do, here’s what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think there’s going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that it’s just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately I’m concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And what’s happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they don’t deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that it’s over. I think it’s over for that party. I don’t, I think-

PAUL JAY: It’s over for us humans.


JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they don’t focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logic—I mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because it’s like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they won’t cover it.

JANE SANDERS: That’s what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change don’t matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why it’s happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and there’s going to be mass migration, and there’s going to be food shortages. They don’t have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we don’t have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. That’s my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. They’re not doing that. They’re selling ratings. But they’re not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, they’d get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if they’re serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And that’s going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people don’t want to take on the banks. They don’t want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They don’t want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will be—and I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think we’ll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we can’t take six more years of this. We can’t possibly survive that well. I guess that’s dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people won’t survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people won’t. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that they’re going to pay attention if they can be informed. That’s why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, because—you started it with I don’t think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/climate-crisis-critical-issue-in-2020-elections-jane-sanders




2
Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections – Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldn’t support candidates who claim to be progressive, but don’t prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fSQjRZPl0Ak&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/fSQjRZPl0Ak&fs=1</a>

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given what’s at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane O’Meara Sanders, who’s co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.


JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going in—and I heard this a little bit in the email back and forth—is we don’t want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We came—you mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is they’re not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. They’re leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may be—the coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesn’t take effective action, we’re kind of screwed. We’re already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees above—in terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each other’s voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, I’m sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. It’s leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But I’m not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates it’s like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although he’s certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not like—it’s got to be front and center. We’re often, it’s like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesn’t matter if you get $15 an hour if we ain’t here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis you’re just going to scare people. Well, shouldn’t we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think you’re absolutely right. And we have to start—I believe a lot of people have conferences, and that’s the end game. Let’s have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. It’s not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Don’t talk to me about in sound bites, don’t talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, I’m not going to fight the pipelines in the states. I’m not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you don’t do this, I don’t care how progressive you are, supposedly, it’s not—we’re not interested.

PAUL JAY: It’s got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that we’ve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, we’ve done work around Baltimore where we’re based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. It’s not some great future prospect. And it’s your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing that’s happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they don’t ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But they’re not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: We’re going to be, we are. and we’re going to be every day doing science. Because what’s missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand what’s going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but there’s still this feeling that you can’t tell people that because it’s going to overwhelm them. It’s like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people don’t want to have—want to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes don’t want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support they’re giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If you’re not going to do something, thank you very much, we’re not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, that’s what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green deal—Green New Deal. Most people don’t even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things we’ll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. You’ve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. That’s not what we—I mean, protests are very important. That’s not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they don’t take money from pipeline, they don’t support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.

JANE SANDERS: Okay.

PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like here’s what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, here’s what a city can do, here’s what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think there’s going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that it’s just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately I’m concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And what’s happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they don’t deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that it’s over. I think it’s over for that party. I don’t, I think-

PAUL JAY: It’s over for us humans.


JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they don’t focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logic—I mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because it’s like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they won’t cover it.

JANE SANDERS: That’s what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change don’t matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why it’s happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and there’s going to be mass migration, and there’s going to be food shortages. They don’t have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we don’t have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. That’s my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. They’re not doing that. They’re selling ratings. But they’re not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, they’d get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if they’re serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And that’s going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people don’t want to take on the banks. They don’t want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They don’t want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will be—and I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think we’ll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we can’t take six more years of this. We can’t possibly survive that well. I guess that’s dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people won’t survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people won’t. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that they’re going to pay attention if they can be informed. That’s why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, because—you started it with I don’t think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/climate-crisis-critical-issue-in-2020-elections-jane-sanders

3
If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening.

Very defeatist attitude.  No, it can't be reversed and there are feedback loops that will keep it accelerating even if we power down.  But a power down presents the best opportunity we have to Save As Many As You Can.


Far as Tarantulas are concerned, they feed on Cockroaches.  :icon_sunny:


RE

By Jove, RE, I think you've GOT IT! ;D If Ashvin worked for the gooberment he would be one of these:


4

If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE

Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE

Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening. At least that way we have some peace and happiness before everything turns to shit. The likelihood we come close to implementing anything resembling a "power down" is zero, and therefore there is no way to reverse the warming. Of course AG would have us believe differently, but then again he predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful.

Anyway, I stated at the outset that I don't know anything about the climate science. The only reason I responded to you initially was that you asked a question and told me it was a violation of the CoC not to answer it. It's unsurprising that AG and Surly have now decided to pretend like I am making bold assertions about AGW and asking for research dissertations. That's resentment speaking. It's all very tarantula-like.

Again, Watson defends the status quo. Here is the "rationale" that Watson uses to not DO Climate Change:


You, Watson, are lying when you state that, " AG ... ... predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful."

Nice try at pounding the table, Counselor (CoC be damned, right?).  ;)

That's defamatory as well as being a deliberate attempt at distorting both the content and subject matter of my posts over the last 6 years, along with those of Surly.

Surly said it best when he addressed your language twisting, morally challenged, sophistry early in this thread, so it is appropriate for me to repost it now with regard to the bold faced lies you just posted about me, in still ANOTHER attempt to derail this thread, where RE has successfully exposed your refusal to face facts about the dire threat to humanity that Catastrophic Climate Change represents:

The problems with socialism are many. Orwell recognized very quickly that the socialists of his day were motivated by intellectual snobbery and resentment rather than compassion for the poor working class. 60 years later and nothing has changed...

Socialist ideology ignores human nature and treats everyone as "blank slates" who can be molded by the totalitarian state to achieve equality of socioeconomic outcomes. They set up re-education and re-training camps which are doomed to failure. This flies in the face of decades of psychological and sociological research.

Postmodern ideology tries to sneak in thoroughly debunked socialist ideology by pointing out the corrupt aspects of capitalist institutions, and then pretending that there is no other conclusion to reach other than ALL capitalist hierarchies are corrupted by power. And as long as we are playing this game, why not advocate for the socialist power hierarchies instead of the capitalist ones?

Among the numerous facts they ignore is that intelligence and trait conscientiousness account for some 25-40% of long-term life outcomes in capitalist society. This does not fit in with their ideological critiques, because it suggests that competence actually plays a role. But everyone knows competence plays a large role, and that makes them even more resentful and envious of the successful. To the point where they are willing to advocate for bloody revolutions and extermination campaigns as a justified means of "leveling the playing field".

What a pile of crap, false assertions, straw men and charged language. You certainly know how to wield language as a weapon, but you're not selling anything here.

And for the record, no on here is "playing a game" but you.

How well I remember the stories told by my father and uncles about the gulags and re-education camps they suffered under FDR.

Be sure to post the URL of your new blog, celebrating this, the best of all possible worlds.

Also, Ashvin, your claim to "know nothing of climate science" is, and has been, for the last 5 years or so, another lie. Yeah, you aren't a Climate Scientist. So? You aren't illiterate. You have always "known enough" to consistently doubt the validity of drastic national action to mitigate the cause of Climate Change. An objective observer who is honestly and genuinely, and innocently, ignorant of what science has clearly stated about greenhouse gasses would have to be living under a rock for the past 30 years with no radio, newspapers, television, internet or human neighbors. That does not apply to you.

You, Ashvin, a person who frequents financial web sites, could never have avoided real science based warnings in the literature among all the Fossil Fuel funded Denier CRAP you have read.

You formed an opinion based on what you have read. It is disingenuous to claim you are "without an opinion" or "don't know enough about it to form an opinion" on the causes of climate change. The fact that you vigorously defend a status quo that has been proven by science to be the overwhelming cause of climate change evidences that.

I recall how you supported the, "it's mostly meat production, not fossil fuels",  baloney and would not let go of it even when I posted well referenced charts to try to explain to you that fossil fuels are far and away the main contributor to Global Warming. I made it clear that, even though it would help (slow it a bit) somewhat, the problem of increasing global average temperature would not be stopped by everyone going vegan. At which point you retreated into your "not knowing enough about the science to form an opinion".

One thing that is consistent about your sophistry laden "debating technique" is the despicable attempt to frame the opponent as "hysterical, irrational, nonsensical, etc.".

As Surly said earlier about what you typically post, you're not selling anything here.

For those reading this, the following chart, or one with similar emperical data, is something Ashvin may claim he has "never seen". I doubt that.


Here's another one that Ashvin may claim he, "knows nothing about". I don't think so.




5
Re: Watson comes out in favor of the Mass Murder of Billions of People 


If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE


Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE


Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

👍 😎

Don't hold your breath waiting for Watson to research Climate Change. The old "can you reference dis, dat and de udder" apparantly innocent, but thoroughly disingenuos, request for info (data request wild goose chase fallacious debating technique) is something he has pulled repeatedly for the past five years here (at least) every time the ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE (which of course includes millions of unnecessary deaths of humans and many other life forms which he won't admit to until he reads it in Forbes or the Wall Street Journal) caused by burning fossil fuels is brought up. Watson has his pitch and his story, and he is gonna stick to it as long as his status quo loving ass can benefit from the present unsustainable, biosphere destroying, CAPITALIST status quo.

Watson does not want you and me, or anybody else, to "Tinker with a complex  (i.e. CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET) system" because said system has "proven" to be the best, super duper, good economic system benevolently feeding the hungry and poor masses of the world, compared with all those "failed, miserable, snobish, murderous, nonsensical SOCIALST systems, that have been "unsuccessfully" tried over and over and over (according to Watson 😇, a self declared authority on the definition of Socialism and it's history). Watson however, can never seem to link CAPITALISM with CLIMATE CHANGE because, uh, he doesn't feel "confident" enough on the matter to TINKER (i.e. criticize CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET IDEOLOGY) with the present, very, very "complex system" the is such a benefit to the poor of this world.






6
Agelbert Newz / Coal Is On The Way Out —Natural Gas Is Next
« on: December 07, 2018, 06:30:11 AM »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

Coal Is On The Way Out — Natural Gas Is Next

December 3rd, 2018 by George Harvey

Shortly after reading Tina Casey’s CleanTechnica article, “New Report Outlines Investor Risk of Supporting Coal Power,” I found myself looking at the November edition of the EIA’s Monthly Energy Review. Of course, I found myself connecting the two.

As natural gas has taken market share from coal-powered electric generation, it has pushed emissions from coal down. But the EIA document shows that natural gas is emitting carbon dioxide at a record level, and, sadly, its own levels of emissions seem to be increasing faster than those of coal are dropping. As I looked at information on carbon dioxide emissions, I found myself wondering how long it will take for the natural gas industry to go into its own steep decline.

The answer to this question may be becoming clear, and rather quickly. There has been a series of developments in California that anyone interested should notice.

The underlying context is a general switch to renewable energy that has been going on there for many years. As wind and solar systems have been added to the system, prices for electricity from renewable systems have declined. They have pushed down wholesale power prices in the state, especially those of peak demand times, when prices have been highest.

As the cost of renewable power has declined, however, the cost of electricity from fossil fuel plants has held rather steady. As can be seen in Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 12.0[, the costs of renewably-sourced electricity have generally fallen so that they are often below those of coal-burning and gas-burning plants. And the fossil fuel plants have seen their profits disappear with more powerful competition.

Metcalf Energy Center (MEC) in California

Now we come to a specific example of unfolding events that is particularly revealing. In 2005, Calpine Corporation brought a new gas-burning combined-cycle plant online at the Metcalf Energy Center (MEC) in California. A brief history of the plant can be found at Wikipedia. As a combined-cycle plant, it was of the type that generally produces the least expensive power available from fossil fuels.

By 2017, the MEC was finding market conditions difficult. In June of that year, Calpine notified the California Independent System Operator that the plant would have to run on a reliability-must-run basis, or it would be shut down because it was losing money. Calpine🦕 wanted to keep the plant open and was requesting extra income, to be charged in the end to ratepayers. 😈 To do this, it would require a special license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to be renewed annually.

In November of 2017, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) authorized Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to look for a less expensive source of electricity that could replace the MEC’s gas plant. Thereupon, PG&E made a procurement request for that electric power. And in the first weeks of last summer, PG&E announced that it had requested approval from the CPUC for a specific solution to reducing customer costs.

That solution included four battery systems, two of which would be much larger than the 100-MW / 127-MWh Hornsdale Power Reserve (HPR) in South Australia, currently the largest battery in the world. A posting of July 3 at Utility Dive said the total energy storage capacity of the project would be 2,270 MWh, almost eighteen times that of the HRP.

In November, the CPUC approved the battery system. It is expected to be the largest battery system in the world. 👀  An article at Commercial Property Executive details this.

While all of the four batteries are huge, the largest is just about mind-boggling all by itself. Vistra Energy is set to produce and own a battery of 300 MW / 1,200 MWh, three times the power capacity and nearly ten times the energy storage capacity of HPR. To this will be added a battery of 182.5 MW / 730 MWh, to be produced by Tesla but to be owned by PG&E. The smaller batteries are systems of 75 MW and 10 MW, whose specifications called for four hours of storage each.

What I find most interesting about this is not the record-setting sizes of the battery systems. It is that a relatively new fossil fuel plant, of a design that produces the least expensive electricity we can get from combustion, is being replaced by batteries, which do not generate electricity but just store it as it comes from the wind and sun. A gas plant is being put out of business by lithium-ion batteries, because the energy storage costs, combined with the cost of the electricity from solar and wind plants, are more attractive than the cost of the least expensive fossil fuels.  

The Utility Dive article cited above had a quote in it from Alex Eller, a senior energy research analyst at Navigant. He said, “Storage at this scale is likely now cheaper than the total cost to run the gas plants.” More natural gas plants may be coming online, but they look destined to be the next round of stranded assets.

We are not talking about some day in the future here. Renewables are pushing gas🦕 out already. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/03/coal-is-on-the-way-out-natural-gas-is-next/

7
Quote
The first continuous, multi-century study of surface melt from the Greenland ice sheet was published in Nature Wednesday, and the results are clear: the ice sheet is now melting at rates unseen within at least the last 350 years.

EcoWatch

Greenland Melting Is ‘Off the Charts’

By Olivia Rosane

Dec. 06, 2018 09:30AM EST

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/HuDd3AakXrw&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/HuDd3AakXrw&fs=1</a>

Article with above video:

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-melting-overdrive-2622570930.html

Agelbert NOTE: Trump 🦀 Adminstration CAPITALIST Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖 reaction to the above irrefutable, scientifically determined empirical evidence of Catastrophic Climate Change resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons for energy:


8
Economics / Re: Marine Traffic Collapse Meter 👀
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:58:47 AM »
That map is a great "tell" for commerce.

The pilot story is amazing. Great post.

Thank you Az. Glad you liked it. Here's another one I recently read that is poignant and quite moving.



Sometimes There is No Solution

December 2, 2018 by CW4 MICHAEL W. CARR

Photo: ffuries (Mike) via Wreckchasing Message Board

By Michael Carr – He looked in through the C-130’s rear cargo doors. He could see all the way up to the cockpit landing, and just stared as he and his dive buddy bobbed in the large ocean swells.

Looking below he saw the immense depths of the ocean, everywhere the endless ocean. But in front of him was this massive C-130 aircraft, bobbing in the large ocean swells. Inside the aircraft he could see a tangle of webbing, lines, and debris.

“Shit,” he said to himself as he sucked air through his SCUBA regulator. He looked over at his buddy, who looked back at him.

He was in charge of this rescue, and so he knew his buddy would follow his lead.

“The Coast Guard does not do body recovery,” he remembered. But that had not stopped or prevented them from recovering bodies previously.

“Yea, we don’t do body recovery, but if we don’t, who will?” he often said. It’s easy to make policy and doctrinal statements when you sit in an office, but the real world is different. You do what you have to do, or what you know you should do, not always what someone dreamed up or put in an instruction.

Large 8-12 foot swells, generated by gale force winds swept over the floating aircraft. At a depth of 20 feet the divers were being raised up and down, making it difficult to get a good view into the aircraft’s belly.

They were about 50 feet away from the C-130’s tail, which cast a shadow over them.

“I really don’t want that tail coming down on us,” he thought. They swam down deeper, to around 40 feet where they could look up at the aircraft. They kept looking, but no solutions for entering and recovering the flight crew came into his mind.

They swam around to the nose of the aircraft, but could not see inside. Each time they attempted to get close a large swell would raise up the aircraft or them, preventing a good straight view inside.

Before the C-130 ditched yesterday her crew had dumped all the cargo and fuel, so the plane was floating because of the air inside the empty fuel tanks. How long it would continue to float was a mystery.

“We want you to go out and see if you can get inside the aircraft and recover the bodies from the flight deck,” were his orders. Over the past day a fierce November winter gale had passed over this stretch of ocean, making entry into the C-130 dubious.

“What if we swim inside through the open ramp, and then get caught in all the webbing and debris, and then the plane decides to sink,” he thought. “I am not even sure we can swim inside without being smashed up.”

As he and his buddy swam around the aircraft, sucking air from their twin SCUBA tanks, he knew he had to make a decision. Do we try to enter the plane or not? And if we can get inside and up to the flight deck, how are we going to pull 4, or maybe 5 bodies out?

It would be easy to just say, “Nope, can’t do this,” but you cannot just say no because a situation looks difficult or makes you feel really uncomfortable.

“Is there a realistic, viable option,” he said to himself. It’s difficult to think rationally and logically when you are bouncing in the ocean, 180 miles from land, in post gale conditions.

He imagined what it must have been like for the C-130s crew as they ditched. He had flown many missions on Coast Guard C-130s and it was disconcerting seeing one floating in the ocean. Just not right.

After making a circle around the aircraft, looking at her from the surface and from 40 feet below, and thinking about every conceivable option he came to the conclusion they could just not go inside.

“What if we get inside and the damn plane starts to sink. If we had lift bags on her, and if the seas were calm, then maybe, but this is a mess. There is no plan B if we get caught inside the plane,” he conjectured.

“We can’t do this,” he finally said to himself.

After bobbing in the swells for a few more minutes, he signaled his buddy NO GO, and gave thumbs up to surface. On the surface a Coast Guard helicopter recovered them, and once inside the helicopter he was patched through to the Coast Guard Rescue Coordination Center.

“We can’t get inside the plane, it’s too rough, and there is too much debris inside,” he said. He felt relieved, but personally disappointed. He wanted mission success, and a solution. But today there was no solution.

Their helicopter headed back to Air Station Elizabeth City NC, and a few hours later the C-130 sank, taking her flight crew with her.  :(

https://gcaptain.com/sometimes-there-is-no-solution/




 

9
Agelbert Newz / Bernie Sanders: Concentrated Wealth is Concentrated Power
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:50:10 AM »
Bernie Sanders: Concentrated Wealth is Concentrated Power

December 6, 2018

Sen. Sanders joins Paul Jay who asks if breaking up the big banks is enough to weaken the power of Wall St.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/VDsYvEskpWA&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/VDsYvEskpWA&fs=1</a>

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. We’re in Burlington, Vermont at the Sanders Institute Gathering. And once again, we’re joined by Senator Bernie Sanders. Thanks for joining us.

BERNIE SANDERS: My pleasure.

PAUL JAY: In one of the panels yesterday you said it’s not just about concentration of wealth and how the inequality, how unfair that is, the suffering it causes. But concentration of wealth means concentration of power. How do you challenge that power?

BERNIE SANDERS: This is not easy stuff. But we are certainly not going to deal with it if we don’t discuss it. And one of the crises that we face right now is that you’ve got a media that will not talk about this issue. And you’ve got, essentially, two parties that don’t talk about it very much. And I think one of the things that I wanted to do in my presidential campaign is kind of bust this whole thing open. Let’s talk about the real issues. You know, whether CBS likes it or not.

So what you have here is, first of all, massive income and wealth inequality. And as a nation we have got to think from a moral perspective and an economic perspective whether we think it is appropriate that three people, one, two, three, own more wealth than the bottom half of the American society. You know, that’s really quite outrageous, and it’s appropriate that we take a hard look at that. But it is not just that the one tenth of 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. They don’t put their wealth underneath their mattresses, right. They use that wealth to perpetrate, perpetuate their power. And they do that politically. So you have the Koch brothers 🦕🦖 and a handful of billionaires 😈👹💵🎩 who pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, because their Supreme Court
 
gutted the campaign finance laws that were in existence, and now allow billionaires quite openly to buy elections.
 

So wealth equals power, politically. Wealth means that if I own a company in the United States, I own a GE plant, where there may be hundreds or thousands of workers, and that plant may be making money, but not as much money as it could make if I took it to China or to Mexico, I have the power to do that. Because politicians are not going to stop me. Because we have disastrous trade laws. If I am a billionaire, it is likely that I will have control over media, as well. So you have a handful of media conglomerates owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country and in the world determining what the news is; what is appropriate for the American people to discuss and not to discuss.

Now what–my wife Jane, she put this thing together, I’m a guest here. But what she understood is that when we deal with climate change, when we deal with the economy, when we deal with housing, when we deal with criminal justice or immigration issues, we have got to deal with those in a holistic way, and understand why all of that is happening. Not see them as separate issues. And a lot of that has to do that we live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact on the fabric of our entire country.

PAUL JAY: The process of financialization that’s taken place over the whole 20th century, especially since World War II, where finance, Wall Street is so dominant in the economy. And this concentration of ownership and concentration of power is, nowhere is that more important than in the financial sector, because it permeates everything.

BERNIE SANDERS: Yes.

PAUL JAY: But every attempt to regulate finance has been without much success at best, and currently whatever there was is being dismantled. Doesn’t there needs to also be a building up of the public sector, starting with banking? Some kind of public banking? Because you can’t really reform these guys, because they all-

BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t know that you can’t reform them. And I think your point is, though, very well taken. What we need–look, let’s be clear. You have … I will never forget, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, came to Congress a few years ago. And this is after the taxpayers of this country bailed them out because of their greed and their illegal behavior. This is chutzpah. These guys, after being bailed out by the middle class and working families of this country, after causing incalculable harm, which–the Wall Street crash cost us millions of jobs, people lost their homes, they lost their life savings. These guys, after getting bailed out, they come to Congress. They say, you know, what we think Congress should do is you gotta cut Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid. And by the way, lower corporate tax rates and give more tax breaks to the wealthy. That’s power. That’s chutzpah. We have it all, we can do whatever we want to do. And I think the power of Wall Street.–you’ve got a half a dozen banks that own over 50 percent, equivalent to 50 percent of the assets in our GDP. And we have got to stand up to them.

Now, your point is, OK, while we try to do that, are there other alternative models? And right here in the state of Vermont I am a strong advocate of a state bank, for example, where we can use the tax revenue that comes in for the public good, to help us create jobs, deal with agriculture, deal with the environment and climate change, and so forth.

PAUL JAY: Because the blackmail that happened in ’07-’08, too big to fail, and too big to go to jail. And-

BERNIE SANDERS: That’s right. And we have–but I don’t want to give up that fight. We have legislation in that is so–commonsense legislation, that when you have a handful of banks that have such incredible control over our economy that when they agreed destroys the economy they have to be bailed out because they’re too big to fail. But it also gives them unbelievable political power. You gotta break them up. And we have legislation in there that would break up the largest banks and financial institutions in this country. And that’s what we should do.

PAUL JAY: But aren’t you concerned that, like when the telecoms were broken up, they reassemble. The capital behind the big banks are still there. And I’m not suggesting breaking up the big banks isn’t a good thing. But don’t you need a public bank at a scale that next time there’s, there’s this blackmail, you can say, you know, go speculate. If you go down, you go down.

BERNIE SANDERS: I’m not arguing with you, I agree with you. And I think right here in Vermont right now there are a number of people in our legislature, and I support this effort, that want to see a public bank. Ironically enough, you know what the oldest state public bank in the country is?

PAUL JAY: North Dakota.

BERNIE SANDERS: North Dakota. They’ve had it, I think, since the ’20s. And it’s worked pretty well for them. You know, we’re trying to strengthen credit unions, as well. And since the Wall Street crash, by the way, I think credit unions have seen a lot more capital coming in and a lot more growth.

PAUL JAY: Just finally–I know you have to run. The primary in 2016 got quite bitter. We know that whoever, whoever released these emails, and all the rest–we know the DNC was manipulating things in favor of Hillary Clinton and against you. This fight heading into 2020, whether you’re the candidate or there is a candidate that’s on the Sanders-esque kind of platform … This fight in the Democratic Party is not, in my opinion, just a difference of opinion how to get to the same place, which is sometimes framed that way. There’s a real struggle of interest here. The fight against the oligarchy–well, there’s an oligarchy in the Democratic Party. And there’s a fight there. How do you see this campaign unfolding?

BERNIE SANDERS: I’m proud that out of our campaign, I think, we have seen a significant increase–not just out of our campaign–but a great deal of grassroots activism all across this country. This new incoming freshman class in the Congress is not only going to be the most progressive freshman class in a very long time, but the most diverse. More women, more people of color, et cetera. Also, I think what is happening in this country is that to a significant degree we are winning the ideological struggle. Three years ago, as you recall, Medicare for All was seen to be a radical, fringe idea. Last polls that I saw, 70 percent of the American people support Medicare for All. And more and more Democrats are coming on board. Raising the minimum wage, 15 bucks an hour. Radical idea a few years ago; kind of mainstream today. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, dealing with student debt, dealing in an aggressive way with the unbelievably dangerous challenge of climate change. I think more and more people understand that. Criminal justice reform. Immigration reform.

So many of the ideas that we campaigned on have now gotten broad support throughout the country and within the Democratic Party. But as, I think, your point makes, look. There is an establishment within the Democratic Party. There are Wall Street contributors in the Democratic Party, corporate contributors in the Democratic Party. And they have a very different and more conservative vision for the future of the Democratic Party than I do. My vision is pretty simple. My vision is that we have got to have the guts to take on Wall Street, take on the pharmaceutical industry, take on the insurance industry, take on the 1 percent, create an economy that works for all. And while we do that, we bring our people, and that is black, and white, and Latino, and Native American, and Asian American together. I think that’s the way you do it. And we’re beginning, beginning, beginning to see that. We’re seeing great young candidates who didn’t wait on line for 20 years to get permission to run, but kind of jumped in and beat some long-term incumbents. They’re saying, hey, I come from the community. I know what’s going on in this community, and I’m going to fight for working people, and I’m not afraid to take on big money. We’re seeing that. We got to see more of that.

So a two-part approach. Number one, we need to fight for our agenda. We need to elect candidates from the grassroots who are going to, are going to implement that agenda.

PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us.

BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you very much.

PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bernie-sanders-concentrated-wealth-is-concentrated-power

10
Should We Cheer? ExxonMobil’s Renewable Energy Commitments Are In The News

December 6th, 2018 by Carolyn Fortuna

EXCELLENT article! In addition to to exposing what these fossil fuelers are up to now, it covers ALL the crooked=CAPITALIST Profit Over People and Planet Bases of the ExxonMobil mens rea modus operandi for the past SEVERAL DECADES:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/06/should-we-cheer-exxonmobils-renewable-energy-commitments-are-in-the-news/


Agelbert NOTE: Should we cheer?

The only upside to this use of Renewable Energy by the Hydrocarbon 🦕🦖 Hellspawn is that their argument, for the last century or so, that "Fossil Fuel sourced Energy is cheaper than Renewable Energy" is (and always was, by the way, but they did not admit it), KAPUT. 

11
Agelbert Newz / Rock and Roll at Wall Street!
« on: December 06, 2018, 08:11:49 AM »
THIS was two days ago (the markets were closed yesterday).


THIS is the  way it is going, so far, TODAY:




The (PROTECT THE CAPITALIST ELITE CROOKS) Plunge Protection Team springs in to save the "free" market from REALITY.


Ain't Dat CAPITALISM just wonerful?  ;)

12
Economics / Marine Traffic Collapse Meter 👀
« on: December 05, 2018, 04:46:14 PM »
Agelbert NOTE: The following is a screenshot of today's global marine traffic. This relatively normal activity for today is a valuable reference for all of us. Why?  :icon_scratch: Because we can compare it with activity in the future.

In this thread, World Maritime activity can be checked here 👀 to see when an imminent collapse situation is in progress. IMHO, Capitalist economies will first evidence imminent collapse by the absence of marine traffic. 

I call this the Marine Traffic Collapse Meter. I will post a screenshot now and then, but anybody else is welcome to do so. I will also post marine related stuff here that I find of interest. :coffee:
 

Since you are here. enjoy this news I discovered the other day.

Agelbert NOTE: This is nearly three years old but I had not seen it. The parachute system this aircraft had is a called a BRS (Ballistic Recovery System). All ultralights have them and many light aircraft, such as the one in this video, can have them too. They shoot out like a mortar when you pull a string to fire them. As you will see, they work GREAT!




Pilot Safe After Ditching Aircraft in Pacific Ocean – Amazing Video

January 27, 2015 by Mike Schuler


This screenshot from the video below shows the aircraft chute deploying. U.S. Coast Guard image

The pilot of a single engine airplane is lucky to be alive after he was forced to ditch his aircraft in the Pacific Ocean 200 miles northeast of Maui on Sunday, January 25, 2015.

At 12:30 p.m. on Sunday, the pilot contacted the Hawaii National Guard and reported that his aircraft had approximately three hours of fuel remaining during a flight from Tracy, California to Kahului Maui and he would be ditching 230 miles north east of Maui. The pilot told rescue crews that he had a life jacket, life raft and his aircraft was equipped with a parachute system.

A Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules airplane from Air Station Barbers Point was able to rendezvous with the aircraft and caught the following amazing video of the ditching process.

At approximately 4:44 p.m. the pilot was able to deploy the aircraft’s airframe parachute system and safely exit the aircraft into a life raft, seemingly without a hitch.


Warning: Volume (Note: Not my music)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9gCMdeU22Dk&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/9gCMdeU22Dk&fs=1</a>

After the ditching, the crew of the Amver participating cruise ship Veendam was sent to rescue the pilot, who was reported in good condition.

Weather conditions at the time of the rescue were seas of 9 to 12 feet and winds of 25 to 28 mph, the Coast Guard said.

https://gcaptain.com/pilot-safe-after-ditching-aircraft-in-pacific-ocean-amazing-video/



13
This altruistic tenet is sine qua non to Socialism. That means that the closest thing to actual socialism that has ever been tried is what, imperfectly, but it was close, controlled distribution of labor and goods for the common good during the Early Christian Church.

Don't forget the Potlach societies of the Pacific Northwest, which at its peak shared goods between more than 15 tribes and 200,000 people and lasted into the 19th century when it was made illegal by Capitalists.


RE

Well said, RE. Excellent point! It underscores the fact that, in human relations throughout history, altruism has always been at the core of really successful societies.

But there is more the Social Darwinists refuse to acknowledge, as Ashvin, with his continual defense of "justified" seeking of privilege under Capitalism, evidences. The ideology, a direct result of the Evolutionary Theory  corollary that predators can "do whatever they want" because they are "apex" is itself the basis of the flawed world view that it's, not just "a-okay". but "desirable", for the smartest humans to lord it over other humans. That flawed world view claims to be "supported by science". Well, the whole deal with Evolutionary Theory is a process that Darwin claimed continually selects the fittest individual within a species, and also provided the basis for perpetuating the fittest species in competition with other species for resources.

Here's the giant biosphere species "elephant" in the "apex predators are it" room.

Darwin, to his credit, did say that altruism was important in human affairs. Of course he meant certain humans, not the ones that were, uh, "backward" or "unintelligent" "sub-species" (wrong color, kinky hair, etc.). We know now that he was wrong there, but that isn't the real problem with Social Darwinist assumptions.

Assuming that evolution is the cause of every species that "succeeded", through natural selection, to populate the biopshere in the year 2018, it is logical to ask how long these obviously successful species have been around. It is also pertinent to ask how large is the biomass of species to learn which ones are the most successful of all.

Darwin did not know the answer to either of those questions. We know the answer now.

Embarrassingly for the Capitalists, who base their ideology on Social Darwinism, is the fact that the social insects are the most successful species in the biosphere by both species longevity and biomass. If these Social Darwinsts had an ounce of integrity, they would realize (and admit) that species that are not part of the various social insect species on this planet are all newcomers and, compared with the ants and termites (to name just two, both of which have several species among them) are newcomer experiments. The fossil record is full of predators that died off. Ants have not changed for, according to modern science, hundreds of millions of years. They apparently haven't "evolved further" because they are so successful, in their social insect colony way, at perpetuating their species.

Darwin missed that in his zeal to put white Europeans at the top of "apex" predator Evolutionary "fittest" peak. Science knows bettter now. Science knows that apex predators are the first to die off when natural disasters strike. Science knows apex predators are the most fragile of species in the trophic pyramid. Wall Street, and all the Capitalist crooks that curse our society today, missed that memo.

As I said earlier, we are not ever going to be able to function as a social insect colony. But, that is analogous to the completely altruistic Socialist Society we must strive for, if we wish to be as successful as the ants. Anyone that claims that humans are a "more successful species" than ants is into wishful thinking.



I see Ashvin is doing a bit of Scriptural cherry picking. ::) Ashvin is trying to derail the central issue here, which is the merits of altruism over privilege seeking behavior in human society. Here's what Christ said about the motive behind every act of service that the leadership in His Church had to live by when his privilege seeking disciples asked Him about who is the greatest:

Quote
Luke 22:24-27

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors.

26 But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as the One who serves.

Christ was, of course, keenly aware of the "might is right" world view shared by most people at that time, just like it is today. He deliberately flipped on its head the greed based status quo motive for doing whatever from obtaining privilege to the daily practice of altruism. Christ was not playing with words.

If what Christ ordered his disciples to do back then is not a perfect example of the altruism inherent in true Christianity, I don't know what is. Also, if that is not a perfect example of Christian Socialism in action, I don't know what is.

14
Let's all jump on Ashvin time, huh?

Among the numerous facts they ignore is that intelligence and trait conscientiousness account for some 25-40% of long-term life outcomes in capitalist society. This does not fit in with their ideological critiques, because it suggests that competence actually plays a role. But everyone knows competence plays a large role, and that makes them even more resentful and envious of the successful. To the point where they are willing to advocate for bloody revolutions and extermination campaigns as a justified means of "leveling the playing field".


Trouble is......Ashvin is 100% right on that part, and the rest of you are so caught up in your own belief systems that it doesn't matter whether he is or not. That bothers me a lot. Not whether he's right or wrong, but that the rest of your are willing to gang up and play this kind of bullshit dirty pool. It's completely unfair.

And I'm going to say that, and I challenge anyone here to offer any actual facts to the contrary to what I just quoted..

Go ahead, and big fancy caps and emoticons don't count. Just facts. Prove your points, and stop just bashing.


Provided you can keep your bullying to a low roar, I will answer with facts and without without caps and without emoticons.

First of all, your finger pointing claim that, in so many words, ideology "taints" the objectivity of anyone criticizing Ashvin, is based on your ideology. So, your claim that "Ashvin is 100% right" is nothing but an opinion based on your Social Darwinst world view; a world view that you share with Ashvin. So, your claim that readers here are unjustly jumping on Ashvin, just like GO's rush to agree, is also a reflection of your ideology, not facts.

WHAT PART OF "THE SOVIET UNION WAS STATE CAPITALISM" do you not understand, Mr. SOPHIST?

Watson only understands that which Watson shits off his keyboard.  Often enough he doesn't even understand that.  He's full of self-hatred, so he trolls this website to hate on others.  He wants to be part of the ruling elite in this country, so he gave up his birth religion to become a fake Joel Osteen style Christian and join the ranks of the Christian Right Wing Fascists.  He has an extreme case of tunnel vision and writes on only one topic, his hatred for socialism.  I let him stay on because with each post he reveals what a hypocrite he is, and because he is trying to goad me into banning him.  He's so obsessed he can't even follow through and quit posting.  It's pathetic.

RE


RE pretty much covered Ashvin's flawed outlook on human society, so I won't belabor that point, though I realize you vigorously disagree with RE and Surly in that regard. It is a fact that you disagree. It is not a fact that your opinion is fact based. It is a fact that your opinion is ideology based.

You can accuse me, as you have often, of being "blinded" by my ideology (that's when you are in a good mood. At other times you claim I am allegedly at war with the world and hate filled, etc.). You may be right, but that doesn't solve the issue of what is a reality based opinion and what is not, now does it?

Second, the definition of Soviet "Socialism" is State Capitalism, as the Anarchists note, because the boss/employee relationship was not changed from that handed off to Capitalism by the feudal lord/peasant relationship, which came from the owner/slave relationship, all of which are incompatible with true socialism, which is egalitarian. As of right now, your ideology prevents you from agreeing with this second point, even though it is factual.

Ashvin went at me with an accusation that I am somehow hiding something because I don't want to define myself as a "Marxist" or "Socialist". Ashvin's definition of those terms is a convenient aberration of what socialism actually is, just like yours is. If I say I am a Socialist, which I certainly am, you and Ashvin could, and probably would, claim I am a hypocrite because I started a corporation (3M Franchise) selling reflective window film at the age of 23, taught people to fly for money, controlled air traffic for money working for the US empire, and so on.

Yep, I have survived in a system I did not create. Yep, I have learned a thing or two along the way. But, trying to finger me as a "hypocrite" has absolutely nothing to do with the basic Socialist tenet of a 100% requirement for an egalitarian relationship among all the society working for the common good of all in that society. This altruistic tenet is sine qua non to Socialism. That means that the closest thing to actual socialism that has ever been tried is what, imperfectly, but it was close, controlled distribution of labor and goods for the common good during the Early Christian Church.

Ashvin claims that "Socialism" and "Capitalism" were not even defined at the time, so my claim is "nonsensical". Lawyers have a thing about definitions, too often ignoring the reality of human relations that go back millenia, where any and all economic systems that were not "defined" as such back then were, nevertheless, in limited, but factual, operation. Here's some factual information on Christian Socialism:

Quote
The most important quote[citation needed] of the Old Testament that has been recognized by Christian socialists is the verse from Ecclesiastes 3:13 that describes God as promoting an egalitarian society, stating:

It is God's gift to humankind that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil— (Ecc. 3: 13).[9]

New Testament

— (Jam. 5:1–6).[13]
During the New Testament period and beyond there is evidence that many Christian communities practiced forms of sharing, redistribution and communism.[14]

Church Fathers age


Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379), the Father of the Eastern monks who became Bishop of Caesarea, established a complex around the church and monastery that included hostels, almshouses, and hospitals for infectious diseases.[15] During the great famine of 368, Basil denounced against profiteers and the indifferent rich.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Another thing on this second point: Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther (who's "saved by grace" interpretation of Paul's writings - now twisted by Calvinist Antinomians like Ashvin, a Catholic at the time, called out the Catholic Pope for the disingenuous, greed based, happy talk on indulgences. Luther was not a happy camper with Herr Jugger's Capitalist MO. Luther railed at Jugger for his excessive greed because it was totally at odds with the Christian Gospel. But it gets better.  Jugger was the person that convinced the Pope to charge interest on loans, something the Catholic Church had considerd sinful up until Jugger, who had loaned quite a bit of money to the Pope, convinced the Pope to revise his views.

Then it got even better. Jugger was in the indulgences racket up to his greedy Capitalist neck. The indulgence money that was paid for "guaranteed" salvation was collected by the "good graces" of Herr Jugger. So, the Catholic Church got half and, of course, Jugger got the other half. If that is not Capitalism, I do not know what is.

Way back in 1508, the Capitalist Happy Talk Propaganda by Mr. Jugger, still in evidence today, is evidence that Capitalism was functioning exactly as it is today. So, whether it was "defined" or not, is irrelevant. It was there. Here's the quote from Herr Jugger without annoying emoticons. I defy you to find any difference with what he says 500 years ago with what Capitalists defend with every lying breath today:

In 1508 Emperor Maximilian I attempted to force his bankers to invest in bonds to support another of his wars. Fugger was furious at this, and wrote a letter back to the Emperor. Steinmetz explains:

Quote
Fugger started with what he said was obvious. Companies like his benefitted every level of society, producing jobs and wealth for all. Business could only work its magic if the government left it alone. If politicians threw up roadblocks and killed the profit motive, business had no chance. Merchants and bankers were good citizens, he argued. They treated each other and their customers fairly. Sure, self-interest propelled them. But they knew better than to cheat customers. Reputation was everything and the need for credibility checked the urge to lie, gouge and steal. Hinting at the allure of tax havens (the Swiss border was only sixty miles away), he declared that other countries show businessmen more respect. He blasted those who condemned commerce and enterprise. They failed to understand that “it is for the common good that honourable, brave and honest companies are in the realm.  For it is not disreputable but rather it is wonderful jewel that such companies are in the kingdom.”

It is no surprise that when the German Peasants’ War broke out in 1524, that wealthy men like Jakob Fugger were accused by the people of corruption and stealing from the poor. At one point during that year Jakob had to flee his home in Augsburg because of the threats from protestors. Fugger did all that he could to support the nobles trying to put down the revolt, which would only end after 100,000 people were dead. http://www.medievalists.net/2018/12/richest-person-history/

Third, the (disingenuous) purist argument, which MKing often used on me because of my Camry, as a basis for claiming I am a hypocrite about Renewable Energy, is analogous to what Ashvin is trying to pull on me and anyone that survives in a Capitalist economic system. It is, as I said in another post, par for the course with people stuck on the flawed ideology of Social Darwinsm as applied to economic systems. I can not convince you that greed is bad because you are convinced that any action to obtain a privileged economic position over fellow humans is "justified" by a combination of your superior intelligence, ability and aggressiveness.

Socialism in general, and Christian Socialism in particular, inverts that seeking of privilege and position through whatever it takes (i.e. Social Darwinist pecking order ideology). Altruism is the main thing to seek in Socialism. As soon as any alleged "Socialist" system is corrupted by the seeking of privilege, it becomes a Capitalist system. Again, to Social Darwinsts, seeking of privilege and position is the only "reality based" system there is. A system (i.e. Socialism) where the reward for hard work based on intelligence, dedication, ability and grit is a viable biosphere, a healthy population, and a horizontal altruistic relationships between those who govern and those who provide goods and services is "not realistic".

Not only do I firmly believe, from having observed my behavior and that of my fellow humans for the past 72 years, that Socialism is the ideal economic system, if we do not switch to it very, very soon, humans will not be around much longer.

15
Agelbert Newz / BREAKING: Tesla Passes Daimler In Market Cap .... 😀
« on: December 05, 2018, 10:01:00 AM »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

BREAKING: Tesla Passes Daimler In Market Cap — Volkswagen Next?

December 4th, 2018 by Zachary Shahan

Another one bites the dust.  

Some people don’t understand it. How can a little upstart like Tesla be worth more than almost every other automaker in the world? Of course, being that I have an outsized investment in Tesla [TSLA] compared to other stocks, I have a fairly strong opinion on this topic. In summary, I would say that all is right in the world of auto stocks, so I’ll try to explain how this makes sense.

First of all, though, the important thing to remember is that people managing hundreds of billions of dollars have determined that auto company valuations should be where they are right now. The Tesla stock price does not rise and fall primarily on the mood of a few hundred fickle retail investors. The bulk of the stock is owned by gigantic institutional investors. In other words, the misleading narrative that the Tesla stock price is high because of näive, young, Kool Aid–drinking retail investors should be thrown in the trash.

Update: German automaker market caps above were off initially and have been corrected. Also, Toyota’s market cap is far higher than any of the other automaker’s, but it is not included here.

Another thing to consider is that it’s 2018, not 1918. Car companies aren’t just car companies. Conventional car companies have large engine factories on the books, and gasoline/diesel engines are on the way out.

Batteries are key to the electric ⚡ future, and it seems that Tesla is far in the lead with significant, fruitful investments in battery factories, useful IP, and overall battery expertise.

Software is also key to the future of cars, and Tesla again appears to have a leadership position (a big one) when it comes to sophisticated vehicle software.

Every carmaker has its hands in our ride-hailing, carsharing future — which eventually means robotaxis. Some people think GM has the most promise in this regard , some think it’s Volkswagen 🤔, but many certainly think it’s Tesla. That is a gigantic market and the leaders will be making a few fortunes, which means they’ll be worth a few fortunes. Uber was worth $72 billion in February and an IPO might put it at $120 billion. Supposedly, Tesla’s potential “Network” for self-driving carsharing isn’t valued by most Wall Street 😈 analysts. If it really isn’t included much in Tesla’s market cap, there’s plenty of room for further growth in the coming years. If it is included a bit in valuations, that further helps to explain why Tesla is already above Daimler, BMW, GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Honda, Nissan, Renault, Hyunda, Kia, and others in market cap.

One more thing to consider briefly is that Tesla is hot, hot, hot among young people. Kids love Tesla, teenagers love Tesla, and young adults love Tesla. This brand strength among future car buyers will be powerful starting in 5–10 years. Stay tuned for that. 🧐

Back to today, the market valuations of Tesla, Daimler, and a few other top players at the close of market today were (in billions):

Tesla — $63.18

Daimler — $62.89

BMW — $55.03

Ford — $37.25

GM — $52.22

FCA — $26.76

Volkswagen — $82.44

Toyota — $171.1


Related: World’s 10 Biggest Automakers & Their EV Plans

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/29/worlds-10-biggest-automakers-their-ev-plans/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 749