Wednesday, September 30, 2020

I'm Baaack!

Hard to believe that I wrote my first post back in 2009, on January 20th to be precise. Not in response to President Obama's inauguration speech, but most certainly because of it. He made me want to find my voice, to exercise my First Amendment right to free speech.

I'm rather fond of the sound of my own voice and I can only wonder why I haven't taken to the soapbox more often. So this is me, renewing my interest in doing more than spitting into the wind on Twitter.

Looking back at the drafts I started, I find that something like ten or so are still relevant today. I will be going back through them, updating them and posting them. I can't promise them first, but if you see a flurry of activity, you'll know why.

As I said back then, I hope, dear reader that you find what I have to say of interest. Whether I rant and rail, wax eloquent, search for humor or am just plain quixotic, I will try not to digress too far. So thank you - for joining me here; for reading what I have to say; and for adding your two cents worth.

I promise to continue spitting into the Twitterverse.

Saturday, February 9, 2019

AOC's Green New Deal

Hmm. It seems that the following post was deleted from Internet Archive as well as everywhere else. Luckily enough, I copied it before it disappeared.

The link at Internet Archive was https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
Update: don't know how or why, but original Internet Archive link I had was missing a character; the link above has been fixed and works as of this update.

As I said, neither is valid anymore. Oh, well, for your edification the following is as I copied it from Internet Archive before it disappeared.

News Alert

116th United States Congress Convenes

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Representing the 14th District of New York


Green New Deal FAQ

February 5, 2019 | Blog Post

What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.

The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation's people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
  • A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
  • High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
  • High-quality health care
  • Clean air and water
  • Healthy food
  • Safe, affordable, adequate housing
  • An economic environment free of monopolies
  •  Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
The frontline communities that are already facing the ravages of climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these communities that are most at risk.

In short, the Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of shared prosperity.

What is the purpose of the Green New Deal resolution?

The goal of the resolution is to define the scope, scale, and purpose of the Green New Deal. It is intended to define what is necessary for any legislation that aims to be “Green New Deal” legislation. The resolution puts forward 5 goals to be accomplished through a 10-year plan that involves 14 transformative industrial and infrastructure projects and 15 supporting principles for social and economic justice and security necessary to accomplish the Green New Deal.

Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?

A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.

Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?

It is possible if we have the political will to do it.  When JFK called for us to get to the moon by the end of the decade, people said it was impossible.  When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2 at a time when America was producing 3,000 planes a year, the world laughed.  We ended up building 300,000 planes and winning the war. We built a highway system to connect this continent, split the atom, and created the Great Society. The American people are capable of doing great things when our nation comes together to tackle big challenges.

Is there any support for the Green New Deal?

92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal according to latest polls. Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal. The previous resolution to create a select committee for a Green New Deal had 45 endorsers in the House, and this new Resolution is launching with the co-sponsorship of 60 members of the House and 9 Senators including many major Presidential candidates.

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program led by the government? Why can’t we just rely on regulations, taxes, and incentives such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

  • The level of investment required to make the Green New Deal successful is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all their resources into this investment, the aggregate value of investments would not be sufficient.  That’s why we must utilize World War II era and New Deal-style financing which commits to long-term benefits instead of short-term quarterly returns.
  • The speed of investment required must be as swift as possible. Even if all the billionaires and companies in the world could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. Additionally, private companies do not make massive investments in risky projects that will only earn a moderate return -- even if they are necessary to save the planet. The government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in exploration of new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new” tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private sector include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet - and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla.
  • We don’t need to just stop doing the destructive things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires upfront investment. In the same way that a company trying to change how it does business may need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future benefits (e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new economy.
  • Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work - e.g. the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US renewables industry but, even with such investment-promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed.
  • This resolution sets out a non-exhaustive list of several major projects that need to be completed fast. These projects include upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency, building 100% greenhouse gas neutral power generation systems, removing greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture, and more. These projects will all require substantive investment.
  • We’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver of the investment program. Given the magnitude of the current challenge, the tools of regulation and taxation, used in isolation, will not be enough to quickly and smoothly accomplish the transformation we need to see.

How will you pay for the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.

We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.

For a more detailed view on paying for the investments in a Green New Deal, check out these articles:

Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?

The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel indsutry based work.

Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?

The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can't afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can't afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.

Why does the Green New Deal call for net-zero emissions in 10 years instead of zero emissions? Is this saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels? Does the Green New Deal ban all fossil fuels?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to jumpstart the complete transition of our society away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The resolution outlines the plan to virtually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of the economy through a World War 2 scale mobilization of our society to create the renewable energy infrastructure and clean industries as fast as possible.

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then. However, we do believe we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, restore our ecosystem, and more to get to net-zero emissions.

The Green New Deal also calls for any infrastructure measures before Congress to address climate change and additionally calls for an end to the transfer of pollution overseas.  This provision goes farther than just calling for a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure. Instead, it tackles all greenhouse gas emitting and pollution emitting sources in our economy and global trade. However, the more important driver to phasing out fossil fuel usage in the Green New Deal is the large-scale mobilization that will make new fossil fuel infrastructure or industries untenable.  The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to reorient our entire economy to be pollution and greenhouse gas emissions free while ensuring every person in the U.S. benefits from this enormous transformation of our society.  This means creating a plan to develop the supply of clean energy, industries, infrastructure, transportation, and more for workers and frontline communities in conjunction with transitioning off fossil fuels. Only banning fossil fuels won’t build the new economy to replace it. The Green New Deal is a plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically.

What comes next?

Representative Ocasio-Cortez is planning to immediately begin work on Green New Deal legislation to fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal. She also plans to work with members of Congress to incorporate existing legislation into the comprehensive plan for a Green New Deal.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

An Enemy of We The People

There was a time - back in the early 80s - when I abandoned the MSM. The new kid, CNN, proved themselves over and over to be more reliable when it came to reporting facts. For close to a decade my news came from CNN. Then they too changed directions. When FOX News was launched in 1996, I tuned in hoping for that missing ingredient - factually based reporting - and found it. They have floundered occasionally, but FOX is still the best choice today.

So I contest your assertion that Trump has, in any way, worked to "destroy one of the very pillars on which our democracy was founded." That is all on the press itself. Yes, "Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew a democracy cannot exist without it." But keeping the respect of the people, which the press has to earn with EVERY story it produces, is wholly the responsibility of the press itself.

If the press finds itself being attacked - by whomever - it should only have to hold up the story over which it is being attacked in it's defense. If a single word of spin is required, the story itself is inadequate and questionable. As soon as that is the rule rather than the exception, the press has made itself "an enemy of the people" because lies and half truths do not serve We The People.

The quotes above are from "Reagan aide: Condemn Trump's 'enemy of the people' rhetoric"

Thursday, July 19, 2018

An open letter to social media hosts

It is becoming standard practice to remove statements that are considered "fake news". Perhaps it is time to consider an alternative.

Instead of removing controversial statements, I propose social media hosts (Facebook, Google, etc.) label them as incomplete or inaccurate or outright false (a great big watermark?) and provide a link or links to factual information that refutes the statement.

(I cannot see how this would work on Twitter.)

This would be beneficial in several ways. First, nobody's free speech is hindered. Second, it would publicly identify the statement as questionable and link to factual information resolving the controversy. Third, there would be no ascribing motives to the social media host for censorship because all they have done is provide a link. If the host makes a mistake, it is there for the world to see.

Another benefit would be the inability of others to link to the statement as a final thought. This will, ideally, prevent it from being used to further spread the statement because any reference back to it would also provide immediate access to a link or links to facts countering it.

Directing the reader to factual information would allow the social media host doing the review to show that they are not being biased. Facts are facts.

The individual or group disseminating the "fake news" is effectively shamed publicly every time someone sees the post - in much the same fashion sex offenders are by being registered.

Everyone wins except for the purveyors of "fake news" IMHO.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Breaking up is hard to do


I find it both amusing and interesting that the accepted premise is that Greece will pull out of the euro first.  Frankly, I can't imagine they'll be the ones to bail on the only real source of financing they currently have.  No, I expect they'll do the honorable Greek (okay, Spartan) thing and leave on their shields.  In other words, only once they realize there will be no more bail outs coming their way.  Then again, maybe it will be with a German boot up their ass.

There is an article in the online BBC News Magazine titled 'Five ways the eurozone could break up.'  Apparently, a Lord Wolfson says "..there is a serious need for a solution to any euro break-up" and is offering a monetary prize to the economist who comes up with the best plan (is that an oxymoron?).  Personally, I'm going with the current number three: All return to national currencies.

Of course, this brings us back to the question of who will leave the eurozone first.  My best guess?  Germany.  I mean, really, who wants to pay for their neighbor's debts forever.  More importantly, how on earth could Chancellor Merkel justify it to her constituencies?

"Yes, my people, we are now supporting Frenchmen who are retiring two years earlier - at 60.  You, however, shall work until 78, or until you drop.  It is your duty to both your country and the rest of the eurozone!"

Riiiight.  I can see that going over really well, kind of like asking Texas to support the land of fruits and nuts as they go bust.

The alternative is even more amusing: Germany negotiating its way to the top.  In other words, conquering Europe economically.  Somehow, I just can't see the other eurozone members acquiescing.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Looking for America

Years ago I had the opportunity to spend the day in New York City. I was young and, to be blunt, had absolutely no desire to waste my time gawking at a bunch of high-rise buildings. (The group I was with wasn't exactly planning on visiting the Museum of Natural History.) Still don't. (Though I am interested in seeing the aforementioned museum.)

Earlier this month I had the opportunity to spend a couple days sightseeing in our nation's capitol and didn't. When asked (with a certain amount of incredulity) why, I came up with the lame excuse of traffic (which was awful but not insurmountable). The truth is, I had no desire to be part of the spectacle.

Yes, I would thoroughly enjoy standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting on the magnitude of that man's life on mine and then strolling down the mall towards the Washington Monument. I can imagine my awe at standing before the actual documents that are the foundation of our great nation (the blood, sweat and lives that went into them are, on the other hand, unimaginable).

To me these are actions that require time and solitude. I have no interest in being rushed or crowded. My image of the perfect way to see these sights is devoid of other people.

Yet, it is We The People who make all these sights worth seeing. America is nothing without her people.

I drove almost 1900 miles to get to where I was near Washington - not to sightsee, but to work. Still, the trip itself was a reminder (just in case I had forgotten) of who Americans are and what America is because of them.

No, I have no intention of boring you with my perceptions and opinions on the matter. In truth, they are irrelevant. What I do want to impress upon you, however, is that you need to look - actually see - the people around you. Each individual is a part of what we call America. Together, We are The People.

Bother yourself to learn the name of your waiter or waitress, if only for the few minutes you are seated in their section. Smile at everyone - not just with your mouth, but with your eyes and tone of voice. Use the magic words 'please' and 'thank you'.

Remember a couple little details about each person whose life intersects your own on a daily basis. They will remember you.

John, the cashier at the grocery store, is a veteran who wears vet related pins on his apron. Have you ever asked him about them?

Participate in the lives around you. Find your America.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Proof that limiting collective-bargaining rights for workers’ unions IS the right approach.

Bloomberg.com's editors seem to think that the recent "give backs" by unions in Conneticut and New York prove that Wisconsin and Ohio were wrong to take the steps that they took. I believe they have it exactly backwards.

Bloomberg's Editors say "On the part of organized labor, the deals showed a welcome recognition of the depth of voter concern over budgets and, perhaps, a new appreciation that it is going to take shared sacrifice to get the U.S. out of this economic mess." The truth is, that perspective is nothing but spin.

The only reason organized labor gave an inch is because of the "wins" in Wisconsin and Ohio. Yes, it is a "welcome recognition of the depth of voter concern over budgets" but the "new appreciation" is that voters are paying attention to exactly what their elected representatives are doing at the barganing table. The results of the negotiations in Conneticut and New York would never have been what they were had Wisconsin and Ohio gone the other way.

In the long run, Wisconsin and Ohio will be better off for having done away with collective bargaining. On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the moment the unions and their 'bought' government representatives who sit across from them at the bargaining table believe the electorate is no longer paying attention they will reinstate whatever the unions "gave up."