Monday, March 14, 2011

Why Solar and Wind aren't "feasible" business models (if you crave centralized, concentrated wealth)

"The most inexpensive way to meet your Seismic Qualification is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from 'failed' to 'passed.'"

https://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info-on-japan-nuclearobama-invites-tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nukes-with-taxpayer-funds/

There is no need to lie about the safety of your wind or solar plant. And don't believe the lie of "Solar and Wind are not economically viable" They aren't subsidized at the level of nukes and fossil fuel, and the cost of accidents, like the BP spill (and others!) and nuke accidents are not factored in to the cost analysis. Nor are the health costs caused by the public's exposure to the fuels and their waste products, as part of SOP.

Gee, why would businessmen spend so much money to represent dangerous stuff as more cost effective than clean stuff, to the public through the media, and to our politicians through lobbying? The "Come-back".

Big people with big pockets lobby for government funds for making themselves *more* money. Sustainable by definition has no come-back. Once you have built the green energy device, fuel is forever free, nothing left to sell to people. Who will lobby for free fuel? The people with the money to successfully lobby energy policy are the overlords looking for the come-back. They push dirty fuels instead of crack or smack, but they are just as despicable as drug lords, and just as dangerous.

The dangerous energy industries *also* fight the progress of Green development with pro-dirty propaganda. With their come-back money they buy up media. (MSNBC = GE = nukes... Fox = Prince Al Waleed = Saudi Arabia = petroleum and methane.) And they become sponsors everywhere else. How are you going to make money if you annoy your sponsors by not telling your audience how indispensable their dangerous products are? Or by not ignoring the fact that their products get so much more tax payer support than their Green competition? Or that externalized costs are not factored into the viability equation. What is an externalized cost?

In NC hog farmers are allowed by law to put the hog waste into lagoons, rather than paying for removal or processing. That means very low costs for the hog producers, but for all of their neighbors for miles around? Every breath they take and and every thing they drink or eat tastes like pig shit. So these people pay the price for our cheap McDonalds and Subway bacon. Externalized cost for the producer, still existent for the neighbors. Want to buy a house near a hog farm in NC? Neither does anyone else. So the devaluation of their real estate value is an additional cost, paid for by the neighbors, not by bacon munchers.

Externalized costs for energy production run rampant. Some costs are deferred legally, because they have used their comeback money to influence law makers and to influence public opinion. But when that doesn't work they externalize costs with fraud, like lies and illegal dumping. The burden then lies on the public to sue to recover their losses (like in the case of BP in the Gulf) These legal cost are also not factored into the final cost analysis of dangerous vs. green Want to buy a home in Fukushima?

To implement green works, we have to do far more than just going to the federal government and asking or even demanding. The energy overlords bought up our politicians with their come back money long ago. Democracy can work outside the government. We have to start our own collectives locally with out large government support. We have to form non profits and build our own green power. We have to work with our most local governments and funds (Our town put solar panels all over our new high school and will be covering the middle school next.) The Federal government is all but lost to us on this issue. Locally, it is easy to make the case for green. It's a no-brainer. The Fed will only follow once they see we've pretty much solved the problem without them.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

James O'Keefe, MSM sock puppet

Evening news lead: James O'Keefe. Remember by choosing this story the MSM gives him credence. James O'Keefe is in fact a sock puppet for the MSM who, to maintain creditability must refrain from such tactics as his, yet gleefully air his fraudulent stories front and center.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Phillis Bennis scoffed at us


I was invited to a meeting of this group on February 10th: http://www.justicewithpeace.org/

Noam Chomsky and Phillis Bennis spoke (and left... they're rock stars). We exchanged email addresses and ideas, and passed around a bucket for donations. I met these amazing Somali women, who I want to follow up with, and now I am part of an email circle of about 20 + local progressives. Four hours of my valuable time spent in hopes of "doing something" (!)

Phillis Bennis, who I admire, annoyed me. She asked the group of about 250 how many had marched in protest February 16, 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. I was impressed by how many hands went up (about half), but she scoffed, "Oh, I would expect to see many more." Scoffed. Nice. Did she ask why any one of us didn't make it? Did she ask anyone to volunteer what they had done instead? Nope. Way to encourage people with positive reinforcement!

I had small children in 2003 (they are big enough to march themselves, now) and I was sick on top of it. I get sick often, which is probably why I am so sympathetic to the plights of others. But I didn't do nothing. For weeks before and after the protests, because those were the days before YouTube, and I wasn't tech saavy enough to know how to post videos anywhere else, I was taping HER and others speaking on FreeSpeech TV: Why the war war wrong, why you won't get the the truth about it from the press, etc. I made copy after copy on VHS and mailed them to everyone I knew who didn't yet "know". Then I would call them and bug them. "Did you watch the tape? Please watch it, just once!" "You won't get the truth from the main stream media!" (Which was packed wall to wall with generals and WoMD "experts"). So I couldn't get out and march, but I didn't sit and do nothing! I did what I could, and I did it with every spare moment I had. I didn't go to play dates or "do lunch" or go shopping. I made and mailed tapes. What I wanted to know was: What did those other non-hand raisers do? Something worthwhile, I'll bet. But for Phyllis, if your aren't marching on the street, you deserve to be scoffed at? Because marching made such a big differnce on our Iraq policy? Appealing to our "leaders" by marching in protest doesn't seem to be doing much, so why do we keep falling back on that?

Jason, my husband, also scoffed, calling Phillis a "gate keeper". You might think not, since she is not in the mass media much, but she is much admired in the left of politics. If her message is, "If you're not marching, you don't matter" then that is what her adherents will abide by, right? Marching takes lots of time and energy, keeps folks busy. And what happens? "Our" troops invade anyway, our banks get our tax dollars to pay their bonuses, health care gets "reformed" into an institutionalized hand out for the insurance companies, whose raping of us is what lead to the health care crisis to begin with. Marching doesn't seem to work, but it sure keeps us too busy to figure out something that will.

I think the overlords of this country delight in reporting to us the chaos and the blood shed in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, because even most of the left want no such thing happening here. We admire the Egyptians, but lets face it, life is so much grimmer there than here, so they have far less to lose. We don't want to destroy what we already have, which is a lot. So keep marching peacefully US citenzens, and see what little good it does you, or see the time and energy it takes, much sound and fury over nothing, and choose to stay home instead...

Can you imagine living in the streets for 17 days? You would have to be unemployed, right? You would be cold. (Even in Egypt it gets cold this time of year, but where I live? Imagine that!) Dirty, hungry. I find the protests pretty discouraging, actually, because just to get a sideways shift, Mubarak for military rule, people had to last 17 days, and many of them had to die, and many, many more were beaten. We aren't going to do that. Yet short of a strike, a general strike, that shuts eveything down and makes everyone miserable, what is going to make an impact on the fascists who keep handing our tax money over to banks, and insurance companies, and war contracters, and petroleum companies...?

So, marching doesn't do much in this country, the press spins it as a parade of crazed malcontents (if they cover it at all!), and the overlords do as they please in spite of it. But if you don't march in protest, what *do* you do, and are your efforts any less valuable? And if marching is the answer, how far are you willing to take it? As far as Egypt? ...Me neither.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Boycott Saudi petroleum

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5633134989&v=wall


On September 11, 2001 the US was attacked by 15 Saudi Nationals with the assistance of 4 Pakistani Nationals. The plan was conceived of by a Saudi national, Osama Bin Laden, and was financed by Saudi Royalty.


http://goo.gl/f34C2


Yet the US defends the Saudi Regime endlessly. Why?There is no democracy, no separation of religion and state, sexual apartheid (which, in its severity, pales South African apartheid of old), and an absolute intolerance for "alternative lifestyles." Slavery still exists there. Medieval punishments are still meted out, yet nothing, nothing bad about Saudi Arabia appears in our press.


We went to war in 1991 to suppress a rival to Saudi Arabia, then again in 2003. We are still there. Now they want us to invade Iran.


http://goo.gl/TNH3y


A Saudi prince is the second largest owner of one of our most influential media conglomerations, News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, the channel that most makes Americans angry at one another, whether they are on the right or the left.


http://goo.gl/LyYJG


When we spend hours in the news talking about the importance of holding to account violators of human rights, why does Saudi Arabia never come up?


There are other places we can buy our gas. We don't have to underwrite tyranny and oppression when we fill our tanks. Please join our boycott and bring freedom to the people of Saudi Arabia, as was done for the people of South Africa.


Peace.

Friday, February 11, 2011

PBS and NPR were lost to me years ago

My liberal and progressive "friends" (and some real ones, too) are urging me to take action to save NPR/PBS from Republican hatchet men. I can't be bothered, and I have three words explanation as to why not: Mobil Masterpiece Theater.

Actually, I have many more words than that. In the run up to the invasion of Iraq we took to calling NPR "National Petroleum Radio" because it was right on the "ask the general" band wagon with every other news outlet, and was taking the WoMD story exactly as it was handed down to the press by the administration.

And I don't want my tax money going to fund reporting "both sides" of the political "debate", either. The right already has enough media coverage. I don't want to fund with taxes one second more, even in the name of this "fairness" The fact that PBS/NPR's funding can be threatened with cuts when ever it leans even slightly to the left is exactly what makes it no longer any more relevant than MSNBC.

I stopped "listening" to PBS years ago the night Frontline showed a report that the nuclear power industry was getting a bum rap, that nukes aren't at all dangerous. Every time I flip to PBS it's showing Riverdance or Three Tenors or Celtic Woman. Rarely, I catch one of its science programs. Those play like corporate PR reels. Read this from the PBS website (your tax dollars paid for this): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/grant.html

100% Monsanto propaganda. Please, just read the PBS site. It is PACKED with stuff like the Monsanto piece. Why does the COO of Monsanto need good press anyway? Merely to counter the truth, that they are trying to control all food every where on earth? By being perceived as liberal, PBS gives credence to Monsanto in the eyes of the left. That is very perilous. Liberals are writing to me when I post against GMO alfalfa that only bio technology can save the planet from starvation. That is horseshit, and you all know it as well as I do; it's straight out of the agro-bio-tech propaganda hand book. PBS and NPR are to blame for the dissemination of these lies among the left. They are more than irrelevant. They are dangerous.

I'd rather have every penny of my percentage of tax money that goes to the public system in my pocket so that I can give it to the media I choose, media that does some actual investigative reporting and educating.

So thanks Republicans for saving us some money and for cutting a vital conduit for corporate propaganda into the psyche of the left. Regarding the money you save the taxpayer? I'll take a check, please.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

My Review of Crayola Glow Color Explosion

Originally submitted at Toys R Us

Crayola Glow Color Explosion. Create colorful, glowing creations. Patented colored Glow technology. Provides an empowering and magical new way to create a glowing coloring experience! Open ended creativity - create free form designs and glowing signs.

From its earliest beginnings, Cra...


Do not buy!

By Lulu from Massachusetts on 12/12/2010

 

1out of 5

Cons: Messy, Poor Quality, Poor Color Variety, Runs Out Quickly

Best Uses: Trash

Describe Yourself: Child Care Provider

Primary use: Personal

Was this a gift?: Yes

I grew up trusting Crayola. When I had my own kids, I would give them Crayola products over others, as I trusted their conformity to non-toxicity. Not anymore. My son received this kit for the 7th night of Hanukkah (Tuesday) from my mother-in-law, and promptly set it aside. (He has never been very interested in crafts.) After we had gone to bed, my daughter, who is interested in crafts, took it to her room and opened and used it. The smell filled her room, and his. She put the spinner at my son's feet. When I got near it, the smell was near blinding. I promptly packed up the entire set, even the scraps and sealed it into some Ziploc bags. The smell was scary strange and persistent, but I reassured myself: Crayola can't label something non-toxic if it actually is, right? The next day, my son, who is sensitive and has allergies, began having strange symptoms. First a rash started on his back. Then his hands and feet itched. Then he broke out in hives and an all over rash. I took him to the doctor Friday. Hives may be from an allergy or virus. She asked me what new thing he had been exposed to, but I had forgotten the product already. After all, Crayola is non-toxic, right? That night his hands and feet HURT. We took him back to the doctor Saturday. She said hives can make your extremities hurt. Tonight his rash is a tiny bit better, but his ankles hurt so much he is walking funny. I have been racking my brains trying to figure out what he is having a reaction to; then I remembered when it started. I just packed the kit into ANOTHER plastic bag and removed it from the house to the garage (in case the doctor wants to see it tomorrow.) I will be calling his allergist tomorrow. He has NEVER had hives this bad, even after being attacked by wasps. Though the rest of us did not get sick, the smell was so foul, I wouldn't dare bring another Crayola chemical into my house again. Shame on you, Crayola!

(legalese)