US Citizens and foreign countries have lost so much faith and trust due to the NSA spying, that we need a bold new set of laws to protect our privacy. It appears that the NSA is twiddling with the law to keep business as usual, but even legitimize what they have been doing all along!
Beware the surveillance reform Trojan horse: what's not in the new NSA laws? | Trevor Timm | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
Monday, March 31, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Biotech crops face uncertain future
It is sometimes difficult to separate individual's health issues from national or global political goals. It appears to me that the various organizations work hard to keep it that way.
I remember when our sons both declared they were vegetarians. They said they wanted to "save the planet" by not eating meat, or meat products. So then all of the sudden they would no longer eat foods that might have a little meat broth in it? Wouldn't eat any products containing gelatin? This wasn't a "health" issue, where they might suddenly go into anaphylactic shock if they accidentally ate a very small amount of the a meat product. I can understand how if the world reduced its consumption of meat, there would be much less pressure on the environment, partially mitigate the effects of global warming (less methane from cattle, for example) and maybe improve the health of humans. However, worrying about small amounts of meat or meat products starts bordering on religion.
I often wonder if the movement against "genetically modified" crops is somewhat the same way. There are some serious concerns about growing the GM foods. By moving towards a GM "monoculture" the world is at risk if a serious disease attacked it. For example the potato famines, or what is currently happening to bananas. There are also legitimate concerns about the spread of GM genes getting spread into the wild where they could increase the resistance of weeds to herbicides, make insects resistant to insecticides, or contribute to the extinction of species of other wildlife that we want to protect. However there is no convincing evidence that eating GM foods, particularly plant crops, can affect our health. However the groups that are fighting against the GM crops have nuanced their advertising to make many individuals believe that eating those crops will make them sick. Once seeds of those doubts are planted in the minds of particularly "non-technical" people, it is difficult to change their mind.
GMO opposition Creates Uncertainty for Farmers
Biotech crops face uncertain future | Truth About Trade & Technology:
It is clear that the GM food battle is similar to the global warming battle. Both sides are spreading fear and uncertainty. However, as in real war, it is very inexpensive to perform a terrorist-style attack, but very expensive to defend against it. The GM food "terrorists" find it very easy to plant a few seeds of uncertainty about the use of GM foods, and it forces the industry to fight back by using immense amounts of research and publicity. And, even then, because the defense arguments become complex and scientific, most of the readers don't understand, or don't want to understand what they say.
The global warming argument is similar. Only a few scientists have posed generally weak or incomplete arguments against the global warming theories. However those few scientists have been given "equal time" by the press, and have sowed enough doubt to prevent the world from making much progress against a serious global problem.
I remember when our sons both declared they were vegetarians. They said they wanted to "save the planet" by not eating meat, or meat products. So then all of the sudden they would no longer eat foods that might have a little meat broth in it? Wouldn't eat any products containing gelatin? This wasn't a "health" issue, where they might suddenly go into anaphylactic shock if they accidentally ate a very small amount of the a meat product. I can understand how if the world reduced its consumption of meat, there would be much less pressure on the environment, partially mitigate the effects of global warming (less methane from cattle, for example) and maybe improve the health of humans. However, worrying about small amounts of meat or meat products starts bordering on religion.
I often wonder if the movement against "genetically modified" crops is somewhat the same way. There are some serious concerns about growing the GM foods. By moving towards a GM "monoculture" the world is at risk if a serious disease attacked it. For example the potato famines, or what is currently happening to bananas. There are also legitimate concerns about the spread of GM genes getting spread into the wild where they could increase the resistance of weeds to herbicides, make insects resistant to insecticides, or contribute to the extinction of species of other wildlife that we want to protect. However there is no convincing evidence that eating GM foods, particularly plant crops, can affect our health. However the groups that are fighting against the GM crops have nuanced their advertising to make many individuals believe that eating those crops will make them sick. Once seeds of those doubts are planted in the minds of particularly "non-technical" people, it is difficult to change their mind.
GMO opposition Creates Uncertainty for Farmers
Biotech crops face uncertain future | Truth About Trade & Technology:
It is clear that the GM food battle is similar to the global warming battle. Both sides are spreading fear and uncertainty. However, as in real war, it is very inexpensive to perform a terrorist-style attack, but very expensive to defend against it. The GM food "terrorists" find it very easy to plant a few seeds of uncertainty about the use of GM foods, and it forces the industry to fight back by using immense amounts of research and publicity. And, even then, because the defense arguments become complex and scientific, most of the readers don't understand, or don't want to understand what they say.
The global warming argument is similar. Only a few scientists have posed generally weak or incomplete arguments against the global warming theories. However those few scientists have been given "equal time" by the press, and have sowed enough doubt to prevent the world from making much progress against a serious global problem.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists | World news | theguardian.com
It appears that the US Government forced companies to lie to their customers, and Government officials from all countries. This Government policy seems to be different from that which the military has used for decades. .
US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists | World news | theguardian.com:
The guidelines we always heard was not to "lie" but to say "no comment" and dis-engage with the conversation. This is a big difference!
I believe that now that the cat is out of the bag, Congress needs to clarify the use and constraints of this type of wiretapping. The databases are valuable and useful, and it would be crazy to not use a tool such as this to protect our country.
1. Top-level set of unclassified and public guidelines established that define when, who and how the wiretap & database search is to be conducted, and how long each database is to be kept. Another, subordinate set of guidelines created but kept classified will provide details of the process but must comply with the top-level unclassified general principals. The subordinate set of guidelines must be approved by the Administration and the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate.
2. An independent watchdog organization totally separate from the intelligence agencies with power and privileges to be able to really see what is going on. The watchdog will verify that the spy agencies comply with the set of classified guidelines. The watchdog organization should have budget and staff adequate to do the job, including installing tamper-proof watchdog software on the wiretaps and databases. The watchdog should be required to report annually to President and Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate
3. Rotate and release the names of the "secret court judges" every 4 or 5 years as they leave the position and new judges. If those individuals think they can hide forever, they may be tempted to do something illegal.
4. Release of information about the wiretap targets and amount of collection to the individuals targeted (or made public) after some reasonable amount of time (5 years?) But allow for one time extension (3 more years) for valid on-going investigations if applied for and approved by the "secret court judges." As long as that information can be kept secret forever, misdeeds can take place which can be buried.
5. Allow for targeted searches through the database, with court approval, by prosecutors and defense attorneys for criminal cases (not civil cases) that involve national security, defense of charges involving national security, or murder & kidnapping. It should not be used, for example, for prosecution or defense in charges of patent or copyright infringement, lawsuits, income tax evasion etc. All approved searches should be performed by certified NSA employees and should be paid for by the person or agency requesting it.
US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists | World news | theguardian.com:
The guidelines we always heard was not to "lie" but to say "no comment" and dis-engage with the conversation. This is a big difference!
I believe that now that the cat is out of the bag, Congress needs to clarify the use and constraints of this type of wiretapping. The databases are valuable and useful, and it would be crazy to not use a tool such as this to protect our country.
1. Top-level set of unclassified and public guidelines established that define when, who and how the wiretap & database search is to be conducted, and how long each database is to be kept. Another, subordinate set of guidelines created but kept classified will provide details of the process but must comply with the top-level unclassified general principals. The subordinate set of guidelines must be approved by the Administration and the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate.
2. An independent watchdog organization totally separate from the intelligence agencies with power and privileges to be able to really see what is going on. The watchdog will verify that the spy agencies comply with the set of classified guidelines. The watchdog organization should have budget and staff adequate to do the job, including installing tamper-proof watchdog software on the wiretaps and databases. The watchdog should be required to report annually to President and Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate
3. Rotate and release the names of the "secret court judges" every 4 or 5 years as they leave the position and new judges. If those individuals think they can hide forever, they may be tempted to do something illegal.
4. Release of information about the wiretap targets and amount of collection to the individuals targeted (or made public) after some reasonable amount of time (5 years?) But allow for one time extension (3 more years) for valid on-going investigations if applied for and approved by the "secret court judges." As long as that information can be kept secret forever, misdeeds can take place which can be buried.
5. Allow for targeted searches through the database, with court approval, by prosecutors and defense attorneys for criminal cases (not civil cases) that involve national security, defense of charges involving national security, or murder & kidnapping. It should not be used, for example, for prosecution or defense in charges of patent or copyright infringement, lawsuits, income tax evasion etc. All approved searches should be performed by certified NSA employees and should be paid for by the person or agency requesting it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
San Diego missing fast-Internet future | UTSanDiego.com
The US is clearly falling further behind the rest of the world in internet connectivity. Yes, we could blame it on the large corporations such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast & Time Warner. However they are simply playing the "business game" by following the rules laid down by the Government. It is a partnership between Government and industry that must share the responsibility.
San Diego missing fast-Internet future | UTSanDiego.com Mobile:
In the 1950s and 1960s the AT&T telephone monopoly received a lot of blame for bad telephone service, and abusive practices. However it was a "regulated" monopoly and the various state regulators shared the responsibility. They continually taxed the phone service as a revenue source. They insisted that the phone company use very long depreciation periods (to keep their reported cost down) even though their equipment was becoming obsolete in 2 or 3 years as electronics advanced. This forced those companies to delay upgrades in equipment. When AT&T was broken up, it inspired competition, but much more importantly, it released the stranglehold that the state regulatory agencies had over the company and allowed the new companies to be able to rapidly upgrade their equipment and align their financial management (depreciation) with the realities of the new technology available (Moore's law).
Now, our Government has not declared internet or cable connections as a "utility" even though it is replacing the telephone service and the industry is highly concentrated. The Government has also allowed these companies to continue to consolidate and become a larger monopoly with no regulation. We need a balance! We're now going back to the situation where technology stagnates, service becomes abusive and executives in those monopolies pay themselves obscene amounts of money for taking very little risk. .
San Diego missing fast-Internet future | UTSanDiego.com Mobile:
In the 1950s and 1960s the AT&T telephone monopoly received a lot of blame for bad telephone service, and abusive practices. However it was a "regulated" monopoly and the various state regulators shared the responsibility. They continually taxed the phone service as a revenue source. They insisted that the phone company use very long depreciation periods (to keep their reported cost down) even though their equipment was becoming obsolete in 2 or 3 years as electronics advanced. This forced those companies to delay upgrades in equipment. When AT&T was broken up, it inspired competition, but much more importantly, it released the stranglehold that the state regulatory agencies had over the company and allowed the new companies to be able to rapidly upgrade their equipment and align their financial management (depreciation) with the realities of the new technology available (Moore's law).
Now, our Government has not declared internet or cable connections as a "utility" even though it is replacing the telephone service and the industry is highly concentrated. The Government has also allowed these companies to continue to consolidate and become a larger monopoly with no regulation. We need a balance! We're now going back to the situation where technology stagnates, service becomes abusive and executives in those monopolies pay themselves obscene amounts of money for taking very little risk. .
The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line | Ted Gup | Comment is free | theguardian.com
My understanding about how a Senate and Congressional "oversight" committee is suppose to work is that the committee members are to have access to everything that the agency does. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to do their job. Apparently, the CIA and NSA now believe they can withhold information from those committees as well as spy on the committees activities and communication.
The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line | Ted Gup | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
Something is wrong in our Government!
The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line | Ted Gup | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
Something is wrong in our Government!
The NSA won’t shut up about Snowden, but what about the spy who stole more? | Mike German | Comment is free | theguardian.com
I found this article to be interesting in that it describes the acts of some recent spies whom I had never heard of. It also points out the significant difference between spies and whistleblowers.
The NSA won’t shut up about Snowden, but what about the spy who stole more? | Mike German | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
I don't think there was very much press coverage over any of the "spies" --but an unbelievable amount over the whistleblowers -- of course Snowden.
The NSA won’t shut up about Snowden, but what about the spy who stole more? | Mike German | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
I don't think there was very much press coverage over any of the "spies" --but an unbelievable amount over the whistleblowers -- of course Snowden.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Supporting wind power is good for the country | The Desert Sun | mydesert.com
The Desert Sun had a Editorial page on Sunday Feb 23rd that addressed wind power. Headlining the editorial page, the editorial board advocated continuing the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) and addressed the many positive things about having more wind energy production in the Country, in California, and in the Coachella Valley.
They also printed an editorial by Nancy Rader, of the California Wind Energy Association: Supporting wind power is good for the country | The Desert Sun | mydesert.com:
However, I suppose in the interest of presenting both sides of the argument, they also published an editorial by Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance -- a group funded by Koch brothers, who, have been accused of being some of the worst polluters in America and have made their fortune by polluting and not paying for cleanups. See these links: http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/exposing-the-koch-brother_b_1009898.html; Wikipedia says that Koch Brothers paid as much as $400M in fines between 1999 and 2003 for pollution. Tom Pyle's editorial is notably slanted: Here is his editorial: Tom Pyle -- Koch Brother's Team's opinion --Below is the text along with my comments.
They also printed an editorial by Nancy Rader, of the California Wind Energy Association: Supporting wind power is good for the country | The Desert Sun | mydesert.com:
However, I suppose in the interest of presenting both sides of the argument, they also published an editorial by Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance -- a group funded by Koch brothers, who, have been accused of being some of the worst polluters in America and have made their fortune by polluting and not paying for cleanups. See these links: http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/exposing-the-koch-brother_b_1009898.html; Wikipedia says that Koch Brothers paid as much as $400M in fines between 1999 and 2003 for pollution. Tom Pyle's editorial is notably slanted: Here is his editorial: Tom Pyle -- Koch Brother's Team's opinion --Below is the text along with my comments.
What’s the real cost of wind power? For Californians, it’s more than $330 million in handouts to big business. (Why doesn't he compare this number to the amount of private investment it attracted? Or the amount of subsidies that currently go to hydrocarbon extraction and energy production)According to the Institute for Energy Research, Californians paid that much money in 2012 so that multinational corporations could experiment with wind power on the taxpayer dime — and yet nearly $200 million of that money wound up going to companies in other states.(What's wrong with buying wind turbines and equipment from other states -- if California doesn't make it, where would we get it? Better to buy from other states, than other countries)
It’s a textbook case of corporate welfare that doesn’t benefit California. The culprit is a federal program called the Wind Production Tax Credit. This program gives wind producers 2.3 cents for kilowatt hour of energy they produce — which amounts to billions in subsidies every year. (This amount helps level the playing field between renewable energy and hydrocarbon. It also makes the investment relatively attractive. .
Coachella Valley’s wind producers are some of the country’s largest recipients of this subsidy, due in large part to wind farms in the San Gorgonio Pass. But after 20 years of taking Californians’ money once in their taxes and twice in their utility bills, the Wind PTC expired at the end of 2013. Now Congress is debating whether to renew this corporate cash cow.
But the evidence is mounting that these types of “green” and “clean energy” handouts are surprisingly dirty. (Note he says it is dirty energy --but provides no rationale)According to a new report by CBS News, the federal government has lavished the green energy and technology industry with at least $150 billion in taxpayer money in recent years.
This deluge of federal funding has only resulted in a string of technological flops and business bankruptcies.
There’s no shortage of examples.(All of the examples are not related to wind energy --but are solar and battery technology) Solyndra — which went bankrupt after receiving $500 million taxpayer dollars — is already well-known. Abound Solar received $400 million in 2010, then filed for bankruptcy in 2012. Fisker Automotive took $528 million from the feds in 2009 and another $392 million in 2012, then laid off 75 percent of its work force last April. And LG Chem took $151 million in stimulus money to build an electric car battery plant where employees were paid to do nothing. In all of these cases, poor and middle-class taxpayers came out the real losers. (They paid for it once with their taxes and they will pay again with higher energy bills. The winners, though, are the millionaires and billionaires who used the taxpayers’ money to experiment with new technologies and business models. Our loss has been their experiential and monetary gain — even if the companies they founded go under. (The solar cell companies, and possibly the battery companies "went under" because of "dumping" by China. China exported solar panels at below the cost to manufacture them, in order to get a head start on the technology. That was what the US was trying to do also.
Even where it hasn’t fizzled, green energy’s economic impact hasn’t been that bright. According to a comprehensive study recently released by a team of Spanish academics, each new “green job” costs the rest of the economy 2.2 other jobs because of the necessary subsidies. ( I believe this link is a description of the "Spanish Academics" study The analysis at this link clearly debunks that study and indicates that the Spanish study may have been based upon falsified data.). More damning is their finding that each “green” megawatt of energy destroys an average of over five jobs, with each solar-powered megawatt eliminating nearly nine jobs and each wind-powered megawatt costing over four jobs. (Note: he doesn't mention that nuclear power probably also eliminated jobs since it produces so very much energy with so few employees. I would imagine that almost any energy source would require fewer jobs than the digging, shipping and burning of coal --yes it might eliminate coal miner jobs --but wouldn't that be good for the country? )
These perverse trade-offs can be laid at the feet of government energy subsidies. Whether it’s $150 or $150 billion, the government’s financial intervention distorts the economy by shifting investment from proven job creators to expensive experiments that don’t always pan out.
The Spanish study bears directly on America’s experience because many of our country’s green job initiatives are based on the Spanish model. In fact, President Obama has specifically praised Spain’s green jobs experiments on numerous occasions, labeling theirs a system worth emulating.
The Wind PTC is a microcosm of the problems inherent in the green energy industry. Like other taxpayer-funded “green” initiatives, renewing it would only worsen the negative effects that such subsidies have already had on job creation and economic growth, while enabling green job billionaires to continue their experiments with Californians’ money.
There’s nothing clean about perpetuating this system.
Tom Pyle is president of the American Energy Alliance, the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, a not-for-profit think tank based in Washington, D.C. It is funded partly by the Koch Brothers. Email him at aeapyle@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)