> since WW II our economy has depended on preparing for or fighting a war.
It's a lot longer than that. Here's a great little essay on the subject from 1918:
Many people were surprised by the large percentage of people (some estimates say as high as 80%) of people against any military response by the US in Syria. Was it the right attitude? Certainly! There were no good outcomes to be seen after such military strikes.
But what reasons were people giving their Congresspersons?
America is not the world's police
We are tired of war
It would be wrong
We need to take care of our own country
These kinds of responses were widespread across both parties and independents and scare the living crap out of politicians and the MIC.
Why? Because it limits drastically what policy options are available in certain situations where the polls may take a hit but the country won't in the case of non-action. We have been in a war economy since 1936 and are addicted to it. It would be a great conundrum if politicians couldn't take money from the Mil.-Ind.-Com. AND get people's votes. Something that would have to be corrected by scaring the crap out of us some more...
Positive news! I like that! 377 megawatts ain't nothing to sneeze at and being engineered by some of the biggest names in the corporate world like Bechtel. It's almost enough to give one hope.
Most of world isn't like the Mojave dessert with 330 sunny days a year. Still, you take what progress you can get. The Saudis have the most massive desalination plants in the world.
Who is to say we can't get huge returns for mega-plants in the right places? Enough to make a significant reduction if the 400,000 tons of carbon emissions being saved at Ivanpah is any indication.
It's good. It' positive. It is hope.
...the largest solar panel array in the world went on line last week. It's located in the Mojave Desert and will provide enough energy for 140K homes during peak hours of usage.
Y'know, I'm so glad that the massive oil spill in the gulf taught everyone a lesson. I mean, it was SSOOOOO LONG ago, right? Like, those oil tycoons MUST've upgraded their hardware, right? Like, totally!
Ugh...this country's (and this planet's) dependence on oil is sickening. I realized several years ago that there will be no alternative energy development worth talking about until the oodle and oodles of dollars to be made in the trade of oil dry up. Nothing is holier than the Almighty Dollar!
Considering how popular a video game Final Fantasy 7 was (and still is), it's a shame no one else grasped the subtext of the storyline: draining the planet's resources will ultimately kill not only the planet but everyone and everything living on it. And the final boss? An environmental terrorist. Go figure!
The heavy oil being extracted through tar sands in Alberta and proposed to be shipped through a pipeline 800 miles long that would end in Nebraska is a heavy green-house gas emitter.
Obama has said that if it can be proven that this pipeline (joined to an existing pipeline) and the heavy crude it carries to be refined in the South is more environmentally-unfriendly then he will be against it. What is not often mentioned in this debate is that the oil being replaced is heavy crude from Venezuela. Thus it contributes to our country's energy independence, but is as dirty. There will be a cut-in to the new pipeline from Montana, flowing further tar sands oil down the line.
Given this reality, Obama has been telling the Energy Minister and PM of Canada that they shouldn't worry, by his test there will be an equal amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. What is left out of this equation is alternative energy sources to heavy crude. American corporate oil dinosaur corporations continue to roam the great plains screeching massive decibels of propaganda.
It's coming to a head again next weekend with demonstrations against in 45 US cities and an opening tirade for the pipeline by the Senator from big oil in Alaska. I used to be upbeat that Obama would do the right thing, but by his own logic and test I think he'll end up supporting it and using it as a bargaining chip.
Anybody want to bet which side Obama comes down on?
I have long said that since WW II our economy has depended on preparing for or fighting a war. There is a big arsenal in a town near here. The economy of that town and other towns in that county would collapse if that arsenal shut down.
You don't know how close you are as to why we have social welfare programs. It was either that or have a bunch of people come for what they need. To be fair, the poor, hungry mobs usually went into the cities and took from the rich to feed their children. They were called reds and commies and socialists for the failures of the rich to share even a penny.
The boom and bust cycle of capitalism created crises every few years til in 1934, when we went on a permanent war economy. Social welfare programs like social security and unemployment were put in place in the New Deal of 1934 and we were geared up with armament work to supply the allies. Since then we have been fighting or preparing for this or that war, somewhat stabilizing the boom-or-bust cycle.
Even with a social safety net the greed and avarice of the rich knows no bounds as seen by the shameful big-bank mortgage derivative crisis of 2008 in which so many innocent people lost their homes.
Agreed. Same reason you can't dismantle the welfare and food stamp programs in our society. We have a responsibility to take care of a certain amount of our population. If we don't, desperate people will come after everything you have worked for. And to be clear, I don't have a lot of possessions. I drive a 20 year old car. But, I would like to keep what I worked for.
Has been lost and we continue to pay a ridiculous price every day, whether it be the innocents we put at risk or the tax dollars we vacuum up or the corruption that seeps it's way into every corner of every city.
I'd rather just give a needle and junk to a junkie who refuses every form of help then allow the current status quo to keep blowing through our land.