Author Archives: mirorita02

Chart of the Day: Net New Jobs in May

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The American economy added 175,000 new jobs last month, but about 90,000 of those jobs were needed just to keep up with population growth, so net job growth clocked in at 85,000. That’s about the same as last month: OK, but not great. The headline unemployment number increased from 7.5 percent to 7.6 percent (actually from 7.51 percent to 7.56 percent) thanks to a small increase in the number of people who rejoined the labor force and are looking for work.

Once again, the fiscal cliff deal and the sequester don’t seem to be showing up in the job numbers yet—though public sector employment was flat and federal employment was down, which might be partly due to cutbacks. In any case, the changes aren’t huge. So far, it looks like we’re continuing to tread water.

Source:

Chart of the Day: Net New Jobs in May

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Net New Jobs in May

Court orders feds to review oil dispersant risks

Court orders feds to review oil dispersant risks

Shutterstock

Humpback whales don’t like oil dispersants.

A legal victory for environmentalists this week means that sea turtles, whales, and other endangered species may be sheltered from the use of oil dispersants off the California coastline.

Dispersants, which are used to dissolve oil spills, can cause crippling injuries to cleanup workers and wildlife, but regulations governing their use are extremely lax. The EPA successfully fended off a lawsuit recently that tried to force it to regulate where dispersants can be used and in what quantities.

But on Thursday, conservation groups clinched a settlement that will force the federal government to measure and find ways to minimize impacts from dispersants when they are used to battle oil spills under the California Dispersants Plan.

From a Center for Biological Diversity press release:

“During the BP oil spill, no one knew what the long-term effects of chemical dispersants would be, and we’re still learning about their harm to fish and corals,” said Deirdre McDonnell of the Center for Biological Diversity, which brought suit with Surfrider Foundation and Pacific Environment. “People can avoid the ocean after an oil spill, but marine animals can’t. They’re forced to eat, breathe and swim in the chemicals we put in the water, whether it’s oil or dispersants.” …

Studies have found that oil broken apart by the dispersant Corexit 9527 damages the insulating properties of seabird feathers more than untreated oil, making the birds more susceptible to hypothermia and death. Studies have also found that dispersed oil is toxic to fish eggs, larvae and adults, as well as to corals, and can harm sea turtles’ ability to breathe and digest food.

Environmental News Service reports that the settlement covers four dispersants, including Corexit 9500A, which was used during the BP oil spill:

The settlement requires the federal agencies to consider as part of their analysis six named scientific studies of the effects of dispersants in the BP Deepwater Horizon spill.

One of the six studies found that COREXIT increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times.

“Dispersants are preapproved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters. But we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion,” said Roberto-Rico Martinez of Mexico’s Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes, who led the study, published in the February 2013 issue of the journal “Environmental Pollution.”

Now if we just stopped using oil, we’d have no more oil spills on which to dump dispersants.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article:

Court orders feds to review oil dispersant risks

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Court orders feds to review oil dispersant risks

How Somali Pirates Are Holding Climate Science Hostage

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Paleoanthropologist and Berkeley professor Tim White has been waiting for years to drill into the Gulf of Aden near the Indian Ocean seabed for ancient ashes from African volcanoes. By comparing the different layers in the sea core to those found on land, he hopes to be able to estimate the age of certain fossils, thus advancing our understanding of both human evolution and climate change.

But there’s a problem: Pirates have made it too dangerous to put a boat anywhere near the ash that White needs. Somali buccaneers claimed more than 3,740 crew members from 125 countries as victims between 2005 and 2012, according to the World Bank. Globally, the economic cost of piracy comes to $18 billion per year. And now, scientific research appears to be another casualty of the marauding bandits.

“Piracy has stopped oceanographic work in the region,” White told National Geographic this week. “There’s been no data coming out of this area for years. Zero.”

White’s research requires the use of the JOIDES Resolution, an oceanographic ship with a drilling rig. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), which controls the JOIDES Resolution, has docked three projects near Somalia (including White’s) due to safety concerns. “To get the kind of climate records we’re after, you need to sit on station for two days to a week,” says Sarah Feakins, an assistant professor of Earth Science at USC whose research is also being stalled. “The ship is in one place, which makes it more dangerous.”

According to National Geographic, White’s and Feakin’s frustrations are echoed by scientists worldwide:

“Scientists from around the globe, specializing in subjects as diverse as plate tectonics, plankton evolution, oceanography, and climate change, are decrying a growing void of research that has spread across hundreds of thousands of square miles of the Indian Ocean near the Horn of Africa-an immense, watery “data hole” swept clean of scientific research by the threat of Somali buccaneering.”

Back in 2011, Australian researchers interested in studying international weather patterns asked the Australian and US navies to help them fend off threats from Somali pirates. In a joint military effort, the two countries’ navies protected the researchers’ instruments.

But this kind of aid wouldn’t help with White’s sea core drilling. “You can do some science off military vessels, but for these operations you need sediment coring ships themselves,” said Feakins. An armed escort for the research vessels could work, but Feakins told National Geographic that when she suggested this idea, “it caused a firestorm of anger from everybody from the US State Department to the IODP.” Scientific groups say such efforts would hurt their insurance policies, and governments hesitate to foot the bill.

So far in 2013 there have been four pirate hijackings worldwide, down from 14 in 2012 and 31 in 2011. But despite the recent decline, scientists still don’t know when—or if—their research will be able to move forward.

“My sense is the window of opportunity may not open again for many, many years,” says White.

According to Feakins, the last time any science was done in the Gulf of Aden was in 2001. “The climate system is changing and it’s a shame not to have any information on this region,” she says.

See original: 

How Somali Pirates Are Holding Climate Science Hostage

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on How Somali Pirates Are Holding Climate Science Hostage

Court rescues Belizean coral from offshore oil drillers

Court rescues Belizean coral from offshore oil drillers

Dr. John Bullas

Saved!

The world’s second-largest barrier reef was saved from offshore drilling by activists who successfully sued the government of Belize over the issue.

Belize issued contracts to energy companies in 2004 and 2007 that allowed them to drill around the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. But the government officials awarded the contracts to inexperienced drillers and didn’t bother studying the environmental impacts first. That’s actually kind of understandable: I mean, what could go wrong?

Oceana and two other nonprofits sued the government over the contracts. They won the lawsuit this week in Belize’s Supreme Court.

From a blog post by Oceana:

The court overturned the contracts after determining that the government failed to assess the environmental impact on Belize’s ocean, as required by law, prior to issuing the contracts. The court also found that contracts were made to companies that did not demonstrate a proven ability to contribute the necessary funds, assets, machinery, equipment, tools and technical expertise to drill safely.

Oceana has campaigned against offshore drilling in Belize for more than two years. In 2011, after collecting the 20,000+ signatures required to trigger a national referendum that would allow the public to vote on whether or not to allow offshore oil drilling in Belize’s reef, the Government disqualified over 8,000 of these signatures effectively on the basis of poor penmanship — stopping the possibility of a vote. Oceana answered by quickly organizing the nation’s first ever “People’s Referendum” on February 29, 2012 in which 29,235 people (Belize’s entire population is approximately 350,000) came from all over the country to cast their votes.

You can celebrate by admiring this photo of some unusual Belizean coral that has been spared from the effects of offshore drilling — at least for now:

jayhem

Underwater photo of brain coral, tube coral, and trunk fish taken in the Great Blue Hole in Belize.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article:  

Court rescues Belizean coral from offshore oil drillers

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, oven, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Court rescues Belizean coral from offshore oil drillers

We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for March 22, 2013

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Female members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion secure an Afghan compound while Soldiers with Female Engagement Team 6 of 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment meet with Afghans March 3 during Operation Southern Fist III in the district of Spin Boldak, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann.

Mother Jones
Read this article: 

We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for March 22, 2013

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for March 22, 2013

How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

green4us

International security experts explain how low rainfall can evolve into violent conflict. Epic drought in Syria’s farmland, shown here, may have inflamed civil unrest. CharlesFred/Flickr In October 2010, just months before a Tunisian street vendor self-immolated and sparked what would become the Arab Spring, a prolonged drought was turning Syria’s verdant farmland into dust. By last month, more than 70,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, had been killed in the brutal and ongoing conflict between President Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial regime and a coalition of opposition forces; just today, the UN announced that over one million refugees the country in the last two years. International security experts are now looking at the connection between recent droughts in the Middle East and the protests, revolutions, and deaths that followed, and building a body of evidence to suggest that climate change played a key role in Syria’s violence and the Arab Spring generally. The possibility that climate change could affect security is nothing new: The US Department of Defense has proven to be surprisingly progressive on planning for global warming. But Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia, co-founders of the Washington-based Center for Climate and Security, argue that if you want to see the connection between climate and conflict in action today, look no further than Syria. The pair contributed to a series of essays released last week by the Center for American Progress, all arguing that the Arab Spring is a textbook example of the link between climate change and social instability. Climate Desk called them up to discuss how lack of rainfall leads into violent uprising, and how the international community can prepare for the future of extreme weather. Climate Desk: How does climate change play into civil unrest? Where does it rank compared to other violence-causing factors? Caitlin Werrell: We use the term “threat multiplier” or “accelerant of instability,” in the sense that climate change can exacerbate other threats to national or international security. The way it does that is often through water: You have an increased prevalence of drought or floods or changing rainfall patterns, and what this does is it changes your ability to grow food, it has impacts on food security, it influences your ability to produce energy, it influences your infrastructure. Francesco Femia: We wouldn’t actually rank climate change amongst other factors; we would say that climate change is one of those almost special factors that exacerbates other drivers of unrest and/or conflict. It just makes other drivers of unrest worse. CD: What has happened in the case of Syria, specifically? FF: In Syria, prior to the unrest that eventually exploded into revolution and armed conflict, Syria had experienced an unprecedented drought, lasting about five years. In 2011, NOAA produced a report showing that the Mediterranean littoral and the Middle East had significant drought conditions that were directly related to climate change. And then we found some reporting that had been done over the course of the drought which were showing that in Syria the drought, connected with natural resource mismanagement by the Assad regime, had led to a mass exodus, rural-to-urban migration, as farmers lost their livelihood. The UN estimated that about 800,000 people in Syria during the course of the drought had their livelihoods entirely destroyed. In the run-up to the unrest in Syria, a lot of international security analysts, even on the eve of the exploding unrest, had determined that Syria was generally a stable country, and that it was immune to social unrest and immune to the Arab Spring. It was clear that there were some stresses underneath the surface, and those migrations that we’re talking about, internal migrations, also put pressure on urban areas that were already economically stressed, and that was added on top of refugees that had been coming in from Iraq since the US invasion. CD: Generally speaking, how well is the connection between climate change and civil unrest understood, by international aid organizations, by governments? Where is there opportunity or need for understanding it better? FF: In the past water scarcity has not necessarily led to conflict. Historically, it has sometimes led to cooperation, as conflicting parties come together to deal with their water resources. But we’re looking at an unprecedented picture in the future that we haven’t seen before. The historical record really doesn’t tell us too much about what to expect for the next 20 or 30 years, just given that we’re talking about an unprecedented climate situation and an unprecedented water situation. The international community is still piecing together how climate change is linked to these particular weather events, whether it’s drought or floods, and then how is that related to conflict. CW: Part of it is that [climate change] is one of many stressors. A lot of conflict, it’s a very complex process, there’s not direct causality between one aspect and another. But as we continue to see instances like Syria, like Egypt, that were indirectly impacted by droughts in Russia and China, these are the type of connections we will see more and more of in the future. And so the understanding we have now is a good foundation for developing more resilient practices, both mitigation and adaptation to the risks of climate change. CD: How well is this connection understood by average Syrians? Do they see the link between the conflict of which they’re a part, and climate change? FF: Generally speaking, we would say that populations are not very well educated about the links between climate change and specific weather events, and there’s a need for more education. And by generally, I mean globally. What is certainly clear is that there’s an understanding from Syrians about how this drought has impacted their own livelihoods, given that so many of them have had to pick up and move. And so, this is unprecedented within their own lifetimes, and unprecedented within the history of the region. In the Middle East and North Africa, these countries have been dealing with drought for a long time. Many of them are arid states, and they’ve had to deal with that. And so naturally there is an openness to making those connections between what is essentially increasing aridity in the region and why that’s happening, and that’s the connection to climate change. And so certainly the leadership in these regions, especially those who deal with water and energy, are very acutely aware of these things. CW: In other work we’ve done in Mali, drought is not something new, and people for thousands of years have been dealing with how do you survive in very arid regions. What is new is the rate of change, how long these droughts are lasting, the intensity of the drought. So to some degree, people in these regions are best-equipped to deal with water scarcity, but a lot of times these changes are very different from the floods and droughts of yesterday. CD: Given the likelihood that we’ll encounter more droughts like this in the future, what can be done to ensure that each one isn’t followed by some kind of violence or unrest? FF: There are certain things that governments and the international community will never be able to control. There are so many factors that feed into civil unrest and conflict, particularly armed conflict, that have to do with historical grievances, economics, democratic practice, etc., that there’s certainly no silver bullet on climate resilience, that’s going to prevent conflict. In other words, doing something about climate change is not going to bring world peace, in and of itself. However, it is very important that governments and the international community recognize that we can do something about mitigating climate change and also adapting to the risks. Governments can climate-proof their infrastructure: We’re talking about better water practices, better irrigation techniques. It also means climate-proofing institutions we normally don’t think of as associated with climate change, such as health infrastructure. If diseases are going to spread differently because of climate change, then governments should be prepared for that. In the Arab World right now, governments that are going through transition, whether it’s Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, that’s still in the midst of an armed conflict, in rebuilding post-conflict, and there really is an opportunity to get this right.

Visit link: 

How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

Share this:

From: 

How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

Posted in eco-friendly, G & F, GE, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

Northern California sees driest winter on record

Northern California sees driest winter on record

Shutterstock

Nearly 100 years ago, Dust Bowl refugees from the middle of the country sought new lives and livelihoods in the Golden State. Now California is fixing to become its own damn dust bowl. The last two months in the northern Sierra Nevada, normally the wettest time of the year, have shattered an all-time weather record as the driest January and February in recorded history.

From The Sacramento Bee:

The northern Sierra is crucial to statewide water supplies because it is where snowmelt accumulates to fill Shasta and Oroville reservoirs. These are the largest reservoirs in California and the primary storage points for state and federal water supply systems.

If February concludes without additional storms — and none are expected — the northern Sierra will have seen 2.2 inches of precipitation in January and February, the least since record-keeping began in the region in 1921.

That is well below the historical average of 17.1 inches.

Other spots throughout the state have also seen record dry conditions after November and December brought an epic atmospheric river to the West Coast, drenching the North Sierra in twice the average precipitation.

Another such Pineapple Express is unlikely in the months to come, though, and that reality has left residents dry and a bit itchy. Farmers are scaling back their plans to account for the lack of water. One water authority director laments that “there will be a lot of land fallowed” even though the state was “almost in flood-control conditions back in December.”

From feast to famine in just two months — quick work, California!

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original article here: 

Northern California sees driest winter on record

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Northern California sees driest winter on record

There is No Possible Sequester Deal to be Made

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’ve successfully avoided writing about the sequester over the last few days, but I’m curious: does anyone seriously think a deal is even possible? I don’t quite see how. Here are the possibilities:

Eliminate the sequester entirely. Zero chance of Republicans agreeing to this.

Ditch the defense cuts, replace them with domestic cuts plus a tax increase. Zero chance of Republicans agreeing to this.

Ditch the defense cuts, double the domestic cuts. Zero chance of Democrats agreeing to this.

Ditch the defense cuts, keep the domestic cuts. Approximately zero chance of Democrats agreeing to this.

Kick the can down the road with some kind of small-ball deal. Possible, I guess.

Am I leaving out some possible permutation here? I can just barely imagine a small-ball deal, maybe one that’s 100 percent spending cuts, maybe one that includes some kind of semi-hidden revenue increase. But that’s about it. Every other possibility is substantially worse than the status quo to either Democrats or Republicans.

But for some reason we keep talking as if a deal is possible. So what am I missing here? As far as I can tell, neither side is genuinely trying to negotiate. They’re just trying to make sure the other side gets the blame when sequestration kicks in, as it inevitably will.

So who’s winning that game? A friend emails to say that this paragraph from Gloria Borger, a reliable barometer of DC conventional wisdom, suggests that Republicans are:

The president proposes what he calls a “balanced” approach: closing tax loopholes on the rich and budget cuts. It’s something he knows Republicans will never go for. They raised taxes six weeks ago, and they’re not going to do it again now. They already gave at the office. And Republicans also say, with some merit, that taxes were never meant to be a part of the discussion of across-the-board cuts. It’s about spending.

Sure enough, Borger unquestioningly accepts the Republican framing that (a) further tax increases are an absurdity and (b) the debt ceiling deal wasn’t about reducing the deficit, it was about reducing spending. If this view is common deep in the lizard brains of the DC press corps, Obama has his work cut out for him.

This article is from:  

There is No Possible Sequester Deal to be Made

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on There is No Possible Sequester Deal to be Made

Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

During a Google+ “Fireside Hangout” Thursday evening, President Barack Obama was asked if he believed he has the authority to authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil.

He didn’t exactly answer the question.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko transcribed the whole exchange. Lee Doren, a conservative activist, asked the question; here’s Obama’s answer:

First of all, I think, there’s never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil. And, you know, we respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside the United States. The rules outside the United States are going to be different then the rules inside the United States. In part because our capacity to, for example, to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different then in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

But what I think is absolutely true is that it is not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we are doing the right thing. I am the head of the executive branch. And what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues. But part of what I am going to have to work with congress on is to make sure that whatever it is we’re providing congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands what’s going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are. And that is something that I take very seriously. I am not someone who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism. There have to be legal checks and balances on it.

Doren isn’t the only one who wants an answer to this question. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has placed a hold on John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, “until Brennan answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) posed that exact question to Brennan in a written questionnaire, but his answer was as opaque as Obama’s. “This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Brennan wrote.

So why didn’t Obama just say, “no, the president cannot deploy drone strikes against US citizens on American soil”? Because the answer is probably “yes.” That may not be as apocalyptically sinister as it sounds.

“Certainly, we routinely ‘targeted’ U.S. citizens during the Civil War,” says Steve Vladeck, a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law. “Even if the targeting was with imprecise 19th-century artillery as opposed to 21st-century unmanned arial vehicles.” If he had the technology, President Abraham Lincoln would most likely have been within his authority to send a drone to vaporize Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Drone strikes in the modern context, however, aren’t being used against uniformed commanders of a traditional military force. Instead, we’re talking about strikes that target individuals suspected of being part of terrorist organizations where “membership” is an inherently more nebulous concept.

There are two government agencies known to conduct drone strikes, the CIA and the Department of Defense. CIA involvement in a domestic drone strike is probably off-limits, says Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who is now a professor at Georgetown University. The idea is really far-fetched anyway, Pillar argues. “I expect that if the CIA were to do anything like that within the U.S. it probably would violate some of the legal restrictions that are placed on all of the agency’s activities as far as inside-U.S. operations are concerned,” Pillar wrote in an email to Mother Jones. “Nothing like this is ever going to arise as far as drone strikes are concerned, so I don’t see it as a live issue.”

Since the CIA is probably out, that leaves the military. Congress has long held that the president has the authority to use the military domestically in some circumstances. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed after Reconstruction to limit the use of military force on US soil, states that the military can be used to enforce the law “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” The last time this happened was 1992 when, citing the Insurrection Act, President George H.W. Bush called out the National Guard to suppress the Los Angeles riots in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict.

According to US law, Congress can authorize the use of the military inside the US. The question is whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, counts as “express authorization” to carry out a targeted killing on US soil. The Obama administration stated in its white paper explaining its legal authority to kill US citizens abroad that capturing a suspected terrorist should be “infeasible” before a strike is authorized. But “the government’s going to have a devil of a time proving that capture is infeasible for any individual found within the territorial United States,” Vladeck says. And there’s no reason to believe that local or state authorities, or if necessary the FBI, wouldn’t be left to handle a situation involving suspected terrorists. (Local police dropped a bomb during an armed standoff with the radical group MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985, proving that civilian authorities can be just as lethal as the military.)

The law says military force can sometimes be used against people on American soil, such as if it were needed to fight an armed domestic insurgency. But we still don’t know how broad the Obama administration thinks that authority is. Less than a week before President George W. Bush left office, the Justice Department withdrew a series of memos written by torture memo author John Yoo that envisioned near-dictatorial authority for the president, including the authority to deploy military force against terrorism suspects inside the US. Yoo had basically given Bush the executive branch equivalent of the Konami Code.

The Bush Justice Department argued that Yoo’s theories should no longer “be treated as authoritative for any purpose.” The question is whether the Obama administration has envisioned similar authority for itself. The answer to that question lies in the classified documents explaining the Obama administration’s legal rationale for the targeted killing program—documents that the Obama administration has so far refused to fully disclose to Congress, let alone release to the public.

Link – 

Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

Tesla offers incomplete, misdirected response to New York Times critique

Tesla offers incomplete, misdirected response to New York Times critique

Here’s the latest installment in the great war between Tesla Motors and The New York Times, launched after a Times reporter chronicled a troubled test drive of Tesla’s all-electric sedan. For background, see here; for additional commentary, just turn on your computer. There have been dozens of posts on the subject, from the Times’ public editor, GigaOm, Gawker, MIT Technology Review, Jalopnik. But the place to start is where our previous piece left off: with a post on the Tesla blog responding to the Times’ claims, written by chair Elon Musk.

You may have heard recently about an article written by John Broder from The New York Times that makes numerous claims about the performance of the Model S. We are upset by this article because it does not factually represent Tesla technology, which is designed and tested to operate well in both hot and cold climates. …

When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles. For that, I am deeply sorry.

It is not clear for whom Musk feels sorry, but it is quite clear whose feelings have been hurt: his own. It’s clear in the emotion behind his post, emotion that he bolsters with nine bullet-pointed counterarguments, five graphs of data from the car, two Google maps, and one annotated graphic from the Times article.

The Tesla Model S, in a sunnier climate.

Those reading Broder’s review were given the impression of a vehicle not ready for the rigors of highway travel — if not of a vehicle that had a flawed power-management system. Both Broder and Musk suggest that the cold weather during Broder’s journey from D.C. to the Boston area reduced its range, but Broder suggests that the car failed to give him accurate information about that reduction.

Oddly, this central premise is only a small part of Musk’s response — a response that, as the above-linked Gawker article notes, has been seen by many as definitive, a data-based refutation of Broder’s claims. After all, look at this chart:

Broder’s article claims he set his cruise control at 54; it was actually at 60. He said he was driving 45 on the highway; it was more like 53. At one point he exceeded 80 miles an hour! The impression you’re meant to get here is that Broder misled his readers into thinking he took extreme measures to avoid draining the car’s battery and still it failed. Nope, says Musk, pointing at the chart. His numbers were off!

What’s missed, though, is the implication of that data for an objective reader. Broder did set his cruise control at about 60 mph for about 100 miles. He spent another 50 driving at just over 50 mph. Almost all of Broder’s driving was on highways, as was intended in the test drive. Is it actually a win for Musk to show that Broder drove at 50-60 mph on the interstate instead of 45-54?

Musk’s post uses a common rhetorical tactic: overwhelming the audience with small refutations of unimportant points to give an impression of overall victory. The Atlantic Wire has a graph-by-graph breakdown of how strong and important each point is to Musk’s case; on the whole, they aren’t that important.

One commonly cited point from Musk’s post suggests that Broder drove in circles at a rest-stop charging station. “When the Model S valiantly refused to die,” Musk writes, Broder “eventually plugged it in.” Musk offers a graph that shows no circling, no distance, just faster and slower driving. Broder has already responded to this claim: He was circling the rest stop trying to find the charging station. The graph loses.

Elon Musk is a smart man. He understands the damage the Times review did to his company’s reputation. He’d hoped, as noted above, that the paper would report “on future advancements in our Supercharger technology,” those free charging stations that Broder tried to reach — not do a trial that Consumer Reports had already completed to his satisfaction. When Broder and the Times didn’t comply, Musk responded forcefully and, if the online sentiment is any gauge, successfully.

Even by the standards of Musk’s data, the problem lies with Broder’s experience, not his reporting. It’s not a driver’s job to make sure the car works perfectly; it’s Musk’s job, Tesla’s. The problem isn’t whether Broder spent 47 minutes charging the car instead of 58, as Musk ridiculously suggests; it’s that electric vehicles are competing with perceptions and infrastructure determined by traditional cars.

Broder is expected to release a response to Musk’s criticisms this afternoon. It will once and for all clearly settle who the winner is in this fight: gasoline.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source: 

Tesla offers incomplete, misdirected response to New York Times critique

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tesla offers incomplete, misdirected response to New York Times critique