Tag Archives: labor

Let Us Now Figure Out Who to Blame for Brexit

Mother Jones

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

Brexit has passed, and now it’s time to find someone to blame. Sure, you can go with the pack and blame David Cameron or Nigel Farage, but that’s not much fun. Here are four plausible but not entirely obvious choices:

Ed Milliband

In order to keep peace within his own party, Prime Minister David Cameron promised a vote on Brexit in 2013. It seemed fairly harmless at the time: Cameron’s Conservative Party was about 20 seats short of an outright majority in Parliament, so he was governing in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems opposed the referendum, and as long as they remained in the coalition, there would most likely have been no vote. To maintain this status quo, neither the Lib Dems nor the opposition Labor Party even had to gain any seats in the 2015 election. They just had to hold their own.

But Ed Milliband proved to be such a hapless leader of the Labor Party that he lost 26 seats in the election. This was just enough to give the Tories a bare majority, and that paved the way for Brexit.

Alternatively, you could blame Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who managed his party’s coalition with Cameron poorly and lost an astounding 49 of its 57 seats in the 2015 election. But Labor was the primary opposition party and should have been able to pick up most of those seats, so let’s stick with Milliband on this one.

Angela Merkel

For all the praise she gets, Angela Merkel has been one of the most disastrous European leaders in my lifetime. She’s as responsible for Brexit as anyone I can think of, thanks to two catastrophic decisions she made.

The first was her insistence on punishing Greece following its collapse after the Great Recession. There’s plenty of blame to go around on all sides for the Greece debacle, but as the continent’s economic leader Germany held most of the high cards during negotiations over Greece’s fate. Merkel had a choice: (a) punish Greece for running up unsustainable debts and lying about them, or (b) accept that Germany bore much of the blame itself for the crisis and that Greece had no way of rescuing itself thanks to the straitjacket of the common currency. The former was a crowd pleaser. The latter was unpopular and would have required sustained, iron-spined leadership. In the event, Merkel chose to play to the crowds, and Greece has been a basket case ever since—with no end in sight. It hardly went unnoticed in Britain how Europe treated a country that was too entangled with the EU to either fight back or exit, and it made Britain’s decision to forego the common currency look prescient. And if that had been a good choice, maybe all the rest of “ever closer union” wasn’t such a great idea either.

Merkel’s second bad decision was more recent. Here is David Frum: “If any one person drove the United Kingdom out of the European Union, it was Angela Merkel, and her impulsive solo decision in the summer of 2015 to throw open Germany—and then all Europe—to 1.1 million Middle Eastern and North African migrants, with uncountable millions more to come.” It’s hard to fault Merkel for this on a humanitarian basis, but on a political basis it was a disaster. The barely-controlled wave of refugees Merkel encouraged has caused resentment and more all over Europe, and it unquestionably played a big role in the immigrant backlash in Britain that powered the Leave vote.

Paul Dacre

Paul Dacre is the longtime editor of the Daily Mail, and he’s standing in here for the entire conservative tabloid press, which has spent decades lying about the EU and scaring the hell out of its readership about every grisly murder ever committed by an immigrant. In a journalistic style pioneered by Boris Johnson—who we’ll get to next—the Mail and other tabloids have run hundreds of sensational stories about allegedly idiotic EU regulations and how they’re destroying not just Britain’s way of life, but its very sovereignty as well. These stories range from deliberately exaggerated to outright false, and they’re so relentless that the EU has an entire website dedicated to debunking British tabloid myths from A (abattoirs) to Z (zoos). The chart below, from the Economist, tots up all the lies, and the Mail is the clear leader.

The EU is hardly a finely-tuned watch when it comes to regulations, but the vast majority of the outrage over its rulings is based almost literally on nothing. Nonetheless, the outrage is real, and it was fueled largely by Dacre’s Daily Mail and its fellow tabloids.

Boris Johnson

Why Boris? After all, it was Nigel Farage, the odious leader of the openly xenophobic UKIP party, who led the charge to leave the EU. This is, perhaps, a judgment call, but I’ve long had a stronger disgust for those who tolerate racism than for the open racists themselves. The latter are always going to be around, and sometimes I even have a little sympathy for them. They’ve often spent their entire lives marinating in racist communities and are as much a victim of their upbringing as any of us.

But then there are those who should know better, and Boris Johnson is very much one of them. The usual caveat is in order here: I can’t look into Johnson’s heart and know what he really thinks. But he’s had a long journalistic career, and an equally long history of tolerating racist sentiments. As a longtime Euroskeptic—though probably more an opportunistic one rather than a true believer—it’s no surprise that he campaigned for Brexit, but in doing so he knowingly joined hands with Farage and his UKIP zealots, providing them with a respectability they wouldn’t have had without him. He knew perfectly well that the Leave campaign would be based primarily on exploiting fear of immigrants, but he joined up anyway.

Johnson is hardly the only British politician to act this way, of course. But he’s the most prominent one, so he gets to stand in for all of them.

See original article: 

Let Us Now Figure Out Who to Blame for Brexit

Posted in alo, Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let Us Now Figure Out Who to Blame for Brexit

Robots And A Recyclables Recovery Revolution

It’s exciting to watch the green economy unfolding all around us. There are many problems to solve and many companies out there solving them. Take, for example, recyclables and a startup named Jodone.

Recyclables, robots and a recovery revolution

What’s Jodone?

Today, a municipal waste worker at a facility typically stands next to a moving conveyor belt, picking out recyclables like glass and plastic by hand. Jodone envisions letting robotics do the dirty work. Image Credit: Jodone (LinkedIn)

This Massachusetts-based company has a patented system of robots and software designed for use in waste recovery facilities – specifically municipal waste, which is some of the toughest to handle. Unlike waste streams like construction waste or medical waste which are confined to a subset of materials, municipal waste handles everything – from packaging to dead animals.

Today, a municipal waste worker at a facility typically stands next to a moving conveyor belt, picking out recyclables like glass and plastic by hand – an unpleasant and dangerous job.

Jodone envisions a day when that worker sits in an office with a tablet while a robot arm stands by the conveyor. Cameras over the conveyor relay images of the waste back to the worker’s tablet. The worker uses a super-simple touch screen to virtually “sort” the recyclable materials into appropriate bins – at a pick rate far higher than what a human can typically do (400 picks per hour vs. 2500 picks per hour for the robot.) According to Michael Rivera, Jodone’s COO, at that rate of speed, the cost per pick drops from about 50 cents/item to about 12 cents/item – a huge reduction.

The worker uses a super-simple touch screen to virtually “sort” the recyclable materials into appropriate bins – at a pick rate far higher than what a human can typically do. Image Credit: Jodone (YouTube)

Benefits: Both the “green” and profitable kind:

It helps mitigate climate change
Better, faster sorting of recyclables from waste reduces the amount of recyclables that are sent to landfills. And that means that landfills can become physically smaller. Indeed, many landfills are increasing the amount of waste they incinerate in order to shrink their physical footprint. There are simply better uses for land than landfills, as exemplified by the epic restoration of the enormous Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island.
Smaller, fewer landfills will also result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) like methane and less leaching of toxic materials like mercury and lead into water ways.

It helps cities make money through:
Sale of recyclables. Cities have long handled municipal wastes and recycling because they have been a revenue stream in the past. As Jodone CEO Cole Parker says, “By saving perfectly good recyclables from the waste stream, you stop burning money.” Instead, those materials can be sold to companies that use them for new products.
Handling more customers. In addition, when recyclables are removed from the waste stream, more actual trash can be burned by the waste facility. They can take on additional customers. And lest you worry that burning trash creates more GHGs, most of what comes out of those carefully monitored smokestacks is steam, which may be sold to industrial customers for heating and other purposes.

It’s a boon to MRF workers
A marriage of technology and people. Not many kids say, “I want to grow up to sort trash for a living” — but they might once they see Jodone’s system. The system is designed to augment workers — not replace them. Robots do what robots do best — the heavy lifting — while people do what people do best — identifying and handling exceptions.
Safety. The U.S. Department of Labor acknowledges that working at a waste handling facility can be dangerous for many reasons. Jodone’s system enables the removal of workers from that environment to an office environment (even a home office!), and that will reduce lifting injuries, trips, falls, and exposure to toxic fumes.
Fun. The fancy word for this is “gamification.” A key feature of Jodone’s system is a software platform that allows workers to engage in a little “friendly competition” as they sort the material coming in. Should waste facility management wish to incent workers on speed and/or accuracy of their work, they can turn the work into a game, and reward winners with performance pay. Jodone’s system introduces an element of fun into a set of tasks that traditionally have been unpleasant at best and dangerous at worst.

This patent-pending gaming interface allows humans to use their intelligence and problem-solving skills to solve real-world tasks in real-time. Additionally, Jodone decreases liability by removing employees from non-desirable environments. Jodone’s software platform works with industry-standard robots, from multiple providers. With the intelligence provided by humans, the robots can now complete complex tasks at extraordinarily quick speeds. The gaming interface also enables the collection of massive amounts of data. The data collected enables statistical modeling for improved performance, concrete performance data for training, performance rewards, and audits. Jodone’s solution provides practical solutions for seemingly impossible automation tasks. (Jodone LinkedIn)

What’s next

The team at Jodone is currently piloting their system at the Pope/Douglas Waste-to-Energy plant in Minnesota. They are busy calibrating everything from their software to the speed of the conveyor belt so that the facility runs optimally.  They are also preparing to train workers on using the tablets.

In addition, because their software includes a database that keeps a history of pictures and picks, the robots actually learn and get better every day. By year end, Jodone will have millions of data points to use to make the robots smarter and their human handlers even more efficient.

Their 5-minute “pitch” video on YouTube is worth a look!

How Jodone exemplifies the green economy

Jodone’s systems support a circular economy, which is fundamental to achieving a sustainable future. What’s neat is that, rather than asking people to make sacrifices, Jodone’s systems ideally will mean more money, more safety and more fun for workers and citizens alike. Jodone also represents the best in innovation, combining everything from “software-as-a-service” to machine learning to gamification.

Now that’s a future to look forward to!

Feature image credit: Photick / Shutterstock

About
Latest Posts

Alison Lueders

Alison Lueders is the Founder and Principal of

Great Green Content

– a green business certified by both Green America and the Green Business Bureau. She offers copywriting and content marketing services to businesses that are “going green.”Convinced that business can play a powerful and positive role in building a greener, more sustainable economy, she launched Great Green Content in 2011.

Latest posts by Alison Lueders (see all)

Robots And A Recyclables Recovery Revolution – June 15, 2016
Get Ready To ‘Spring’ Into Composting – March 25, 2016
Waste Reduction, Recycle Rates And Yard Trimmings – February 26, 2016

So Far, We’ve Had

Recycling Searches this year

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter for exclusive updates on contests, new products, and more.

Twitter

Facebook

Earth911

Read

Connect With Us

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Pinterest
Google Plus

Advertise With Us

Copyright ©. 2016 Earth911. All Rights Reserved.

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter for exclusive updates on contests, new products, and more.

earth911

Continue reading here – 

Robots And A Recyclables Recovery Revolution

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Robots And A Recyclables Recovery Revolution

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

green4us

“He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous.” Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump took a stage in Bismarck, North Dakota, and laid out his vision for addressing climate change and energy issues should he win the White House. It was about what you might expect from a candidate who has previously claimed that global warming is a hoax invented by Chinese bureaucrats to disadvantage US manufacturers. He railed against the historic global agreement on climate change struck in Paris last year, called President Barack Obama’s cornerstone climate policy “stupid,” and said that his administration “will focus on real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been looking at.” Though after he fulfills his promise to dismantle the “Department of Environmental,” it is hard to imagine how he would make that happen. The Washington Post called Trump’s proposals “dangerous and nonsensical,” and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey and head of the Environmental Protection Agency during George W. Bush’s first term, agreed. Whitman has always been a bit of a nonconformist among conservatives on climate change: She pushed hard for Bush to let the United States join the Kyoto Protocol, the last significant stab at global climate action prior to Paris, and she infamously told the Post that she left the EPA after coming under intense pressure from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to implement lax regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. These days, she co-chairs the CASEnergy Coalition, an educational coalition that promotes the use of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. In earlier, more innocent days of the Republican primary race, she endorsed Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Now she “will not vote for Trump,” but is on the fence about Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee, she said, “has real flaws, but hers are more within the normal parameters we’re used to. Trump’s are way outside, as far as I’m concerned.” I had a chat with Gov. Whitman about the threat Trump’s candidacy poses to Obama’s climate legacy and why his energy “plan” makes no sense: Climate Desk: What did you make of Trump’s energy speech in North Dakota? Christine Whitman: Not surprised, but disappointed. I don’t think he has a full grasp, not surprisingly, of the issues. He’s taking moves that I believe are totally contrary to the health and well-being of the country and the citizens, when you talk about walking away from [the Paris Agreement], when you talk about having a need to restart coal plants. He should know that the reason a lot of the coal plants are shutting down now has nothing to do with environmental regulations and everything to do with economics and the low price of natural gas, which he also wants to encourage. So those two things run counter to one another in a way. He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous. CD: Trump’s comments on climate and energy might seem radical, but aren’t they really just a more extreme, less articulate version of sentiments we hear from Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans frequently: Climate change isn’t a threat, we need to save coal and the fossil fuel industry, etc.? CW: Well, first of all, environmental protection is a Republican issue. The first president to set aside public land was Lincoln. It was Nixon who established, with a Democratic Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency. This is in our DNA. Conservation is inherently conservative, and it should be something that we embrace. So I would like to see Republicans understand this and also recognize facts. You can have economic growth and a clean and green environment. We’ve done it. It’s not a zero-sum game. They’ve just got to get off this attitude that you can’t have them both at the same time. [During the Nixon era] the public said, “We don’t like being told not to go outside from 10 to 4 because of bad air quality,” and “We don’t like seeing our land turned into a garbage dump.” That’s what drove Congress and the president to actually take action. To walk away from [environmental issues] is a very dangerous political move, if nothing else, because the public still doesn’t want dirty air and dirty water and trashed land. You really don’t have any credible scientists who say that climate change isn’t occurring, and you don’t have any credible scientists who say humans don’t play a role. If you want to ignore it, you do so at your peril. CD: And yet, here we are with a Republican nominee for president who is a climate change denier. What do you think the effect of Trump’s candidacy on Obama’s climate legacy will be? Is he lending a sense of urgency to formally finalize the Paris Agreement? CW: Well, I hope he’s not representative of the party as a whole. I mean, he’s off the charts as far as what you can expect him to do or say. He is scaring other countries, and that’s pushing a desire to get [the Paris Agreement] done while we can—and make it that much harder for him to roll back. He says he’s going to roll back a lot of things, but he can’t do it. He’s not an emperor, but he doesn’t seem to get it. He is going to try to push the powers of the presidency, the boundaries. He doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution or really care much about it. But still, some of those who oppose taking dramatic action [on climate change] in India or in China are saying, “Wait a minute, the United States is going to back out. Do we still want to be a part of this?” So it’s making it much more difficult and confusing for people. CD: What are you hoping to see from the candidates on climate change as the election moves forward? CW: Truth? I hope they don’t get into it. [An election] is the worst time to discuss serious policy, because people politicize everything. I really don’t want to see a deep dive into climate change or into these issues, other than a recognition that they exist, that they’re important, and that we have to take action. Right now, on every issue, the extremes are pushing the agendas. What I’m really scared about is that people get dug in too far. And they’ll have to move further to the left, further to the right, the lines will get harder, and then once someone is elected there will be an inability to move back to the center or to really get things done. We all know that people will say things during campaigns that they don’t really mean. Or they’ll be willing, when they come into office, to look at what the reality is. So when they get in, if they’ve really painted themselves into a corner, then we’re not going to be able to have the kind of discussion that we need to get these issues solved.

See original article:

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Related Posts

Obama’s Budget Calls for Billions in Climate Funding
13 Tweets That Definitively Prove That Donald Trump Is Not a Scientist
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill
BREAKING: President Obama Will Veto Congress’ Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Scientists Bash EPA’s Take On Burning Wood For Power
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Share this:






View original article – 

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Posted in Black & Decker, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Tech-Shuttle Giant Given the Boot in San Francisco

Mother Jones

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

Citing a history of disregard for traffic laws and acrimonious labor disputes, San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency has declined to grant tech shuttle operator Bauer’s IT a permit to use public bus stops under the city’s controversial Commuter Shuttle Program. Bauer’s IT is one of San Francisco’s largest tech bus operators, accounting for 10 percent of the city’s commuter shuttle pickups. Bauer’s IT clients include major Bay Area tech companies such as Twitter, Yelp, Salesforce, and Cisco.

According to a “notice of permit denial” sent from the SFMTA to Bauer’s yesterday, the company repeatedly broke the law by sending large buses down “weight-restricted streets” and stopping at locations not designated for private buses. It also failed to inform the city of ongoing labor disputes with the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters, whose complaints of illegal union busting practices at the company are being heard by the National Labor Relations Board. The Commuter Shuttle Program requires participating companies to maintain “labor harmony.”

In 2013, tech shuttles, a.k.a. “Google buses,” became potent symbols of inequality and gentrification in the Bay Area after it emerged that the posh private vehicles were illegally using public bus stops to pick up workers. The following year, the city launched a pilot program that allowed the companies to use the stops legally for a nominal fee. That program becomes permanent next month, but requires participating companies to reapply for permits. Bauer’s IT could not be reached for comment.

“The SFMTA is enforcing what the City and County of San Francisco is famous for: Recognizing employees’ right to be represented and right to and fair wages and benefits,” said Rome Aloise, the director of Teamsters Joint Council 7, which represents drivers in Northern California. “Bauer’s seems to be just disregarding all of that.”

Does this mean the Twitterati will be tweeting from BART like the rest of us? Not exactly. Bauer’s IT has 15 days to file an appeal, and can then continue to use its stops until the city makes a final decision.

View the original here:

Tech-Shuttle Giant Given the Boot in San Francisco

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tech-Shuttle Giant Given the Boot in San Francisco

There’s Still Slack in the Labor Market—But Not a Lot

Mother Jones

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

Brad DeLong looks at a chart showing the employment rate of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) compared to January 2000 and says:

Without nominal wage growth of 4%/year or significantly rising inflation, no way I am going to believe that the U.S. economy is in any sense at “full employment” with an essentially zero output gap right now.

It’s not that I disagree, but I think that choosing January 2000 stacks the deck. That’s the absolute peak of the dotcom boom, and there’s no reason to think we’re going to replicate that anytime soon. A better comparison would be the mid-90s, when the economy was strong and growing but not at the peak of a bubble. Here’s what that looks like:

We’re still not at full employment. But we’re getting there: the unemployment rate is low; the expanded unemployment rate is getting close to low; and wages are increasing a bit. Additional inflationary pressure would be yet another sign of a tight labor market, but we haven’t seen that yet.

We still have work to do to get to full employment—and it’s possible we’ll never get back to 1990s levels. That depends a lot on precisely who’s dropped out of the workforce and why. But we’re getting close.

From: 

There’s Still Slack in the Labor Market—But Not a Lot

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s Still Slack in the Labor Market—But Not a Lot

Wanna See What Happens When You Rely on the Fossil Fuel Sector and Slash Taxes?

Check out Louisiana. Andrew Cline/Shutterstock The state of Louisiana has fallen on hard times, and its situation offers some hard lessons. First, don’t let a right-wing ideologue cut your budget to the bone. Second, don’t hang your whole economy on fossil fuel extraction. The Washington Post reports on the state’s budget crisis: Already, the state of Louisiana had gutted university spending and depleted its rainy-day funds. It had cut 30,000 employees and furloughed others. It had slashed the number of child services staffers … And then, the state’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), came on TV and said the worst was yet to come. … Despite all the cuts of the previous years, the nation’s second-poorest state still needed nearly $3 billion — almost $650 per person — just to maintain its regular services over the next 16 months. … A few universities will shut down and declare bankruptcy. Graduations will be canceled. Students will lose scholarships. Select hospitals will close. Patients will lose funding for treatment of disabilities. Some reports of child abuse will go uninvestigated. For eight years, under former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), Louisiana slashed taxes and played tricks to fill budget holes. Jindal claimed that the tax cuts he pushed through would promote miraculous economic growth and make up for the lost revenue. That didn’t work, of course, just as it didn’t work on a national level under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Read the rest at Grist. See more here –  Wanna See What Happens When You Rely on the Fossil Fuel Sector and Slash Taxes? ; ; ;

Original source – 

Wanna See What Happens When You Rely on the Fossil Fuel Sector and Slash Taxes?

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wanna See What Happens When You Rely on the Fossil Fuel Sector and Slash Taxes?

Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

Mother Jones

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

I get requests from time to time:

I can do better than that. How about a top ten list of all the things going well in America right now?

  1. Unemployment = 4.9 percent. By virtually every measure, more people are re-entering the labor force and more people are finding work.
  2. Inflation = 1.4 percent. The annual inflation rate for food is 0.8 percent.
  3. Economic growth = 2.4 percent. This could be better, but it’s not bad: the US economy is stronger than China, Japan, or Mexico. We’re not losing, we’re winning.
  4. The average price of a gallon of gas is $1.81, its lowest price in a decade.
  5. 20 million people have gained health insurance since 2013, and health care costs are rising at the most moderate rate in decades.
  6. The abortion rate has been declining for 30 years and is now lower than at any time since the early 70s.
  7. Among teens, alcohol use is down, crime is down, violent behavior is down, illicit drug use is down, sexual intercourse is down, condom use is up, pregnancy is down, and cigarette smoking is down.
  8. High school test scores and graduation rates are up.
  9. There were only 22 US military fatalities in the Middle East in 2015, the lowest number since 9/11.
  10. Net illegal immigration has been negative for seven straight years. Since 2008, the population of undocumented workers in the US has fallen from 12 million to 11 million.

Unfortunately, there is also one big thing that’s not going so well:

  1. Despite a reasonably strong economy, wages have declined since 2000 and have rebounded only slightly over the past couple of years.

It’s quite possible that this one thing is more important than all the others put together. And needless to say, anyone can put together their own list of ten things that are going badly: police shootings, ISIS, income inequality, etc. Nonetheless, when you look at the big picture, there’s an awful lot going right at the moment.

From:

Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

I Will Be Live-Blogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

Mother Jones

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

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Republican presidential candidates are holding yet another debate tonight. However, there’s a silver lining: this time around, the moderators can ignore Ben Carson without feeling guilty about it.

Anyway, it’s in Detroit, and it will be aired on Fox at 9 p.m. Eastern. Join me here for real-time comment, fact-checking, and all-around mockery.

Excerpt from:

I Will Be Live-Blogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I Will Be Live-Blogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

Donald Trump and the True Meaning of "I Disavow"

Mother Jones

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

I’ve now written my quota of one non-Trump post this morning, and surely that’s enough? So let’s move on. I’m fascinated to see that Joe Weisenthal picked up on something that I noticed too during Trump’s late-night press conference on Tuesday:

Here’s what happened. A reporter asked Trump once again to comment on the David Duke/KKK endorsement, and Trump whined that he had already written a Facebook post and a tweet and, really, just how many times was he supposed to disavow the guy? But as Weisenthal points out, Trump repeatedly said “I disavow, I disavow, I disavow,” without ever mentioning who he was disavowing. And since the reporters weren’t given mics, you really couldn’t hear what the question was about. You’d only know if you’ve been following this controversy.

I don’t think this was a mistake. Trump has done it too many times. On Facebook, on Twitter, on Good Morning America, and then again last night. His ritualistic phrase is “I disavow” without providing a clear, simple soundbite about who or what he’s disavowing. Nor does he ever say anything more in the way of condemnation. His Twitter and Facebook posts, for example, had merely this terse comment: “As I stated at the press conference on Friday regarding David Duke- I disavow.”

It’s pretty clear what’s going on here. Technically, Trump is in the clear. He has disavowed David Duke. But there is no soundbite or video snippet that shows him clearly criticizing either Duke or the KKK or white supremacist groups in general. And as Trump knows better than anyone, it’s audio and video excerpts that really matter. That’s what people see, not brief Twitter or Facebook posts.

Trump now has the best of all worlds. He can truthfully say that he’s repeatedly denounced David Duke. He can mock the media for unfairly making a big deal out of it. But for his less savory supporters, there’s no video of him clearly and unequivocally condemning the Duke or the KKK—and they understand perfectly well what this means. They’re old hands at the wink and the nod.

If it were anyone else, I’d say this was all carefully calculated. But Trump has such an instinctive grasp of TV that I wouldn’t be surprised if this just came naturally to him without any real thought. He is truly a master of the modern media era.

UPDATE: This is fascinating. One minute after publishing this, I wandered over to The Corner and read a Jonah Goldberg post making exactly the same point I did. Goldberg doesn’t think Trump’s phrasing is an accident either:

It is obvious to me that Trump didn’t want to denounce David Duke and the Klan in the Jake Tapper interview. The “bad earpiece” explanation is a transparent lie….And when Tapper mentioned the KKK, Trump still didn’t say, “Wait a second . . . ” and rip into the Klan. The question is, Why?

….Denouncing the Klan should be easy. You shouldn’t have to think about it….The one thing you shouldn’t do is sound like you’re reluctant to condemn the Klan(!) or that you’re dog-whistling that you don’t really mean it when you do. Yet when you watch the Tapper interview, it becomes clear what is really going on: He think condemning the Klan will hurt him with conservatives or southerners or both….In other words, the issue isn’t that conservative opponents of Trump think he’s a Klan supporting racist, it’s that Trump thinks many of his conservative supporters are. And that’s just one reason I don’t want this guy speaking for me.

Yep. And when was the last time Goldberg and I agreed about something? It just goes to show that Trump really does bring people together.

Originally posted here: 

Donald Trump and the True Meaning of "I Disavow"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump and the True Meaning of "I Disavow"

This Obama Official Is Going to Bat for Hillary in Nevada

Mother Jones

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

Labor unions are going to help push Hillary Clinton to the nomination—at least that’s the prediction of the nation’s top labor regulator. Secretary of Labor Tom Perez made the claim in Las Vegas Thursday afternoon, while stopping by Nevada’s AFSCME headquarters to stump for Clinton.

Perez was quick to caution that he was appearing in his personal capacity, not as a cabinet official. But he made no apologies for urging labor’s troops to come out and caucus on Saturday for the former Secretary of State, and not Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

“The union members I know, they’re all about results,” he told Mother Jones, explaining why he was sure Clinton would win union voters this weekend. “Not only what you say, but what you’ve done.”

While Perez acknowledged that Clinton’s national union endorsements won’t guarantee support from the rank-and-file (“I’ve spent a lot of time with union members and they’re not reflexive do-what-my-boss-tells-me”), he dismissed the idea that there’s a substantial divide between union leaders and grassroots members who might prefer Sanders, pointing to exit polls from Iowa that showed Clinton winning union households 52-41 percent.

While Perez noted that he had “profound respect for Sen. Sanders” during his speech, while talking with Mother Jones he sounded annoyed by the tone of Sanders’ attacks on Clinton. “I must confess, as a proud progressive who has the scars to show for it—someone who was the subject of roughly 20 Wall Street Journal op-eds against him for my nomination—the notion that you’re either for Bernie or you’re for the establishment, I find that inaccurate, to be charitable,” he said. “Frankly a disservice to people like Dolores Huerta, people like Luis Gutierrez, people like Sherrod Brown. And frankly, President Obama.”

View original post here: 

This Obama Official Is Going to Bat for Hillary in Nevada

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Obama Official Is Going to Bat for Hillary in Nevada