Tim McCown
March 4, 2012
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-philadelphia/h-r-347-could-be-making-the-first-amendment-illegal
On Ron Paul's website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major media call it non-controversial. The innocent sounding bill titled The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was passed Tuesday with only three dissenting votes including Ron Paul, and passed unanimously in the Senate. This bill dubbed the Anti-Occupy law was passed without one single Democrat speaking up for the first Amenndment.
Once this Bill is signed into law some including Ron Paul believe it will make it a felony to excercise your first Amendment rights of Free Speech. Several of those commenting opined that the nearly unanimous vote proves that despite all the posturing both parties stand shoulder to shoulder in their defense of the greed and entitlement of the 1% from the rest of us. When you couple this with the indefinite detention of Americans in the National Defense Authorization Act it is clear that Obama is part of a ruling corporate oligarchy and is surely no Progessive.
Among the controversial provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that is vague and open to interpretation that would make it a felony to enter or remain in an area designated as restricted. Because of the Secret Service protection at the national political party conventions this summer they could easily be declared restricted areas for the purpose of stifling dissent.
In addition, even a peaceful sit-in could be termed a felony if interpreted to mean blocking ingress or egress from a designated building. This section of the law could clearly be used to criminalize a broad range of formerly legal activities.
Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul's Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley's blog page notes that the imprecise languange, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definately be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans.
Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Fountainhead of Satanism
Joe CarterJun 8, 2011
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-fountainhead-of-satanism
Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book.
A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians.
Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all—especially we Christians—be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?
As you’ve probably guessed by this point, I’m not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. The ascendency of LaVey and his embrace by “conservative” leaders would indeed cause paroxysms of indignation. Yet, while the two figures’ philosophies are nearly identical, Rand appears to have received a pass. Why is that?
Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post. On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.
I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.
You can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two. The ideas are largely the same, though the movements’ aesthetics are different. One appeals to, we might say, the Young Libertarians, and the other attracts the Future Wiccans of America.
What is harder to understand is why both ideologies appeal to Christians and conservatives. My guess is that these groups are committing what I’d call the fallacy of personal compatibility. This fallacy occurs when a person thinks that because one subscribes to both “Belief X” and “Belief Y,” the two beliefs must therefore be compatible. For example, a person may claim that “life has meaning” and that “everything that exists is made of matter” even though the two claims are not compatible (unless “meaning” is made of matter). This take on the fallacy has long been committed by atheists. Now it appears to be growing in popularity among conservatives and Christians as well.
But to be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible. The original Objectivist was a type of self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity and the self-sacrificial love of its founder. She recognized that those Christians who claimed to share her views didn’t seem to understand what she was saying.
Many conservatives admire Rand because she was anti-collectivist. But that is like admiring Stalin because he opposed Nazism. Stalin was against the Nazis because he wanted to make the world safe for Communism. Likewise, Rand stands against collectivism because she wants the freedom to abolish Judeo-Christian morality. Conservative Christians who embrace her as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy.
Even if this were not the case, though, what would warrant the current influence of her thought within the conservative movement? Rand was a third-rate writer who was too arrogant to recognize her own ignorance (she believed she was the third greatest philosopher in history, behind only Aristotle and Aquinas). She misunderstood almost every concept she engaged with—from capitalism to freedom—and wrote nothing that had not been treated before by better thinkers. We don’t need her any more than we need LeVay.
Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand’s diabolic sway. But we are sustaining a climate in which not a few gullible souls believe she is worth taking seriously. Are we willing to be held responsible for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview? If so, perhaps instead of recommending Atlas Shrugged, we should simply hand out copies of The Satanic Bible. If they’re going to align with a satanic cult, they might as well join the one that has the better holidays.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-fountainhead-of-satanism
Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book.
A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians.
Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all—especially we Christians—be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?
As you’ve probably guessed by this point, I’m not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. The ascendency of LaVey and his embrace by “conservative” leaders would indeed cause paroxysms of indignation. Yet, while the two figures’ philosophies are nearly identical, Rand appears to have received a pass. Why is that?
Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post. On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.
I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.
You can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two. The ideas are largely the same, though the movements’ aesthetics are different. One appeals to, we might say, the Young Libertarians, and the other attracts the Future Wiccans of America.
What is harder to understand is why both ideologies appeal to Christians and conservatives. My guess is that these groups are committing what I’d call the fallacy of personal compatibility. This fallacy occurs when a person thinks that because one subscribes to both “Belief X” and “Belief Y,” the two beliefs must therefore be compatible. For example, a person may claim that “life has meaning” and that “everything that exists is made of matter” even though the two claims are not compatible (unless “meaning” is made of matter). This take on the fallacy has long been committed by atheists. Now it appears to be growing in popularity among conservatives and Christians as well.
But to be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible. The original Objectivist was a type of self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity and the self-sacrificial love of its founder. She recognized that those Christians who claimed to share her views didn’t seem to understand what she was saying.
Many conservatives admire Rand because she was anti-collectivist. But that is like admiring Stalin because he opposed Nazism. Stalin was against the Nazis because he wanted to make the world safe for Communism. Likewise, Rand stands against collectivism because she wants the freedom to abolish Judeo-Christian morality. Conservative Christians who embrace her as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy.
Even if this were not the case, though, what would warrant the current influence of her thought within the conservative movement? Rand was a third-rate writer who was too arrogant to recognize her own ignorance (she believed she was the third greatest philosopher in history, behind only Aristotle and Aquinas). She misunderstood almost every concept she engaged with—from capitalism to freedom—and wrote nothing that had not been treated before by better thinkers. We don’t need her any more than we need LeVay.
Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand’s diabolic sway. But we are sustaining a climate in which not a few gullible souls believe she is worth taking seriously. Are we willing to be held responsible for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview? If so, perhaps instead of recommending Atlas Shrugged, we should simply hand out copies of The Satanic Bible. If they’re going to align with a satanic cult, they might as well join the one that has the better holidays.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator.
Justified Blew My Mind
Last night's episode of Justified was one of the best in what has been an amazing season so far. I do not need to go into everything that happened, but allow me to say one thing: Quarles explaining how his father pimped him out to men was insanely frightening. Look at this GIF of Wynn Duffy while Quarles tells this story.
That was pretty much my reaction as well.
That was pretty much my reaction as well.
Weigh-In Wednesday VII
Damn, I should have made this weigh-in Tuesday. yesterday I was at 178.9. This morning I was at 181.0. I guess Tuesday would not work with the whole alliteration thing. My stomach is starting to actually reduce in size. Lindsey actually noticed it last night. Pretty damn awesome if you ask me.
The real question is, what should I do with my weekly Wednesday post? I guess this will be a place where I give my opinion on something. Or whatever. Obviously I will post my weight...
For Valentine's Day, Lindsey bought me a subscription to two magazines: Biblical Archaeology Review and Archaeology. I used to have a subscription to BAR, but I dropped it once they only focused on the James Ossuary and was solely focused on trying to prove that the ossuary was real. I have believed from the beginning that the ossuary was a fake, but that it was probably forged a long time ago. Probably someone from the James camp trying to prove that he was Jesus' brother. That is neither here nor there though.
Well there is another ossuary out there, apparently the Jonah Ossuary is the new big find. You can go to Robert Cargill's blog to read more about it. I am hoping that BAR does not hop onto this one as well. This seems pretty clear if you read enough about the evidence.
So yeah, give these things a read. Look into them. Learn about stuff. It can be fun. I promise.
The real question is, what should I do with my weekly Wednesday post? I guess this will be a place where I give my opinion on something. Or whatever. Obviously I will post my weight...
For Valentine's Day, Lindsey bought me a subscription to two magazines: Biblical Archaeology Review and Archaeology. I used to have a subscription to BAR, but I dropped it once they only focused on the James Ossuary and was solely focused on trying to prove that the ossuary was real. I have believed from the beginning that the ossuary was a fake, but that it was probably forged a long time ago. Probably someone from the James camp trying to prove that he was Jesus' brother. That is neither here nor there though.
Well there is another ossuary out there, apparently the Jonah Ossuary is the new big find. You can go to Robert Cargill's blog to read more about it. I am hoping that BAR does not hop onto this one as well. This seems pretty clear if you read enough about the evidence.
So yeah, give these things a read. Look into them. Learn about stuff. It can be fun. I promise.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Råttan: Återkomsten: Listan
Var hälsade, ärade läsare! Jag tänkte bryta hiatus-trenden och göra min återkomst innan ett år passerat, så nu är jag här. Saknaden av Pawped C. drar mig alltid tillbaka, och jag hoppas att Alien också känner så. Eftersom det var ett tag sedan sist tänkte jag inleda med att systematiskt lista allt nytt i mitt liv!
Jag har...
- Skaffat en ny frisyr.
- Lärt mig hantera en pletora av dödliga vapen och stridstekniker.
- Gift mig med Rihanna och Amy Reid på samma gång.
- Tillsammans med Ab planerat världshistoriens absolut mest storartade spelserie.
- Tvingats att ha sex med Carmella Bing för att få använda henne som flotte för att undkomma en öde ö.
- Spelat många spel.
- Sett många filmer och serier.
- Insett att Jessica Albas storhetstid till slut är förbi, men att hon fortfarande ligger högt på listan.
- Lyckats stävja ett uppror i det lilla landet jag härskar över.
- Utfört ett folkmord (se ovan).
- Till slut fått reda på att Abducted Aliens penis mäter över 25 centimeter i slakt tillstånd.
Mycket mer än så tänkte jag inte skriva i dagens inlägg. Jag återkommer under veckan med rapport om hur mitt nya dubbelgiftermål fungerar i vardagen. Tills dess:
Ow Rev-oh-are!
Fuzzy Math & The Keystone XL Pipeline
Robert Sterling, Konformist.com
Whenever you hear right-wing poiticians and mouthpieces demanding support for a project with the supposed reasoning of "jobs" it should rightfully be met with absolute skepticism. These cretins could care less for the working man, so when they feign support for workers, it is invariably a cynical exploitation on behalf of a big business gift.
To sell the public on the Keystone XL Pipeline, the right has put out numerous claims of job creation. The least controversial number is 20,000, and that one is even dubious at best. To begin with, the term "job" is defined by TransCanada (the company behind the XL Pipeline and the supplier of the 20K number) as "job years" which means that if the project takes the estimated two years, it will create actually half of the 13,000 "job year" number of jobs in construcion. Meanwhile, as for the 7,000 other "job years" created in manufacturing, it is likely most of this work will be done outside the US. So what is the more likely number of jobs created by the XL Pipeline, 20,000 or 6,500? According the the US State Department's own study, the actual total number on permanent jobs (not temporary during the construction) created by the Pipeline will be twenty.
Of course, whether it be 20 or 6,500 or even 20,000, that's a pretty small number of jobs for such a large project, so TransCanada had to juice the numbers. One study, supplied by TransCanada consultant Ray Perryman, proclaimed that "effects over the life of the project were found to include $20.931 billion in total spending, $9.605 billion in output, and 118,935 person-years of employment." (Note again that the number is in "job years" again.) In the same study, Perryman declares: "Under 'normal' oil price assumptions equivalent to the average for all of 2007, The Perryman Group found the gains in US business activity stemming from a permanent increase in stable oil supplies to include $100.144 billion in total spending, $29.048 billion in output, and 250,348 permanent jobs." This has lead the US Chamber of Commerce to support the project, citing the 250K figure.
(Oddly, the Chamber of Commerce doesn't cite the highest number of jobs estimated by Perryman to be created by the XL Pipeline, that of 553,235 jobs. The reason for this is that number is based on "the high-price case in which costs per barrel reach the peak levels observed in the summer of 2008." Which means the more outrageous oil prices get, the more supposedly beneficial the XL Pipeline is.)
Again, whether the number is 118,935, or 250,348, or even 553,235, the numbers should be met with doubt, as they are supplied by a consultant for a company trying to sell public and politicians on a project. The Global Labor Institute looked at the numbers cited by Perryman, and concluded they are bogus To begin with, of the $7 billion tied to the project, $3 to $4 billion has already been spent: thus there is no multiplier gain for this money if the XL Pipeline is approved. Further, the number assumes a rather generous 18 "job years" created per million dollars spent: the GLI goes with the more reasonable number of 11 "job years" per million. The end result of this simple math equation is a creation of 33,000 to 44,000 "job years" by the pipeline and not 118,000, which would create a maximum of 22K temporary jobs at best over the two years of the project, and 11K at worst if the project takes an extra year to complete.
As for the 250K to 550K numbers that TransCanada pushes, the GLI notes in response that it may very well be a long-term job killer. The big four problems with the project:
* Higher Fuel Prices: "KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual US fuel bill."
* Economic Costs Related to Air Pollution and Carbon Emissions: "It is a well known fact that if emissions rise, air quality deteriorates, and health problems increase. Respiratory and other illnesses reduce both labor productivity and labor market
participation, as well as the educational performance of those exposed to airborne particulates."
* Impact on the Green Economy and Green Jobs: "It is also important to consider the jobs that may not be created as a result of KXL. Many believe its approval will likely have a chilling effect on those in the private sector and in public policy who have positioned themselves on the cutting edge of the green economy. Small business organizations such as the Green Chamber of Commerce and the Green Business Network (representing more than 5,000 enterprises) agree that KXL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal."
* Environmental Damage: "The industry has ignored or dismissed fears that the KXL pipeline will have a serious impact on our environment through inland spills or spills into fresh water supplies (principally the Ogallala Aquifer) or through increases in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and other forms of pollution. In so doing, it has no need to acknowledge that environmental damage is invariably a job killer. Cleaning up spills and other environmental damage may create some jobs, but only at the expense of jobs in other parts of the economy."
Of these four job killers, environmental damage would on the surface appear to be the greatest X-factor, but in reality, it's not. The reason is because environmental damage from the XL Pipeline shouldn't be viewed as a potential risk, but a certainty. As PoliticusUSA.com noted, TransCanada "predicted that one of their existing pipelines would produce one spill every seven years, but it has produced 12 spills in less than one year. Even with one spill, over 1,000 rivers will be adversely impacted as well as the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies drinking water to 2 million Americans and is the primary source of groundwater for 20% of America’s agriculture production." Talk about a job killer.
If there is any X-factor here, it's the elephant in the room that strangely isn't being mentioned: terrorism. Allegedly, according to our national security establishment and its mouthpieces, the threat of al Qaeda and other terror orgs is so great, we need fingers stuck up our ass in airports in order to feel safe. Yet somehow, the possibility of an attack on a pipeline project ranging from our Canadian border to Texas is just crazy talk.
Sadly, being a betting man, I suspect the Keystone XL Pipeline will be built. This is because the GOP is using its usual strategy of frothing like mad dogs, which will likely soon be met by a predictable spineless cave by Obama. The only thing that will stop this project is if opponents stop relying on Obama's nonexistent backbone and start putting pressure on him and other politicians to fight the money behind this con. It could happen (certainly the Occupy Movement is evolving into something more than Democratic Party apologists that represent too much of progressive leadership) but would require a radical change in our current political paradigm. Let's hope that on this bet I am wrong.
Sources:
The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US. The Perryman Group June 2010 <http://www.perrymangroup.com/reports/TransCanada.pdf>.
Kesslerat, Glenn. "Keystone Pipeline Jobs Claims: A Bipartisan Fumble." Washington Post 14 December 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html>.
Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL. Global Labor Institute September 2011 <http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf>.
Rmuse. "The SEC Mulls An Investigation Calls Grow For John Boehner To Resign." PoliticusUSA 28 January 2012 <http://www.politicususa.com/en/john-boehner-resign>.
Tullis, Paul. "The Questionable Economics of the Keystone XL Pipeline." Businessweek 17 February 2012 <http://www.businessweek.com/top-news/the-questionable-economics-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-02172012.html>.
Whenever you hear right-wing poiticians and mouthpieces demanding support for a project with the supposed reasoning of "jobs" it should rightfully be met with absolute skepticism. These cretins could care less for the working man, so when they feign support for workers, it is invariably a cynical exploitation on behalf of a big business gift.
To sell the public on the Keystone XL Pipeline, the right has put out numerous claims of job creation. The least controversial number is 20,000, and that one is even dubious at best. To begin with, the term "job" is defined by TransCanada (the company behind the XL Pipeline and the supplier of the 20K number) as "job years" which means that if the project takes the estimated two years, it will create actually half of the 13,000 "job year" number of jobs in construcion. Meanwhile, as for the 7,000 other "job years" created in manufacturing, it is likely most of this work will be done outside the US. So what is the more likely number of jobs created by the XL Pipeline, 20,000 or 6,500? According the the US State Department's own study, the actual total number on permanent jobs (not temporary during the construction) created by the Pipeline will be twenty.
Of course, whether it be 20 or 6,500 or even 20,000, that's a pretty small number of jobs for such a large project, so TransCanada had to juice the numbers. One study, supplied by TransCanada consultant Ray Perryman, proclaimed that "effects over the life of the project were found to include $20.931 billion in total spending, $9.605 billion in output, and 118,935 person-years of employment." (Note again that the number is in "job years" again.) In the same study, Perryman declares: "Under 'normal' oil price assumptions equivalent to the average for all of 2007, The Perryman Group found the gains in US business activity stemming from a permanent increase in stable oil supplies to include $100.144 billion in total spending, $29.048 billion in output, and 250,348 permanent jobs." This has lead the US Chamber of Commerce to support the project, citing the 250K figure.
(Oddly, the Chamber of Commerce doesn't cite the highest number of jobs estimated by Perryman to be created by the XL Pipeline, that of 553,235 jobs. The reason for this is that number is based on "the high-price case in which costs per barrel reach the peak levels observed in the summer of 2008." Which means the more outrageous oil prices get, the more supposedly beneficial the XL Pipeline is.)
Again, whether the number is 118,935, or 250,348, or even 553,235, the numbers should be met with doubt, as they are supplied by a consultant for a company trying to sell public and politicians on a project. The Global Labor Institute looked at the numbers cited by Perryman, and concluded they are bogus To begin with, of the $7 billion tied to the project, $3 to $4 billion has already been spent: thus there is no multiplier gain for this money if the XL Pipeline is approved. Further, the number assumes a rather generous 18 "job years" created per million dollars spent: the GLI goes with the more reasonable number of 11 "job years" per million. The end result of this simple math equation is a creation of 33,000 to 44,000 "job years" by the pipeline and not 118,000, which would create a maximum of 22K temporary jobs at best over the two years of the project, and 11K at worst if the project takes an extra year to complete.
As for the 250K to 550K numbers that TransCanada pushes, the GLI notes in response that it may very well be a long-term job killer. The big four problems with the project:
* Higher Fuel Prices: "KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual US fuel bill."
* Economic Costs Related to Air Pollution and Carbon Emissions: "It is a well known fact that if emissions rise, air quality deteriorates, and health problems increase. Respiratory and other illnesses reduce both labor productivity and labor market
participation, as well as the educational performance of those exposed to airborne particulates."
* Impact on the Green Economy and Green Jobs: "It is also important to consider the jobs that may not be created as a result of KXL. Many believe its approval will likely have a chilling effect on those in the private sector and in public policy who have positioned themselves on the cutting edge of the green economy. Small business organizations such as the Green Chamber of Commerce and the Green Business Network (representing more than 5,000 enterprises) agree that KXL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal."
* Environmental Damage: "The industry has ignored or dismissed fears that the KXL pipeline will have a serious impact on our environment through inland spills or spills into fresh water supplies (principally the Ogallala Aquifer) or through increases in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and other forms of pollution. In so doing, it has no need to acknowledge that environmental damage is invariably a job killer. Cleaning up spills and other environmental damage may create some jobs, but only at the expense of jobs in other parts of the economy."
Of these four job killers, environmental damage would on the surface appear to be the greatest X-factor, but in reality, it's not. The reason is because environmental damage from the XL Pipeline shouldn't be viewed as a potential risk, but a certainty. As PoliticusUSA.com noted, TransCanada "predicted that one of their existing pipelines would produce one spill every seven years, but it has produced 12 spills in less than one year. Even with one spill, over 1,000 rivers will be adversely impacted as well as the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies drinking water to 2 million Americans and is the primary source of groundwater for 20% of America’s agriculture production." Talk about a job killer.
If there is any X-factor here, it's the elephant in the room that strangely isn't being mentioned: terrorism. Allegedly, according to our national security establishment and its mouthpieces, the threat of al Qaeda and other terror orgs is so great, we need fingers stuck up our ass in airports in order to feel safe. Yet somehow, the possibility of an attack on a pipeline project ranging from our Canadian border to Texas is just crazy talk.
Sadly, being a betting man, I suspect the Keystone XL Pipeline will be built. This is because the GOP is using its usual strategy of frothing like mad dogs, which will likely soon be met by a predictable spineless cave by Obama. The only thing that will stop this project is if opponents stop relying on Obama's nonexistent backbone and start putting pressure on him and other politicians to fight the money behind this con. It could happen (certainly the Occupy Movement is evolving into something more than Democratic Party apologists that represent too much of progressive leadership) but would require a radical change in our current political paradigm. Let's hope that on this bet I am wrong.
Sources:
The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US. The Perryman Group June 2010 <http://www.perrymangroup.com/reports/TransCanada.pdf>.
Kesslerat, Glenn. "Keystone Pipeline Jobs Claims: A Bipartisan Fumble." Washington Post 14 December 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html>.
Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL. Global Labor Institute September 2011 <http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf>.
Rmuse. "The SEC Mulls An Investigation Calls Grow For John Boehner To Resign." PoliticusUSA 28 January 2012 <http://www.politicususa.com/en/john-boehner-resign>.
Tullis, Paul. "The Questionable Economics of the Keystone XL Pipeline." Businessweek 17 February 2012 <http://www.businessweek.com/top-news/the-questionable-economics-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-02172012.html>.
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
GREG SMITHMarch 14, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html
TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 14, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html
TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 14, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)