Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
March 24, 2013
from Consortium News:
The WPost’s Unbridled Arrogance
March 23, 2013
Exclusive: Perhaps more than any news organization, the Washington Post steered the United States into the illegal invasion of Iraq. But a Post editorial, which belatedly takes note of the war’s tenth anniversary, admits to no mistakes and acknowledges no lessons learned, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Four days after the Iraq War’s tenth anniversary, the Washington Post published an editorial about the disastrous war of choice, a conflict which the Post’s neocon editors promoted with falsehoods and distortions both before the invasion and for years afterwards.
However, if you thought there would be some admission of the newspaper’s long litany of mistakes or some apology to the war’s critics who were routinely maligned in Post editorials and op-eds, you would be sorely disappointed. There was not even a mention of the nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died.
After a brief acknowledgement that the war’s tenth anniversary “generated plenty of commentary about the lessons of that war,” the Post’s editors said nothing about what, if anything, they had learned. Instead, they remained in positive spin mode, citing one supposed accomplishment from the invasion.
“For the first time in decades, contemporary Iraq poses no threat to its neighbors,” the Post declared. However, even that is a lie on two fronts. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/23/the-wposts-unbridled-arrogance/
Robert Parry: The WPost’s Unbridled Arrogance
from Consortium News:
The WPost’s Unbridled Arrogance
March 23, 2013
Exclusive: Perhaps more than any news organization, the Washington Post steered the United States into the illegal invasion of Iraq. But a Post editorial, which belatedly takes note of the war’s tenth anniversary, admits to no mistakes and acknowledges no lessons learned, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Four days after the Iraq War’s tenth anniversary, the Washington Post published an editorial about the disastrous war of choice, a conflict which the Post’s neocon editors promoted with falsehoods and distortions both before the invasion and for years afterwards.
However, if you thought there would be some admission of the newspaper’s long litany of mistakes or some apology to the war’s critics who were routinely maligned in Post editorials and op-eds, you would be sorely disappointed. There was not even a mention of the nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died.
After a brief acknowledgement that the war’s tenth anniversary “generated plenty of commentary about the lessons of that war,” the Post’s editors said nothing about what, if anything, they had learned. Instead, they remained in positive spin mode, citing one supposed accomplishment from the invasion.
“For the first time in decades, contemporary Iraq poses no threat to its neighbors,” the Post declared. However, even that is a lie on two fronts. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/23/the-wposts-unbridled-arrogance/
March 24, 2013
http://vimeo.com/62409423
Richard Wolff on Capitalism’s Destructive Power
March 22, 2013
Richard Wolff’s smart, blunt talk about the crisis of capitalism on his first Moyers & Company appearance was so compelling and provocative, we asked him to return. This time, the economics expert answers questions sent in by our viewers, diving further into economic inequality, the limitations of industry regulation, and the widening gap between a booming stock market and a population that increasingly lives in poverty.
“We ought to have much more democratic enterprise,” Wolff tells Bill, in response to a question from a viewer in Oklahoma. “We ought to have stores, factories and offices in which all the people who have to live with the results of what happens to that enterprise participate in deciding how it works.”
Addressing a question about capitalism and climate change, Wolff says, “Capitalism is a system geared up to doing three things on the part of business: get more profits, grow your company and get a larger market share… If along the way they have to sacrifice either the well-being of their workers or the well-being of the planet or the environmental conditions, they may feel very bad about it — and I know plenty who do — but they have no choice.”
Wolff taught economics for 35 years at the University of Massachusetts and is now visiting professor at The New School University in New York City. His books include Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism and Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-capitalisms-destructive-power/
Bill Moyers: The Dark Side of Capitalism
http://vimeo.com/62409423
Richard Wolff on Capitalism’s Destructive Power
March 22, 2013
Richard Wolff’s smart, blunt talk about the crisis of capitalism on his first Moyers & Company appearance was so compelling and provocative, we asked him to return. This time, the economics expert answers questions sent in by our viewers, diving further into economic inequality, the limitations of industry regulation, and the widening gap between a booming stock market and a population that increasingly lives in poverty.
“We ought to have much more democratic enterprise,” Wolff tells Bill, in response to a question from a viewer in Oklahoma. “We ought to have stores, factories and offices in which all the people who have to live with the results of what happens to that enterprise participate in deciding how it works.”
Addressing a question about capitalism and climate change, Wolff says, “Capitalism is a system geared up to doing three things on the part of business: get more profits, grow your company and get a larger market share… If along the way they have to sacrifice either the well-being of their workers or the well-being of the planet or the environmental conditions, they may feel very bad about it — and I know plenty who do — but they have no choice.”
Wolff taught economics for 35 years at the University of Massachusetts and is now visiting professor at The New School University in New York City. His books include Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism and Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-capitalisms-destructive-power/
March 24, 2013
http://vimeo.com/62447888
Sheila Bair on Big Banks’ Greed and Impunity
March 22, 2013
Sheila Bair, the longtime Republican who served as chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) during the fiscal meltdown five years ago, joins Bill to talk about American banks’ continuing risky and manipulative practices, their seeming immunity from prosecution, and growing anger from Congress and the public.
“I think the system’s a little bit safer, but nothing like the dramatic reforms that we really need to see to tame these large banks, and to give us a stable financial system that supports the real economy, not just trading profits of large financial institutions,” Bair tells Bill.
Bair is the author of Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/sheila-bair-on-big-banks-greed-and-impunity/
Bill Moyers: What Big Banks Are Getting Away With
http://vimeo.com/62447888
Sheila Bair on Big Banks’ Greed and Impunity
March 22, 2013
Sheila Bair, the longtime Republican who served as chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) during the fiscal meltdown five years ago, joins Bill to talk about American banks’ continuing risky and manipulative practices, their seeming immunity from prosecution, and growing anger from Congress and the public.
“I think the system’s a little bit safer, but nothing like the dramatic reforms that we really need to see to tame these large banks, and to give us a stable financial system that supports the real economy, not just trading profits of large financial institutions,” Bair tells Bill.
Bair is the author of Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/sheila-bair-on-big-banks-greed-and-impunity/
March 24, 2013
from OnTheCommons.org:
Our Common Wealth: Jonathan Rowe's Collected Writings on the Commons
An author/activist showed us the hidden economy that makes everything else work
| by Jay Walljasper
I can remember the moment I first recognized the commons as a powerful tool to heal the Earth, reverse economic inequality and strengthen our communities. This article by Jonathan Rowe lit a fire in my head when I first read it in Yes! magazine. It’s the reason I am now doing what I do. And reading it again in Our Common Wealth: The Hidden Economy that That Makes Everything Else Work —a just-published collection of Jonathan Rowe’s writing from Berrett-Koehler Publishers—rekindles my excitement.
Jonathan Rowe helped found On The Commons (known then as the Tomales Bay Institute) in 2002, and became both a Paul Revere and a Thomas Paine of the budding commons movement, spreading word that “privatizers are coming” but also articulating the common sense in recognizing, protecting and nurturing what belongs to all of us together.
I first encountered Jonathan through his smart, profound and fresh thinking in the Washington Monthly when I was editor of Utne Reader magazine. We had reprinted his articles on topics as varied as Ralph Nader (for whom he worked as one of the original Nader’s Raiders) and Cuban baseball. As soon as I finished his eye-opening introduction to the commons, we rushed it into print as part of our issue responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At a time when U.S. leaders were counseling Americans to either hunker down at home to protect our safety or to go shopping to revive the economy, I appreciated his insistent voice that what we do and build together is important for the future. ..........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/our-common-wealth-jonathan-rowes-collected-writings-commons
Our Common Wealth: Jonathan Rowe's Collected Writings on the Commons
from OnTheCommons.org:
Our Common Wealth: Jonathan Rowe's Collected Writings on the Commons
An author/activist showed us the hidden economy that makes everything else work
| by Jay Walljasper
I can remember the moment I first recognized the commons as a powerful tool to heal the Earth, reverse economic inequality and strengthen our communities. This article by Jonathan Rowe lit a fire in my head when I first read it in Yes! magazine. It’s the reason I am now doing what I do. And reading it again in Our Common Wealth: The Hidden Economy that That Makes Everything Else Work —a just-published collection of Jonathan Rowe’s writing from Berrett-Koehler Publishers—rekindles my excitement.
Jonathan Rowe helped found On The Commons (known then as the Tomales Bay Institute) in 2002, and became both a Paul Revere and a Thomas Paine of the budding commons movement, spreading word that “privatizers are coming” but also articulating the common sense in recognizing, protecting and nurturing what belongs to all of us together.
I first encountered Jonathan through his smart, profound and fresh thinking in the Washington Monthly when I was editor of Utne Reader magazine. We had reprinted his articles on topics as varied as Ralph Nader (for whom he worked as one of the original Nader’s Raiders) and Cuban baseball. As soon as I finished his eye-opening introduction to the commons, we rushed it into print as part of our issue responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At a time when U.S. leaders were counseling Americans to either hunker down at home to protect our safety or to go shopping to revive the economy, I appreciated his insistent voice that what we do and build together is important for the future. ..........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/our-common-wealth-jonathan-rowes-collected-writings-commons
March 23, 2013
http://streetsblog.net/2013/03/22/in-many-markets-rail-beats-or-competes-with-air-travel/
from StreetsBlog:
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
by Angie Schmitt
It can seem like the image of Amtrak as a second-rate mode – a “Soviet-style monopoly” – is so firmly ingrained that it’s hard to shake. Even as more people choose to ride trains.
Today at Network blog Better Institutions, Shane Phillips shares this graphic that shows how competitive Amtrak is in certain markets. It’s amazing, given all the ways our political system undermines rail transportation, that it still manages to surpass air travel in some cases. But there are important reasons for that, he says:
Just imagine if these routes were prioritized the way highway development is.
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
http://streetsblog.net/2013/03/22/in-many-markets-rail-beats-or-competes-with-air-travel/
from StreetsBlog:
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
by Angie Schmitt
It can seem like the image of Amtrak as a second-rate mode – a “Soviet-style monopoly” – is so firmly ingrained that it’s hard to shake. Even as more people choose to ride trains.
Today at Network blog Better Institutions, Shane Phillips shares this graphic that shows how competitive Amtrak is in certain markets. It’s amazing, given all the ways our political system undermines rail transportation, that it still manages to surpass air travel in some cases. But there are important reasons for that, he says:
Longer-distance intercity rail gets short shrift as a transportation mode in a lot of circles, often treated as more novelty than honest-to-god mobility solution. Air travel, on the other hand, is generally considered completely legitimate. In reality, even with relatively poor facilities by international standards–and massive federal investments in airport infrastructure–rail is competitive with air travel in much of the United States, and in some cases vastly more popular as this chart illustrates.
This is good for everyone, airlines included. Air travel is an incredibly valuable and important transportation mode, but its utility is severely diminished at distances of 100-500 miles. A smaller share of total travel time is spent cruising in the plane; more is spent getting through security, waiting to board, taxiing, taking off, and landing. Rail is also easier to locate nearer the core of dense metro populations (where people usually ultimately want to go), something airlines can’t really do with their huge geographical footprint and noisy planes. Where city-pair distances and populations warrant rail travel, pressure is taken off the airlines to provide these shorter, less profitable domestic routes. This then allows them to provide more international and longer-distance flights, improving airlines’ extremely thin profit margins and reducing overall airport congestion. Air travel is also much more polluting than rail–electrified rail in particular.
Just imagine if these routes were prioritized the way highway development is.
March 23, 2013
from StreetsBlog:
Will Big Highway Projects Have to Consider Climate Change?
by Tanya Snyder
[font size="1"]Expanding NEPA to include climate impacts and adaptability won't necessarily mean a future free from this. Photo: Macomb Politics[/font]
Since 1970, the National Environmental Protection Act has required federal agencies to consider the impacts of their projects on air, water, and soil pollution — but not on climate change.
Until recently, carbon dioxide, which causes global warning, wasn’t classified as a pollutant and so couldn’t be regulated under environmental laws. The EPA in 2009 asserted its power to regulate carbon emissions but hasn’t applied it to NEPA analyses for infrastructure – until now.
President Obama hasn’t made the announcement yet, but Bloomberg reported Friday that he “is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.”
There’s more – projects could also be evaluated according to resiliency in the face of climate change. Would the new infrastructure be destroyed if faced with flooding, drought, or other severe weather? Bloomberg reports that the White House is also “looking at” requiring these climate adaptability and resiliency reports for projects “with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.” ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/21/will-big-highway-projects-have-to-consider-climate-change/
Will Big Highway Projects Have to Consider Climate Change?
from StreetsBlog:
Will Big Highway Projects Have to Consider Climate Change?
by Tanya Snyder
[font size="1"]Expanding NEPA to include climate impacts and adaptability won't necessarily mean a future free from this. Photo: Macomb Politics[/font]
Since 1970, the National Environmental Protection Act has required federal agencies to consider the impacts of their projects on air, water, and soil pollution — but not on climate change.
Until recently, carbon dioxide, which causes global warning, wasn’t classified as a pollutant and so couldn’t be regulated under environmental laws. The EPA in 2009 asserted its power to regulate carbon emissions but hasn’t applied it to NEPA analyses for infrastructure – until now.
President Obama hasn’t made the announcement yet, but Bloomberg reported Friday that he “is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.”
There’s more – projects could also be evaluated according to resiliency in the face of climate change. Would the new infrastructure be destroyed if faced with flooding, drought, or other severe weather? Bloomberg reports that the White House is also “looking at” requiring these climate adaptability and resiliency reports for projects “with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.” ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/21/will-big-highway-projects-have-to-consider-climate-change/
March 23, 2013
from StreetsBlog:
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
by Angie Schmitt
It can seem like the image of Amtrak as a second-rate mode – a “Soviet-style monopoly” – is so firmly ingrained that it’s hard to shake. Even as more people choose to ride trains.
Today at Network blog Better Institutions, Shane Phillips shares this graphic that shows how competitive Amtrak is in certain markets. It’s amazing, given all the ways our political system undermines rail transportation, that it still manages to surpass air travel in some cases. But there are important reasons for that, he says:
Just imagine if these routes were prioritized the way highway development is.
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
http://streetsblog.net/2013/03/22/in-many-markets-rail-beats-or-competes-with-air-travel/from StreetsBlog:
In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
by Angie Schmitt
It can seem like the image of Amtrak as a second-rate mode – a “Soviet-style monopoly” – is so firmly ingrained that it’s hard to shake. Even as more people choose to ride trains.
Today at Network blog Better Institutions, Shane Phillips shares this graphic that shows how competitive Amtrak is in certain markets. It’s amazing, given all the ways our political system undermines rail transportation, that it still manages to surpass air travel in some cases. But there are important reasons for that, he says:
Longer-distance intercity rail gets short shrift as a transportation mode in a lot of circles, often treated as more novelty than honest-to-god mobility solution. Air travel, on the other hand, is generally considered completely legitimate. In reality, even with relatively poor facilities by international standards–and massive federal investments in airport infrastructure–rail is competitive with air travel in much of the United States, and in some cases vastly more popular as this chart illustrates.
This is good for everyone, airlines included. Air travel is an incredibly valuable and important transportation mode, but its utility is severely diminished at distances of 100-500 miles. A smaller share of total travel time is spent cruising in the plane; more is spent getting through security, waiting to board, taxiing, taking off, and landing. Rail is also easier to locate nearer the core of dense metro populations (where people usually ultimately want to go), something airlines can’t really do with their huge geographical footprint and noisy planes. Where city-pair distances and populations warrant rail travel, pressure is taken off the airlines to provide these shorter, less profitable domestic routes. This then allows them to provide more international and longer-distance flights, improving airlines’ extremely thin profit margins and reducing overall airport congestion. Air travel is also much more polluting than rail–electrified rail in particular.
Just imagine if these routes were prioritized the way highway development is.
March 23, 2013
from the SF.Streets blog:
At 40 Years, San Francisco’s Transit-First Policy Still Struggles for Traction
by Aaron Bialick
[font size="1"]Four decades after San Francisco's transit-first policy was adopted, Geary Boulevard remains designed to give priority to auto drivers over riders on Muni's busiest bus line. Photo: jivedanson/Flickr[/font]
The first private automobile users on early 20th-century American streets were generally accorded no special privileges on the public right-of-way. “The center of the road was reserved for streetcars, and the new automobiles had to move out of the way,” as Renee Montagne describes it in the 1996 documentary Taken for a Ride, which chronicles the decline of American public transit over the 20th century.
When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a transit-first policy on March 19, 1973 — 40 years ago this week — a return to the early 1900s streetscape may not have been what they had in mind, but the city’s intent to undo decades of urban planning and governance geared towards promoting driving at the expense of public transit was clear. A key provision of the policy reads, “Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.” (The policy was amended to include pedestrians and bicyclists in 1999.)
Yet today, the vast majority of San Francisco’s street space remains devoted to moving and storing private automobiles, making the public right-of-way hostile to walking and bicycling. Muni remains underfunded, with vehicle breakdowns and delays caused by car traffic a daily part of riding transit.
“When there’s excess road space that cars don’t need, it’s given over to bikes, peds, and transit,” said Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich, “but where there’s a real shortage of road space, in the most congested parts of the city, the car is still the priority.” ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/at-40-years-san-franciscos-transit-first-policy-still-struggles-for-traction/
At 40 Years, San Francisco’s Transit-First Policy Still Struggles for Traction
from the SF.Streets blog:
At 40 Years, San Francisco’s Transit-First Policy Still Struggles for Traction
by Aaron Bialick
[font size="1"]Four decades after San Francisco's transit-first policy was adopted, Geary Boulevard remains designed to give priority to auto drivers over riders on Muni's busiest bus line. Photo: jivedanson/Flickr[/font]
The first private automobile users on early 20th-century American streets were generally accorded no special privileges on the public right-of-way. “The center of the road was reserved for streetcars, and the new automobiles had to move out of the way,” as Renee Montagne describes it in the 1996 documentary Taken for a Ride, which chronicles the decline of American public transit over the 20th century.
When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a transit-first policy on March 19, 1973 — 40 years ago this week — a return to the early 1900s streetscape may not have been what they had in mind, but the city’s intent to undo decades of urban planning and governance geared towards promoting driving at the expense of public transit was clear. A key provision of the policy reads, “Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.” (The policy was amended to include pedestrians and bicyclists in 1999.)
Yet today, the vast majority of San Francisco’s street space remains devoted to moving and storing private automobiles, making the public right-of-way hostile to walking and bicycling. Muni remains underfunded, with vehicle breakdowns and delays caused by car traffic a daily part of riding transit.
“When there’s excess road space that cars don’t need, it’s given over to bikes, peds, and transit,” said Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich, “but where there’s a real shortage of road space, in the most congested parts of the city, the car is still the priority.” ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/at-40-years-san-franciscos-transit-first-policy-still-struggles-for-traction/
March 23, 2013
(Daisy Rosario, WNYC) Subway riders in New York City can not be required to carry identification. A federal judge has ruled that it an NY MTA requirement unconstitutional.
The case stems from two train enthusiasts, Ernest Steve Barry and Michael Burkhart, who were arrested while photographing subway cars at a Queens station in 2010. Both men were cited for taking pictures. Barry received an additional summons when he gave an officer his full name but did not produce a photo ID.
The charges were later dismissed. Photography in the transit system is already legal, providing the equipment used is not excessive. The men filed a civil suit challenging the ID rule in 2011. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://transportationnation.org/2013/03/22/judge-no-id-required-to-ride-nyc-subway/
Judge Rules No ID Required to Ride NYC Subway
(Daisy Rosario, WNYC) Subway riders in New York City can not be required to carry identification. A federal judge has ruled that it an NY MTA requirement unconstitutional.
The case stems from two train enthusiasts, Ernest Steve Barry and Michael Burkhart, who were arrested while photographing subway cars at a Queens station in 2010. Both men were cited for taking pictures. Barry received an additional summons when he gave an officer his full name but did not produce a photo ID.
The charges were later dismissed. Photography in the transit system is already legal, providing the equipment used is not excessive. The men filed a civil suit challenging the ID rule in 2011. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://transportationnation.org/2013/03/22/judge-no-id-required-to-ride-nyc-subway/
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,102
