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
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
May 18, 2014
Senators Told No Magic Bullet for V.I. Government Pension
By Bill Kossler — May 17, 2014
As senators and retirees sought softer ways to save the Government Employee Retirement System, GERS officials and actuaries during hearings Friday poured cold water on the notions of borrowing the money or including the private sector.
Since at least the late 1990s (thank you, St, Ronnie) , every GERS administrator has urgently warned the V.I. Legislature that unfunded legislative mandates and early retirement incentives, combined with inadequate contribution rates for the pension levels, were bankrupting the system.
GERS itself proposed reforms three years ago. Last year, the governor's pension reform task force issued a report itemizing a series of recommendations and options, including small increases to employee contributions, limits on early retirement and other tweaks to the system. (See related links below)
On Tuesday, GERS Administrator Austin Nibbs testified to the Committee of the Whole that, if nothing is done, the system will have sold off all its assets and be unable to meet retiree pension payments by 2022 – or less than eight years.
Senators Told No Magic Bullet for V.I. Government Pension
http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2014/05/17/senators-told-no-magic-bullet-vi-government-pensionSenators Told No Magic Bullet for V.I. Government Pension
By Bill Kossler — May 17, 2014
As senators and retirees sought softer ways to save the Government Employee Retirement System, GERS officials and actuaries during hearings Friday poured cold water on the notions of borrowing the money or including the private sector.
Since at least the late 1990s (thank you, St, Ronnie) , every GERS administrator has urgently warned the V.I. Legislature that unfunded legislative mandates and early retirement incentives, combined with inadequate contribution rates for the pension levels, were bankrupting the system.
GERS itself proposed reforms three years ago. Last year, the governor's pension reform task force issued a report itemizing a series of recommendations and options, including small increases to employee contributions, limits on early retirement and other tweaks to the system. (See related links below)
On Tuesday, GERS Administrator Austin Nibbs testified to the Committee of the Whole that, if nothing is done, the system will have sold off all its assets and be unable to meet retiree pension payments by 2022 – or less than eight years.
May 18, 2014
After Plans Fail: America’s New Policy in the Middle East
Al-Iraq News, Iraq
By Dr. Ahmad al-Naif
Translated By Jackson Allan
26 April 2014
Edited by Sean Feely
America’s old defense policy was aimed at confronting the following dangers: Islam, China, the scarcity of energy resources, population decline in industrialized countries and the rise of four emerging economic powers — Brazil, Russia, India and China — as part of the BRIC association. That meant confronting terrorism in its homeland, twisting the arm of or toppling uncooperative regimes, pushing other regimes toward domestic political openness, directly controlling oil sources through stable, reputable regimes and improving America’s image in the Middle East by exporting its most attractive assets — freedom and democracy — and making the peoples of the region feel like it is a savior that will bring freedom and economic opulence. This policy led to very negative, paradoxical results:
~snip~
America’s new direction centers on the following principles:
After Plans Fail: America’s New Policy in the Middle East
http://watchingamerica.com/News/238634/after-plans-fail-americas-new-policy-in-the-middle-east/After Plans Fail: America’s New Policy in the Middle East
Al-Iraq News, Iraq
By Dr. Ahmad al-Naif
Translated By Jackson Allan
26 April 2014
Edited by Sean Feely
America’s old defense policy was aimed at confronting the following dangers: Islam, China, the scarcity of energy resources, population decline in industrialized countries and the rise of four emerging economic powers — Brazil, Russia, India and China — as part of the BRIC association. That meant confronting terrorism in its homeland, twisting the arm of or toppling uncooperative regimes, pushing other regimes toward domestic political openness, directly controlling oil sources through stable, reputable regimes and improving America’s image in the Middle East by exporting its most attractive assets — freedom and democracy — and making the peoples of the region feel like it is a savior that will bring freedom and economic opulence. This policy led to very negative, paradoxical results:
• It turned al-Qaida leaders like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi into legends.
• It created unprecedented sympathy for Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi in the Arab street.
• It turned Iraq and then Syria into centers of global jihad.
• It created a fissure between the United States and Islamic world.
• It isolated the United States internationally.
• It caused the United States serious losses: 5,000 Americans were killed and $5 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• It gave new energy to Islamic extremist movements, to the extent that they boosted their operations in stable countries allied with America, like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.
• It had come to threaten the Republican Party with a continual loss of power in any legislative and presidential elections.
~snip~
America’s new direction centers on the following principles:
• Giving free reign to “natural” religious, national, ethnic and sectarian contradictions.
• Inciting division and separation, and not caring about the borders drawn by the countries that emerged victorious in World War I, nor even those drawn by the countries that emerged victorious from the Cold War (at the beginning of the New American Era).
• Not fatiguing American diplomacy with unsolvable problems by instead proposing superficial solutions.
• Creating political balances and ensuring that the wars only continue if they remain contained and do not threaten to upset these balances.
• Closing the book on spreading democracy in the region because it threatens the stability of allied regimes and because every time elections are held, the result will favor Muslim and Christian religious groups. Previous results have confirmed that religious belonging is more dominant and fundamental than national belonging.
• Exchanging military control over oil for control over the oil market by preventing China and Russia from directly controlling the sources of oil.
• Filling the void left by the American military in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab Gulf with an invisible American presence protected by lengthy agreements with their governments and intimate relations with local armies. This keeps the armies weak because the central governments are weak.
• Permanently retaining military strike forces in Central Asia, Turkey and Europe, sufficient to strike any enemy, opponent or half-friend that tries to upset the natural political balances.
• Washington learned the enormous moral and diplomatic price of its apathy for international law after it invaded Baghdad and was forced to beg for U.N. cover. Therefore, it will, through media deception and trickery, use international law to achieve its goals. If that proves impossible, it will resort to unilateral economic, diplomatic, legal and technological sanctions.
• Depending externally on the cover of the U.N. and its forces. Should that fail, America will resort to using the NATO umbrella with international authorization, as is the case in Afghanistan.
May 18, 2014
I Love New York: The Haves and the Have-nots
Sankei News, Japan
By Jun Kurosawa
Translated By Courtney Coppernoll
13 May 2014
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
Manhattan is an area of New York City crowded with skyscrapers, and every morning here you can see helicopters making their noisy arrivals. They arrive at the same time each day, no exceptions. When I wondered what kind of people were on board, I discovered that it was millionaires commuting to work from a neighboring town. Although the wealthy say they travel by helicopter in order to shorten their commute time, the standard of living of such millionaires is far beyond the imaginations of us Japanese.
When I visited the picturesque suburban neighborhoods of New York, I found these wealthy people’s homes. Their mansions are situated on extensive grounds that seem like they could hold around 20 baseball stadiums. According to a person who knows a daughter of one of these millionaires, when the daughter wanted to travel a mere two blocks in Manhattan, she used a taxi.
In collaboration with Dartmouth College, an Ivy League school in northeastern New Hampshire, there's also a retirement home where those admitted can take relevant courses from the university. There are many wealthy people at these facilities. In addition to a lump sum of nearly $500,000, residents must also pay a large monthly facility use fee. However, when it comes to enjoying the full range of these social services, they don't think twice about paying large additional expenses.
In contrast to this lifestyle, you can see people begging for money every day in New York's subway stations. They hold signs with messages like “I haven't eaten today. Please help me.” It's heart-rending to see. These are the haves and the have-nots. In this country, the gap between these two groups is too extreme.
I Love New York: The Haves and the Have-nots
http://watchingamerica.com/News/238782/i-love-new-york-the-haves-and-the-have-nots/I Love New York: The Haves and the Have-nots
Sankei News, Japan
By Jun Kurosawa
Translated By Courtney Coppernoll
13 May 2014
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
Manhattan is an area of New York City crowded with skyscrapers, and every morning here you can see helicopters making their noisy arrivals. They arrive at the same time each day, no exceptions. When I wondered what kind of people were on board, I discovered that it was millionaires commuting to work from a neighboring town. Although the wealthy say they travel by helicopter in order to shorten their commute time, the standard of living of such millionaires is far beyond the imaginations of us Japanese.
When I visited the picturesque suburban neighborhoods of New York, I found these wealthy people’s homes. Their mansions are situated on extensive grounds that seem like they could hold around 20 baseball stadiums. According to a person who knows a daughter of one of these millionaires, when the daughter wanted to travel a mere two blocks in Manhattan, she used a taxi.
In collaboration with Dartmouth College, an Ivy League school in northeastern New Hampshire, there's also a retirement home where those admitted can take relevant courses from the university. There are many wealthy people at these facilities. In addition to a lump sum of nearly $500,000, residents must also pay a large monthly facility use fee. However, when it comes to enjoying the full range of these social services, they don't think twice about paying large additional expenses.
In contrast to this lifestyle, you can see people begging for money every day in New York's subway stations. They hold signs with messages like “I haven't eaten today. Please help me.” It's heart-rending to see. These are the haves and the have-nots. In this country, the gap between these two groups is too extreme.
May 18, 2014
America as Torture Central: From Prisons to “Black Sites”
By Juan Cole | May. 18, 2014
(By Sarah Lazare)
~snip~
In the United States, 32 percent of respondents expressed such a fear—which, according to the report, has merit.
"In some maximum security isolation or segregation facilities across the USA, many thousands of inmates are held in solitary confinement in small cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. Many have little access to natural light or out-of-cell recreation time which amounts to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment," reads the study.
U.S. torture is not confined within its borders. "The U.S. government is also failing to ensure accountability for torture and enforced disappearances committed in the context of counter-terrorism operations. No one responsible for the use of interrogation techniques such as 'water-boarding,' prolonged sleep deprivation, and stress positions in Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-run secret detention centres around the world has been brought to justice. The U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence has conducted a review of the now-terminated CIA programme, but its 6,000-plus page report remains classified."
Rebecca Gordon, author of Mainstreaming Torture and lecturer at University of San Francisco, told Common Dreams that the U.S. climate for torture has only grown more permissive since the beginning of the War on Terror. "One of the things we've seen polls show that almost 13 years out from September 11th, 2001, people are more willing to approve of torture as a tool of 'security' than a decade ago," she said.
America as Torture Central: From Prisons to “Black Sites”
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/america-central-prisons.htmlAmerica as Torture Central: From Prisons to “Black Sites”
By Juan Cole | May. 18, 2014
(By Sarah Lazare)
~snip~
In the United States, 32 percent of respondents expressed such a fear—which, according to the report, has merit.
"In some maximum security isolation or segregation facilities across the USA, many thousands of inmates are held in solitary confinement in small cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. Many have little access to natural light or out-of-cell recreation time which amounts to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment," reads the study.
U.S. torture is not confined within its borders. "The U.S. government is also failing to ensure accountability for torture and enforced disappearances committed in the context of counter-terrorism operations. No one responsible for the use of interrogation techniques such as 'water-boarding,' prolonged sleep deprivation, and stress positions in Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-run secret detention centres around the world has been brought to justice. The U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence has conducted a review of the now-terminated CIA programme, but its 6,000-plus page report remains classified."
Rebecca Gordon, author of Mainstreaming Torture and lecturer at University of San Francisco, told Common Dreams that the U.S. climate for torture has only grown more permissive since the beginning of the War on Terror. "One of the things we've seen polls show that almost 13 years out from September 11th, 2001, people are more willing to approve of torture as a tool of 'security' than a decade ago," she said.
May 18, 2014
5 Reasons India’s new BJP (“Tea Party”) Government may not be so Great for Business
By Juan Cole | May. 17, 2014
The victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India’s elections is being hailed in some Western media as a hopeful sign for US-Indian trade and for Indian business. But like the US Tea Party movement, it is rent by internal contradictions that could derail such aspirations. The BJP has many resemblances to the American Tea Party movement. It is xenophobic (especially disliking Muslims). It is imbued by religious fundamentalism and often anti-science. It is hawkish in foreign policy. It is an advocate for the business classes and critical of government programs. Despite the latter position, it may not be as good for the Indian business sector as many observers assume.
1. The Hindu Nationalism of the BJP is exclusivist and intolerant. Contemporary business requires a tolerant and cosmopolitan atmosphere. You want to maximize customers. American Tea Partiers hated Coca Cola’s Superbowl ad this year which showed “America the Beautiful” sung in Spanish as well as English. But Coca Cola walked off with more Latino customers. The Hindu Nationalists have conducted pogroms against Muslims (12 percent of the population) on several occasions, as well as against other religious minorities. What kind of business atmosphere is that creating– whether for investors or consumers? The new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, himself has been on a US travel ban because as governor of Gujerat State he was felt to have done too little to halt one such pogrom. Sociologists of India have already found that when they sent in resumes applying for advertised jobs with Muslim names on them the turn-down rate was much higher than for those with Hindu names. This sort of discrimination is likely to get worse now.
2. Contemporary business success requires investment in science. The BJP is militantly against scientific findings that contradict its fundamentalist orthodoxies. It supports an indigenous form of homeopathic medicine over scientific medicine. Although it talks a good game about scientific innovation, it makes no pledges of increased government investment in real science and technology, which India desperately needs. Its energy policy is favorable to renewables, but is really more an “all of the above” approach that is not good for fighting global warming. Its attitude will stultify critical thought of a sort on which robust science depends. It maintains that Sanskrit developed in India rather than spreading into it from the north. It opposes the academic study of religion and its findings. Already, the books of Chicago Sanskritologist Wendy Doniger have been banned in India, and this sort of thing will now get worse.
3. Economic prosperity is hurt by concentration of wealth at the top of society. Because of the Congress Party’s redistributive policies, India is a much less unequal society than the US, and over 100 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the past decade. The BJP favors Neoliberal policies that will privatize institutions and favor market mechanisms. But these policies have resulted in vastly increased inequality wherever they have been implemented, hurting working and middle class purchasing power and creating a rootless business class that often turns abroad for investment and profits, abandoning the home country to stagnation and inequality.
5 Reasons India’s new BJP (“Tea Party”) Government may not be so Great for Business
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/reasons-government-business.html5 Reasons India’s new BJP (“Tea Party”) Government may not be so Great for Business
By Juan Cole | May. 17, 2014
The victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India’s elections is being hailed in some Western media as a hopeful sign for US-Indian trade and for Indian business. But like the US Tea Party movement, it is rent by internal contradictions that could derail such aspirations. The BJP has many resemblances to the American Tea Party movement. It is xenophobic (especially disliking Muslims). It is imbued by religious fundamentalism and often anti-science. It is hawkish in foreign policy. It is an advocate for the business classes and critical of government programs. Despite the latter position, it may not be as good for the Indian business sector as many observers assume.
1. The Hindu Nationalism of the BJP is exclusivist and intolerant. Contemporary business requires a tolerant and cosmopolitan atmosphere. You want to maximize customers. American Tea Partiers hated Coca Cola’s Superbowl ad this year which showed “America the Beautiful” sung in Spanish as well as English. But Coca Cola walked off with more Latino customers. The Hindu Nationalists have conducted pogroms against Muslims (12 percent of the population) on several occasions, as well as against other religious minorities. What kind of business atmosphere is that creating– whether for investors or consumers? The new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, himself has been on a US travel ban because as governor of Gujerat State he was felt to have done too little to halt one such pogrom. Sociologists of India have already found that when they sent in resumes applying for advertised jobs with Muslim names on them the turn-down rate was much higher than for those with Hindu names. This sort of discrimination is likely to get worse now.
2. Contemporary business success requires investment in science. The BJP is militantly against scientific findings that contradict its fundamentalist orthodoxies. It supports an indigenous form of homeopathic medicine over scientific medicine. Although it talks a good game about scientific innovation, it makes no pledges of increased government investment in real science and technology, which India desperately needs. Its energy policy is favorable to renewables, but is really more an “all of the above” approach that is not good for fighting global warming. Its attitude will stultify critical thought of a sort on which robust science depends. It maintains that Sanskrit developed in India rather than spreading into it from the north. It opposes the academic study of religion and its findings. Already, the books of Chicago Sanskritologist Wendy Doniger have been banned in India, and this sort of thing will now get worse.
3. Economic prosperity is hurt by concentration of wealth at the top of society. Because of the Congress Party’s redistributive policies, India is a much less unequal society than the US, and over 100 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the past decade. The BJP favors Neoliberal policies that will privatize institutions and favor market mechanisms. But these policies have resulted in vastly increased inequality wherever they have been implemented, hurting working and middle class purchasing power and creating a rootless business class that often turns abroad for investment and profits, abandoning the home country to stagnation and inequality.
May 18, 2014
Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
from the first-signs-of-panic dept
by Glyn Moody
Fri, May 16th 2014 7:39pm
The TAFTA/TTIP negotiations remain almost totally lacking in real transparency, with little information about what exactly is happening behind closed doors being released to the public -- and most of that coming from the EU side. This has naturally forced those excluded from the inner circle to speculate about what might be going on -- and, inevitably, to fear the worst. According to the US Ambassador to the EU, Anthony Gardner, and the EU Commissioner responsible for TTIP, Karel De Gucht, that's unacceptable:
~snip~
That's interesting not just for the refusal to admit that it's lack of transparency that is creating this void, but also for the barely-concealed fear of social media, probably because it can't be controlled in the way that traditional media can. Gardner and De Gucht made their comments in Brussels, where they were both speaking at the European Business Summit, which describes itself as:
Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140516/06133827253/water-cannons-turned-peaceful-ttip-protestors-brussels-as-public-barred-negotiations.shtmlWater Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
from the first-signs-of-panic dept
by Glyn Moody
Fri, May 16th 2014 7:39pm
The TAFTA/TTIP negotiations remain almost totally lacking in real transparency, with little information about what exactly is happening behind closed doors being released to the public -- and most of that coming from the EU side. This has naturally forced those excluded from the inner circle to speculate about what might be going on -- and, inevitably, to fear the worst. According to the US Ambassador to the EU, Anthony Gardner, and the EU Commissioner responsible for TTIP, Karel De Gucht, that's unacceptable:
~snip~
Gardner added: "There's a void (in information). The void is being filled more and more by social media."
That's interesting not just for the refusal to admit that it's lack of transparency that is creating this void, but also for the barely-concealed fear of social media, probably because it can't be controlled in the way that traditional media can. Gardner and De Gucht made their comments in Brussels, where they were both speaking at the European Business Summit, which describes itself as:
Europe's key meeting place for business leaders and decision makers, where Business and Politics Shape the Future.
May 18, 2014
German Court: Jesus Doesn't Deserve Copyright Protection
from the holy-shit dept
by Timothy Geigner
Fri, May 16th 2014 6:32pm
The initial copyright on a work is supposed to be bestowed upon the person who added that creative element that made it subject to copyright. For example, if you were to dictate a new novel, you should still get the copyright, rather than the stenographer who took down your words. But perhaps that gets a little trickier from a legal standpoint, when the "dictator" is supposedly Jesus. That leads us to a case recently decided in Germany that found that a woman, who directly claimed not to be the author of a book, gets to retain the copyright over those words... because she claimed the actual author was Jesus. As you can imagine, that raises some slightly unusual copyright questions. Via Adrian Rodriguez:
The "author" in question, Helen Schucman, an American psychology professor, is on the record as stating that the texts she transcribed were authored not by her, but by Jesus in the form of ongoing dreams. Because I find it quite convenient to do so, I'd like to completely take Schucman at her word. She transcribed the work of Jesus. If we we do that, it's difficult to understand the German court's logic in this ruling. Copyright goes to the author of the words, which by Schucman's admission is not her. That should kind of be the end of the argument.
Except, the court decided that even if it takes her story as accurate, there would still be a legitimate copyright... for Schucman (and her heirs or assignees).
German Court: Jesus Doesn't Deserve Copyright Protection
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140516/04103727250/german-court-jesus-doesnt-deserve-copyright-protection.shtmlGerman Court: Jesus Doesn't Deserve Copyright Protection
from the holy-shit dept
by Timothy Geigner
Fri, May 16th 2014 6:32pm
The initial copyright on a work is supposed to be bestowed upon the person who added that creative element that made it subject to copyright. For example, if you were to dictate a new novel, you should still get the copyright, rather than the stenographer who took down your words. But perhaps that gets a little trickier from a legal standpoint, when the "dictator" is supposedly Jesus. That leads us to a case recently decided in Germany that found that a woman, who directly claimed not to be the author of a book, gets to retain the copyright over those words... because she claimed the actual author was Jesus. As you can imagine, that raises some slightly unusual copyright questions. Via Adrian Rodriguez:
A verdict released by the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt (OLG) on Wednesday decided for a US claimant called the Foundation for Inner Peace. It sued a German foundation for copyright infringement after they published passages of text from a book called A Course in Miracles. The German foundation took passages from the book and justified their actions on the reasoning that Schucman herself claimed not to be the author or the messages, and that the text was a result of the dictations she received from Jesus.
The "author" in question, Helen Schucman, an American psychology professor, is on the record as stating that the texts she transcribed were authored not by her, but by Jesus in the form of ongoing dreams. Because I find it quite convenient to do so, I'd like to completely take Schucman at her word. She transcribed the work of Jesus. If we we do that, it's difficult to understand the German court's logic in this ruling. Copyright goes to the author of the words, which by Schucman's admission is not her. That should kind of be the end of the argument.
Except, the court decided that even if it takes her story as accurate, there would still be a legitimate copyright... for Schucman (and her heirs or assignees).
May 17, 2014
The Privatization Scam: 5 Horror Stories of Gov't Outsourcing to Greedy Private Companies
by Dave Johnson | May 16, 2014 - 11:24am
Here’s the scam: For decades we’ve been subjected to constant propaganda that government is inefficient and bureaucratic and expensive. We’re told that the answer is to “privatize,” or “outsource” government functions to private businesses and they will do things more efficiently and everyone comes out ahead. As a result we have experienced decades of privatization of government functions.
So how has wave of privatization this worked out? Has privatization saved taxpayers money and improved services to citizens? Simple answer: of course not. If a company can make a profit doing something the government had been doing, it means that we're losing out one way or another. It’s simple math. And the result of falling for the privatization scam is that taxpayers have been fleeced, services to citizens have been cut way back and communities have been made poorer. But the companies that convinced governments to hand over public functions have gotten rich off of the deal. How is this a surprise?
~snip~
2. Toll Roads
Some states are considering privatizing their roads with “public-private partnerships.” The deal is that private companies maintain the roads and in exchange can charge a toll and make a profit. How is this working out?
~snip~
3. Prisons for Profit
Imagine a system where someone makes a profit if more and more people are put in prison. This is known as a “perverse incentive.” Really, can you think of anything worse than getting a profit to get people put in jail? What you think could go wrong is exactly what does go wrong. These companies want profits, so rehabilitation becomes a “cost.”
The Privatization Scam: 5 Horror Stories of Gov't Outsourcing to Greedy Private Companies
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55952/the-privatization-scam-5-horror-stories-of-govt-outsourcing-to-greedy-private-companiesThe Privatization Scam: 5 Horror Stories of Gov't Outsourcing to Greedy Private Companies
by Dave Johnson | May 16, 2014 - 11:24am
Here’s the scam: For decades we’ve been subjected to constant propaganda that government is inefficient and bureaucratic and expensive. We’re told that the answer is to “privatize,” or “outsource” government functions to private businesses and they will do things more efficiently and everyone comes out ahead. As a result we have experienced decades of privatization of government functions.
So how has wave of privatization this worked out? Has privatization saved taxpayers money and improved services to citizens? Simple answer: of course not. If a company can make a profit doing something the government had been doing, it means that we're losing out one way or another. It’s simple math. And the result of falling for the privatization scam is that taxpayers have been fleeced, services to citizens have been cut way back and communities have been made poorer. But the companies that convinced governments to hand over public functions have gotten rich off of the deal. How is this a surprise?
~snip~
2. Toll Roads
Some states are considering privatizing their roads with “public-private partnerships.” The deal is that private companies maintain the roads and in exchange can charge a toll and make a profit. How is this working out?
~snip~
3. Prisons for Profit
Imagine a system where someone makes a profit if more and more people are put in prison. This is known as a “perverse incentive.” Really, can you think of anything worse than getting a profit to get people put in jail? What you think could go wrong is exactly what does go wrong. These companies want profits, so rehabilitation becomes a “cost.”
May 17, 2014
Joe Biden's Son Hunter, Made Legal Director of Ukraine's Largest Gas Company!
Night of the Hunter: Family Values in American Foreign Policy
By Chris Floyd
OpEdNews Op Eds 5/16/2014 at 20:45:26
The only article I ever had published in The Nation involved the offspring of a powerful politician trading on his White House connections to advance his private fortune. The piece was written 12 years ago, as the Enron scandal was breaking. (And boy, doesn't that seem several centuries ago now, looking back over the vast flooded plains of blood and ruin that our bipartisan elites have bequeathed us since then.)
It was a short article, dealing with the key role that the accounting firm Arthur Andersen had played both in the unfolding Enron morass in 2002 and the murky political machinations that kept George W. Bush from facing charges over what appeared to be a fairly flagrant -- and highly profitable -- bout of insider trading in 1990. That was when yet another Bush business was bailed out -- yet again -- by sugar daddies currying favor with his sour daddy in the White House; in this case, Harken Energy. Bush became a company director and member of the audit committee -- then cashed out just weeks before Harken's stock took a deep dive.
~snip~
All in all, the Harken caper was pretty small beer when viewed against the Bush Family's mammoth record of corruption, going back many decades, mixing politics and private profit with a cheerful amorality that easily encompassed mobsters, tyrants, gun-runners, drug dealers, religious extremists, spies and, yes, the Nazis.
I wrote a lot about this interesting history (as did others, most notably Robert Parry), and always found a ready audience on the left eager to see, rightly, the true face of American power -- sleazy, greasy, brutal, cold -- in the machinations of this clan of ruthless clowns. But I don't think we will see an equal eagerness to pursue a very similar story that broke this week about the offspring of a powerful politician trading on his White House connections to advance his private fortunes. And unlike the Harken deal (although not dissimilar from many other Bush Family deals, including the one with German fascists), this particular piece of elite corruption could have -- or is already having -- deadly international consequences.
Night of the Hunter: Family Values in American Foreign Policy
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Night-of-the-Hunter-Famil-by-Chris-Floyd-Crimea_Foreign-Policy_Russia_Secretary-Of-State-John-Kerry-140516-770.htmlJoe Biden's Son Hunter, Made Legal Director of Ukraine's Largest Gas Company!
Night of the Hunter: Family Values in American Foreign Policy
By Chris Floyd
OpEdNews Op Eds 5/16/2014 at 20:45:26
The only article I ever had published in The Nation involved the offspring of a powerful politician trading on his White House connections to advance his private fortune. The piece was written 12 years ago, as the Enron scandal was breaking. (And boy, doesn't that seem several centuries ago now, looking back over the vast flooded plains of blood and ruin that our bipartisan elites have bequeathed us since then.)
It was a short article, dealing with the key role that the accounting firm Arthur Andersen had played both in the unfolding Enron morass in 2002 and the murky political machinations that kept George W. Bush from facing charges over what appeared to be a fairly flagrant -- and highly profitable -- bout of insider trading in 1990. That was when yet another Bush business was bailed out -- yet again -- by sugar daddies currying favor with his sour daddy in the White House; in this case, Harken Energy. Bush became a company director and member of the audit committee -- then cashed out just weeks before Harken's stock took a deep dive.
~snip~
All in all, the Harken caper was pretty small beer when viewed against the Bush Family's mammoth record of corruption, going back many decades, mixing politics and private profit with a cheerful amorality that easily encompassed mobsters, tyrants, gun-runners, drug dealers, religious extremists, spies and, yes, the Nazis.
I wrote a lot about this interesting history (as did others, most notably Robert Parry), and always found a ready audience on the left eager to see, rightly, the true face of American power -- sleazy, greasy, brutal, cold -- in the machinations of this clan of ruthless clowns. But I don't think we will see an equal eagerness to pursue a very similar story that broke this week about the offspring of a powerful politician trading on his White House connections to advance his private fortunes. And unlike the Harken deal (although not dissimilar from many other Bush Family deals, including the one with German fascists), this particular piece of elite corruption could have -- or is already having -- deadly international consequences.
May 17, 2014
Fearing astronomical cost overruns, German utility companies want to shift responsibility for dismantling nuclear power plants to the government. Despite the billions of euros in risks it entails, the proposal could still prove attractive for Berlin.
Bad Banks for Nuclear Plants: Utilities Look to German Taxpayers
By Frank Dohmen and Dietmar Hawranek
May 15, 2014 – 07:06 PM
Germany's latest problem weighs 275,000 tons. That's the cumulative weight of the steel and cement scrap that will come out of the dismantling of the Obrigheim nuclear power plant, which is located in the town of the same name in the southern German state of Baden-Württemberg. That scrap includes pipelines, plant sections, turbines, generators and the reactor pressure vessel. It also includes 10,000 tons of potentially radioactive material that will have to be submerged in an ultrasonic bath or processed with a sandblaster to reduce its radioactivity. The most dangerous work will be conducted by remote-controlled robots.
The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated €500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as €1 billion each.
Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?
But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.
--
One billion of anything ain't worth shit these days:
Zumwalt-class destroyers = $5.6+ billion a pop
Virginia-class submarines = $7+ billion a pop
Ford-class aircraft carriers = $16 ~ $40 billion dollars a pop
Bad Banks for Nuclear Plants: Utilities Look to German Taxpayers
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/utility-companies-want-public-trust-for-winding-down-nuclear-plants-a-969707.htmlFearing astronomical cost overruns, German utility companies want to shift responsibility for dismantling nuclear power plants to the government. Despite the billions of euros in risks it entails, the proposal could still prove attractive for Berlin.
Bad Banks for Nuclear Plants: Utilities Look to German Taxpayers
By Frank Dohmen and Dietmar Hawranek
May 15, 2014 – 07:06 PM
Germany's latest problem weighs 275,000 tons. That's the cumulative weight of the steel and cement scrap that will come out of the dismantling of the Obrigheim nuclear power plant, which is located in the town of the same name in the southern German state of Baden-Württemberg. That scrap includes pipelines, plant sections, turbines, generators and the reactor pressure vessel. It also includes 10,000 tons of potentially radioactive material that will have to be submerged in an ultrasonic bath or processed with a sandblaster to reduce its radioactivity. The most dangerous work will be conducted by remote-controlled robots.
The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated €500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as €1 billion each.
Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?
But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.
--
One billion of anything ain't worth shit these days:
Zumwalt-class destroyers = $5.6+ billion a pop
Virginia-class submarines = $7+ billion a pop
Ford-class aircraft carriers = $16 ~ $40 billion dollars a pop
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
