still asking if we can “afford” to implement a program that is—quite literally—necessary
…and LESS expensive (at least in the M4A case)
Twitter sleuths uncover an anti-Sanders conspiracy — and the pundit class is furious
A stray tweet from an MSNBC journo epitomized how elite pundits informally coordinate their anti-Sanders rhetoric
Bernie Sanders supporters are not paranoid to suspect that there is a conspiracy to prevent him from getting the presidential nomination. Indeed, given the existential threat that his politics pose for the rich and powerful, the Democratic Party elite and their wealthy donors seem downright terrified of his redistributive policy platform. Hence, many large media outlets and the elite pundit class have, often subtly, allied themselves against him.
FAIR founder Jeff Cohen wrote a probing essay for Salon recently explicating how the anti-Sanders “barrage” had manifested itself in outlets like the Washington Post, which during the 2016 campaign once published “16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours.” “Bernie Sanders is one of the world’s most effective critics of Jeff Bezos and the fact that Amazon paid no federal income tax last year,” Cohen wrote. “And the Bezos-owned newspaper has exhibited an unrelenting bias against Sanders in recent years.” Likewise, WikiLeaks email dumps from the Democratic National Committee revealed suggestions of internal bias against Sanders, which led to the resignation of then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Notice that nobody on the MSM asks how we can afford to put out $700+ billion every year on military spending.
Possibly the M$M approaches a tipping point, where their nonsense is recognized as nonsense by virtually everyone, and their disapproval of Sanders is the biggest boost he could get to his credibility.
Thanks, M$M! The questions you ask reveal so much (about the questioner).
Or the BILLIONS to Izrahell for killing Palestinians, buying weapons, and, generally, doing evil shit!
What is really very weird is to goto WaPo or NYT or other such organs and see what they grind out as “news”. I read their headlines then for mainstream I read the Guardian for the real news of that ilk. There is no place like home, is the Toto?
These newspapers represent the views of their owners nothing more. To suggest things like initiatives implemented to address global warming are boondoggles and examples of waste of wealth while ignoring the fact that even as people sleep under bridges or in their cars even as some people have net worth’s of 100 billion dollars and own multiple homes each costing more then one of those cushy gigs can earn in 10 lifetimes. This is hardly what could be deemed an efficient economic system. The reason they do not want hi-speed rail to replace the private automobile is because it is a MORE efficient way to move people meaning less PROFIT to be made off the inefficiency of highways and motorcars.
Capitalism is one of the most wasteful economic systems ever designed as its entire premise is based on consuming ever more as costs are all externalized and robbing the masses of the peoples labor to enrich the small few.
These guys are utter frauds and complete jerks.
The phrase is ad hominem, not hominin. Please correct.
Neoliberals and the corporate media still haven’t wrapped their heads around the climate crisis. They will likely be the last ones, and may never do it.
Dynamite first post there LindaHagge…
That many of us are doomed is a foregone conclusion in a grossly unequal, overpopulated planet. But conservatives (neoliberals) want to be the ones that decide who lives and who dies.
That may be quite true. But, I think beating people over the head about " their population bomb " reproductive choices, has run its course. There’s no " population bomb " in the U.S. And, mentioning it to folks comes across as another example of American Exceptionalism/Imperialist Dogma. Even racist in the extreme instance.
I seeing doing this specific kind of finger pointing creating more adversaries than allies.
Edit: I don’t know why my comment is listed as a response to Phred_Pharkel. I definitely clicked on the button to reply to the article.
From the article, Atcheson responds to the Post:
“Mr. Sanders also promises to make his plan unnecessarily expensive by ruling out a long-established source of carbon-free electricity: nuclear power.” …Poppycock. Utility scale renewable energy is now cheaper than virtually any other source.
Lazard’s lists the LCOE of unsubsidized utility scale solar PV at $36 to $46 per MWh. This is derived from the costs of actual solar facilities being built, which tend to be concentrated in optimal locations and latitudes. Unsubsidized onshore wind is listed at $29 to $56 per MWh (with a median value for offshore wind at $92). These costs do not include land costs, network upgrade costs, transmission and integration costs, congestion costs, and the cost of backup for when they aren’t producing. If you want to back up wind and solar with batteries, Lazard’s lists the wholesale costs of storage at $204 to $390 per MWh, not including the cost of the energy to charge the batteries. If you combine PV with enough storage to do daily time shifting for a few hours, the combined cost is $108 to $222 per MWh. Median value of solar thermal with a few hours of storage is $98. Lazard’s lists the cost of unsubsidized, fully-depreciated baseload nuclear plus decommissioning at $24 to $31. Eliminating currently-producing baseload nuclear, as Sanders wants to do, and replacing it with the cheapest intermittents, even without storage, will in most cases increase energy costs. The Post is more correct than Atcheson on this point, even using the source Atcheson cites.
Atcheson may have been looking at the LCOE for nuclear energy, which would be the price for building new plants based on existing nuclear technology, but that is not the correct basis for comparison for eliminating already-built-and-paid-for plants. And it is unlikely that more old-tech plants would be built anyway. So by including the indiscriminate ban on all future nuclear builds (which is needless for old-tech) that would kill all the development work on advanced nuclear now taking place in the U.S. After all, why develop something if you won’t be allowed to build it? That gives the impression that Bernie is specifically worried that better forms of nuclear could actually be an effective tool in the fight against fossil carbon. That, along with tossing carbon capture and sequestration, makes it seem like he doesn’t really believe we are facing a climate emergency, and his plan is more about pushing his social agenda. That undercuts the position of people who maintain the climate crisis is real, and it hands ammo to the groups who say it is all a big hoax–especially since Bernie’s plan is in open conflict with the recommendations of James Hansen, thereby casting shade on his credibility. All that makes progress on any front more difficult. That makes the ban strategically and politically counterproductive, even if every single one of the advanced reactor teams were to fail to produce a market-competitive reactor. But if even one of the teams is working on a design that could compete and go global, the harm to the planet of killing their project could be incalculable. And all of that could have been avoided if he had simply not mentioned nuclear energy–as AOC’s version did not. (A better plan would have had substantial investment in clean-tech research across the board, including advanced nuclear, but I know that would have been too much to hope for from a long-time anti-nuke like Bernie.)
Glad to see someone mention the population angle.
Carrying capacity overkill in biological terms goes beyond theology, morality or just plain human hubris relative to other species right to exist.
Why is this innocuous correction of terminology flagged as inappropriate?
We (Homo Sapiens) truly deserves to go extinct from our own greed and stupidity, but the rest of life on Earth that we will take with us does not.
The Sanders plan is a laundry list, not so much a plan but a headline grabbing political statement and a way to position himself as the most leftist candidate. Laundry lists are the oldest political tactic in the book, everyone finds something they can like, and that is what his “plan” is. The transportation section stands out as particularly ludicrous for pretty obvious reasons I’ve already discussed. I think it’s completely fair to criticize his plan for the amorphous laundry list it is.
Anything that cuts into their benefactors profits, and threatens their 30 pieces of silver for killing legislation that benefits the masses, will continue to make these Neoliberal Democrats fight against a strong progressive like Bernie Sanders.
Instead what we do have this month is the uspresident praising the brazilian president who is encouraging SETTING FIRES TO THE AMAZON FOREST to continue and initiate increasing unsustainable agriculture on a massive scale.
sorry you got flagged over this. we got a few boneheads around here.