Fox Wildly Inflates The Number Of Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Might Create
Fox News has claimed that TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline would create somewhere between 50,000 and a million jobs. In fact, even TransCanada acknowledges that the total jobs created would be far fewer, and an independent report has found that the project could actually destroy more jobs than it creates through higher fuel costs and environmental damage.
Fox Claims Keystone XL Pipeline Could Create Up To One Million Jobs
Bolling: Keystone XL Pipeline "Could Provide Up To A Million New High-Paying Jobs." From the November 2 edition of Fox Business' Follow The Money:
ERIC BOLLING (host): While new oil and gas jobs could help the recovery, protesters are trying to stop the expansion of multi-million dollar Keystone pipeline. Activists planning to hold hands and surround the White House to protect the project.
Garland, this is another story -- this is the Keystone XL pipeline that some estimates, even Senator Barrasso, who's been on this show before, said could provide up to a million new high-paying jobs if it just gets signed off by Obama. Yet here we are, protesters locking arms around the White House saying don't do it. [Fox Business, Follow The Money, 11/2/11]
Journal Editorial Report: Keystone XL Pipeline Would Create "20,000 New Construction Jobs" And "About 118,000 ... Indirect Jobs."* During the October 29 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, host Paul Gigot and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Anastasia O'Grady suggested the Keystone XL pipeline would create over one hundred thousand "indirect jobs ... from feeding and housing"* the construction workers. From Journal Editorial Report:
PAUL GIGOT: So, Mary, before we get to the politics, what are the economic merits of this pipeline?
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, COLUMNIST: Well, let's start with 20,000 new jobs, probably -- just about immediately after they begin construction.
GIGOT: Shovel ready.
(LAUGHTER)
O'GRADY: And the company estimates another -- well, in total about 118,000 indirect jobs that would come just from feeding and housing all of these people who are ganna work on the pipeline. You also have $7 billion of investments coming into --
(CROSSTALK)
GIGOT: Wow. $7 billion.
O'GRADY: From TransCanada.
GIGOT: All private, not government. [Fox News, Journal Editorial Report, 10/29/11]*
Fox Guest Bernie Marcus: Keystone XL Pipeline Would "Create 120,000 Jobs." During the November 4 edition of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto, Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, called for Obama to sign an executive order that would allow TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline. He then claimed the project would "create 120,000 jobs." From the show:
BERNIE MARCUS, CO-FOUNDER, HOME DEPOT: I have a suggestion for the president. All he has to do is take a pen. He`s lefty, OK? Take a pen and sign one order and let the Keystone XL pipeline go through. He will create 120,000 jobs, no money on the part of the taxpayers and it is private industry that will do it, and why in God`s name is he not doing that? Do you have a solution for it? Do you have an answer for that, Neil? [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/4/11, via Nexis]
Kelly: Keystone XL Pipeline "Would Create At Least 50,000 Jobs." During the November 7 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly hyped the number of potential jobs that would be created by the Keystone XL pipeline:
MEGYN KELLY: Well, a high stakes debate is heating up now over President Obama's pending decision on the Keystone pipeline. It's an enormous pipeline that would transport millions of barrels of oil from Canada down to Texas. It would create at least 50,000 jobs, according to estimates, and help generate bills of dollars in revenue.
[...]
KELLY: Why, you know-- if you just look at it as a political matter --
LOU DOBBS (Fox Business host): Right.
KELLY: You've got the labor unions on one side and the environmental groups on another. I mean, aren't the labor groups much bigger in terms of power and donations to the Democratic causes than the environmental groups? I mean, and you're talking about the creation potentially of up to 50 thousand jobs. Why wouldn't, as a political matter, the president just go with the labor groups, because they're such supporters and jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. [Fox News, America Live, 11/7/11]
But The Company Behind The Pipeline Claims It Will Directly Create About 13,000 Jobs
TransCanada Said In 2010 That Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create Over ... 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers." In a 2010 press release by TransCanada, the company funding the Keystone XL pipeline, touted their connection with various unions and claimed they would "create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers." From the press release:
TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada) (TSX, NYSE: TRP) today is pleased to announce a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL). The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers. [TransCanada, 9/14/10]
Wash. Post: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Number Of People Employed" Would Actually Be 6,500. A November 5 article in The Washington Post reported that TransCanada CEO Russ Girling "said Friday that the 13,000 figure was actually not a true job number, but actually accounted for "one person, one year."" The Post went on to state that "if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500." From the article:
Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was "one person, one year," meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company's number closer to the State Department's; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix. [The Washington Post, 11/5/11]
Fox's Numbers Are Based On Flawed Industry-Funded Study
TransCanada-Funded Study Says Keystone Pipeline Will Directly Create 118,935 "Person-Years" Worth Of Jobs. A report by the Texas-based Perryman Group, funded by TransCanada, says that the pipeline would create 118,935 "person-years" of jobs, and that the economic effect would be between 250,000-500,000 "person-years" of jobs. That figure included not only direct jobs from the pipeline but also jobs in the "apparel" industry and the "tobacco" industry:
- 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.
- In the high-price case in which costs per barrel reach the peak levels observed in the summer of 2008, The Perryman Group measured the annual impact of an increase in stable oil supplies associated with the Keystone XL Pipeline Project to include $221.305 billion in spending, $64.193 billion in output, and 553,235 jobs. [The Perryman Group, 6/10/10]
Independent Experts: Industry-Funded Study Seriously Flawed
Council On Foreign Relations Expert: Study's Analysis Is "Dead Wrong." Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi wrote that the Perryman report is based on analysis that is "dead wrong." Levi noted that the report ignores that oil prices are set on a global market -- which makes a more realistic estimate of the jobs impact of the Keystone XL pipeline "barely 10 percent of what Perryman projects." Levi concluded that the "entire approach of the Perryman study" is "suspicious." [Council on Foreign Relations, 10/27/11]
Expert: Study Is Based On Flawed Assumptions. Environmental economist Andrew Leach wrote that "many of the benefits" that the Perryman study "tied to the project are really benefits tied to broad access to reliable (and/or cheaper) sources of oil, and not specifically to Keystone XL." [Andrew Leach, 9/9/11]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: Study Is "So Opaque As To Make Meaningful Review Impossible." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report:
Perryman states that he received this data from TransCanada, but nowhere in the report does he provide the TransCanada input data (for construction expenditures and sourcing of inputs). Perryman does not even present summary detail as to the essentials regarding inputs (such as a breakdown of expenditures into major categories and assumptions regarding whether major inputs such as steel pipe are imported or sourced domestically or imported). Nor does the Perryman report provide adequate detail as to the nature of the job impacts estimated (such as a breakdown between direct, indirect, and induced). In fact, the lack of adequate data and detail render the report so opaque as to make meaningful review impossible.[Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute Director Says "Person-Years" Is An "Inappropriate Way To Talk About The Economic Impact" Of Keystone XL. Sean Sweeney, the director of the Cornell University Global Labor Institute, said that people would "confuse" "person-years" of employment for the total jobs that the Keystone XL pipeline would actually create, according to the Michigan Messenger. From a September 26 Michigan Messenger article:
The Cornell Global Labor Institute recently published an analysis of the Keystone jobs claims that criticizes the methodology of the Perryman report.
"Person-years," said Institute Director Sean Sweeney, is an inappropriate way to talk about the economic impact of the project because people will easily confuse that for the total number of jobs the project would create. And that is exactly what is happening. [Michigan Messenger, 9/26/11]
Others Peg The Number Of Jobs At A Much Lower Level Than TransCanada Or Its Industry-Funded Report
State Department: "The Construction Work Force Would Consist Of Approximately 5,000 To 6,000 Workers." The U.S. Department of State's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the pipeline stated that a "construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers." The contractor who conducted the study had financial ties to TransCanada; the inspector general has launched an investigation into the matter. From the report:
During construction, there would be temporary, positive socioeconomic impacts as a result of local employment, taxes on worker income, spending by construction workers, and spending on construction goods and services. The construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers, including Keystone employees, contractor employees, and construction and environmental inspection staff. That would generate from $349 million to $419 in total wages. An estimated $6.58 to $6.65 billion would be spent on materials and supplies, easements, engineering, permitting, and other costs. [U.S. State Department, 8/26/11]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Project Will Create No More Than 2,500-4,600 Temporary Direct Construction Jobs." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report:
A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: "Based On The Figures Provided By TransCanada For The Canadian Section Of The Pipeline, The New Permanent US Pipeline Jobs In The US Number As Few As 50." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report:
[T]he potential job impacts associated with KXL construction are quite small, both absolutely and certainly relative to the employment levels estimated by the Perryman study. In comparing these results with those from the Perryman study, it is useful to keep in mind that even results based on the Perryman study would be much lower, once they are adjusted for more realistic project cost assumptions.
Starting with the Perryman study total employment estimated for project construction (119,000 person-years), the Perryman results can be adjusted for more realistic project cost assumptions. Also starting with the $6.6 billion in project costs assumed by Perryman, and adjusting for the $5.4 billion project cost for KXL in the US, the adjusted Perryman result is about 97,000 person-years. Next, instead of assuming a $4 billion KXL US project cost not yet spent, the adjusted Perryman result drops to about 72,000 person-years. And finally, assuming a $3 billion KXL US cost not yet spent or committed, the adjusted Perryman results drops again to 54,000 person-years.
So even if it is assumed the Perryman study provides a reasonable estimate of job impacts per dollar spent on pipeline construction (i.e. 18 person-years per $1 million), total job impact will be much lower than the Perryman results once a more realistic budget is assumed for project construction. And whatever is estimated for total employment impacts, it must be spread over the relevant period in order to meaningfully estimate annual impacts. For KXL construction, the relevant period is at least two and perhaps more likely three years.
In this context, it is also important to consider that almost all of the jobs (direct, indirect and induced) associated with Keystone XL will, of course, also be temporary. The operating costs for KXL are very minimal, and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline, the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: "The Effects Of KXL Construction Could Very Well Lead To More Jobs Being Lost Than Are Created." From a section of the Cornell University Global Labor Institute report titled "Four Ways Keystone XL Could Be A Job Killer":
The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.
[...]
Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]
ThinkProgress Chart Reveals "TransCanada's Wildly Inflated Jobs Promises." On November 4, ThinkProgress published the following chart based on the high-estimate of Cornell Global Labor Institute's report and the TransCanada commissioned Perryman Group's report:
[ThinkProgress, 11/4/11]
* Quote corrected.
Regardless of the number of jobs, even if it was a MILLION, the keystone pipeline will send so much carbon into the atmosphere, it'd be like giving global warming steroids.
Oh, right, RW'ers don't believe in global warming. Never mind. As you were...
Nastiness is your home turf?
Still so stupid he thinks the I know you are but what am I tactic is cute. GOD but you are pathetic panzy
It's a rather tried-and-true bait most of the time, when employed by someone a bit more adept at baiting than you are, but when used by someone like you, it just screams out hackneyed.
Oh, and you're still dishonest.
I only say this to help you out--mostly because, if I'm going to engage in this kind of back-and-forth, I at least like to think the other person isn't completely out of their depth.
He's not nearly as smart as he lets on here. You can tell if you pay careful attention to his language and usage. He knows a few big words like "condescending" and "placate", but doesn't quite know how to use them correctly.
He's got only a small bagful of tricks, and I plan on forcing him to jump the shark early today.
You see, you'd have understood that if you were smarter.
Which probably explains why you get lectured a lot by so many people on how much smarter everyone else is than you.
dustmites are smart compared to you
why, im, I think you've already done it. (And note, I've used your name to disabuse james of the notion that the reply was meant for him. That doesn't mean he'll understand, but there you go.)
This is the chance you take continually posting idiotic comments. It is like Herman Cain and his womanizing, if you dont want all those questions, then keep your hands out from underneath the woman's skirt. You repubtards dont get it.
STFU. Go away, never stink up this site with your lies and brainwashed stupidity again and NO ONE will miss you
ease up.
I have to believe that these admissions are inadvertent and are only happening because you're trying really hard to act smart elsewhere, which has you a little unbalanced and unfocused here, and leaves you telegraphing your next "insult" or "fact".
I know you'd probably get more satisfaction from posting such a thing if I were throw my monitor out the window, but I just don't think it's worth that much outrage.
When I take shots the right, which I often do, feel free to ask me what the point is if you don't know.
I'd like to know what you think that means.
Oh, well. At least it reinforces my earlier statement that you're not as smart as you think you are.
I need what more than you?
You see, jimmy, it's unclear communication like this that makes it so easy to assume you're dumb.
We keep telling you how much smarter EVERYONE is than you. You are a punk james. You are stupid, you are a liar and you come here only to act like the punk you are. Grow up
So... you are a whiddle wussy that can't handle the nasty libs?
This "So...?" tactic is awesome!
His first tactic was to say it's "delicious" when he gets us to think he's dumb. That didn't work.
Next, he tried turning it back on me by assuming that I was claiming to be smarter than him because I somehow doubt my intelligence. That's not working, either.
He's regrouping and trying to figure out what to try next.
I could just as easily go to a right-wing blog and provoke and expose just as many if not more "sensibilities." But even if I did, I'd leave my Captain Obvious cap at the door.
Since honest debate with you is impossible, I'm just interested in calling you dishonest every chance I get.
You don't really have to reply to me.
He can't figure out why he can't get our approval.
It's why - after our little dispute with others yesterday - I'm even more convinced this is the way to go. Respond by pointing out his motives and he can't sustain his act without much difficulty.
So do you so you have no room to talk
atmosphere whether the US benefits or not. The
last I looked there was no barrier between Canadian and
American air space. If you and yours are going to protest
projects that will create real jobs, stop bitching that
there aren't any jobs.
We can protect the environment and have jobs. Your pipeline would ship oil overseas and ruin jobs via destruction. A false choice on your part. For shame.
My GOD but you are stupid. Stop pretending you care anything about jobs or working people. All you care about is corporate profits and regurgitating whatever you were told to think. STFU till you grow a brain
You're attempting, right out of the gate, to make this about something it isn't.
How about actually addressing the topic of the article, which is that Fox News inflated the job numbers.
What's your take on that?
prestigious non-partisan group that claimed the first
stimulus created or "saved' 3 million jobs and that
Obamacare would save $ 1 trillion! I have no idea how many
jobs the pipeline would affect because the tangental benefit
of lower energy prices is incalculable; however, with the
administration now counting bus drivers of hybrid buses
as green jobs, the left best refrain from criticizing others
for accuracy. As one who watches several news sources,
Msnbc leads both Fox and Cnn combined in distortions and
misinformation. Msnbc's teleprompters are loaded directly
from the WH pr office.
I see you like to use the deflection technique. The numbers pulled out of Fox's nether regions were wildly inflated. That's no accident.
All I can come up with is they think their provocative comments will entrap us in embarrassing responses to use against us in other forums. But by now they should have learned the returns on their investment are minimal at best.
Truthfully, though I constantly refer to james' con factory, I tend to believe he's some desk jockey at some unrelated business who's stealing time from his actual employer during downtime posting here (where, of course, quitting time is 7pE). But this giat person, like TotheRight and Dennis Whoever recently, gives it away with the writing style. It's unmistakeable to anyone paying attention.
This pipeline will not lower energy prices, giatny. Petroleum is sold on the world market to the highest bidder. it's the same reason that 'drill baby drill' will not lower our costs at the pump. You want to lower prices? Reduce demand. Raising the CAFE standards to 40 mpg will lower the cost of gas by $1 in 5-10 years.
Examples, please?
You are a LIAR and a brainwashed MORON. There is no need to tell us what else Rush told you to think since we have already heard it. Tell us again about how much more YOU know than the CBO, that is hiliarious. One of the funniest things about braindead idiots like you is that you dont even KNOW how stupid you are
Untrue, jamesB. EVERY job is important, be it government or private sector. That being said, the number of jobs this pipeline is supposed to produce has been wildly inflated by Fox Propaganda.
You are a LIAR. You spew such nonsense it is embarassing. Why do you lie so much?
This is the quintessential demonstration of just how biased Fox really is. It's a nuanced situation that has many sides to it. Every point of view has its own merits and things that it is dismissing as unimportant that other sides believe are vital. A REAL news organization would highlight as many of those viewpoints as possible, giving the general outlines of each point of view, and then invite the viewers to discover more on their own through education, research, and critical thinking. Fox, on the other hand, simply decides things for its viewers and then declares that view to be the correct one. They don't give any reasoning, they just say things and expect that those things said are now the 'official position that should be taken' and that is that.
It makes me cry to see a complex issue reduced to political side-mongering when this is an issue that is not supposed to be like that.
I vote to give the widdle trust funder less oxygen. Giving him more just strangles the thread.
Hey, look! I used Jimmy's gee-guys-I'm-only-kidding-what's-with-the-meanies-today-? face!
It's a fairly predictable route, though, when you think about it.
You see, he buys into the whole notion that the left are elitists and think they're smarter than everyone (I'm playing this role very well for him today). Because of this, he assumes that it's a matter of pride for us to always be right. He uses this to bait us into his circular argument and away from the meta argument, which he cannot handle.
His device of "You can't debate the issues so you name-call me" is actually a fairly desperate attempt to get us to stop insulting him. Like you've said, he's desperate to get us back on his "turf", which is to obfuscate each issue by switching gears mid-comment and making inane claims then demanding we prove him wrong.
Sadly, too many of us fall into this trap, get frustrated with him, and start calling him names out of anger. You see, he doesn't mind when that happens, because then he thinks he's won because we've lost our cool.
However, calling him stupid not out of anger but out of ridicule is something he can't handle because he's got no way to combat that, so his tactic is to play on what he thinks is our elitist pride by accusing us of not having the ability to debate the issue itself.
But for jimmy, there is no issue to debate. He just likes to run the argument in circles until we get tired of chasing him and he declares himself the winner.
It's not only dishonest, but it's weaselly as well.
Use weasels, liesels, lies and be intentionally vague to give himself some advantage and cover. Then projectile vomit all over anyone who opposes his methods.
He's a nasty little piece of work. I'm glad I'm not him, even with his trust fund. He lacks character.
That was funny. First of all you are far too stupid to understand ANYTHING. Second you made no points. You just lied and snivelled. You are a punk. Its all you ever do. Why in the WORLD would we waste an intelligent comment to you? It would be as useful to give a lesson on quantum mechanics to a cockroach.
GOD but you are pathetic. Why dont you just curl up in fetal position and sob hysterically at how cripplingly stupid and humiliatingly pathetic you are? Do you have no dignity whatsoever?
Thats ok we DID realize how stupid you are and what a LIAR you are so there was no suprise
writing down all of the misinformation just from one
Ed Schultz show!
However, to your point: anyone that's an industry shill might need to take multiple drugs just to sleep at night.
You are a LIAR. When you tell lies that stupid it just shows everyone what a fool you are. It says nothing about MSNBC. We know what Rush told you to think already. You are already a cliche before your second post. It must suck to be as pitiful as you
There's a problem with that definition then because if it is take to be true, then the America government, which has been "cozying" up to corporations for as far as anyone can remember is pretty much a/an (economic) fascist state, it has never been a democracy.
Indeed looking at that statement, one wonders who controls who, the real power is with money and corporations have a lot of money (the richest people and the biggest earners are CEOs of big companies, they earn more than even the president himself) which translates to influence through lobbying and propaganda outlets like Fox.
Going by the above, perhaps the real fascists are not who we think they are.....
This president has aligned himself with industry, auto, banking, insurance more so than anyone previously. He didn't come from business but finds the big wig barons of American industry. Why the industries would like to get rid of the competition and obama gets his coffers filled through fundraising. Solyndra is just one example.
Economic facism is the bridge between crony capitalism and socialism. This presidency has found ways to keep the left happy with making economic decisions that have socialism's fingerprints on them and taking advantage of skewed economic favoritism that keeps pals on wall street just as happy.
Giving them a bailout is not "aligning himself with industry". Hell, wasn't the accusation before that he TOOK over? What's with the inconsistency?
Do you have a reliable source that states a direct political connection between Solyndra and Obama?
You are making just $#!t up now. Either Obama is taking over industry or handing it to Wall St. Those things are mutually exclusive.
Hell no is what Fox would say. How often have they tried to paint him as an ENEMY of big business through regulations? (again an example of propaganda influence of a big corporation, NewsCorp!)
This admin is aligned with business, in fact as mentioned above this is how American admins have been for a long time now. How you come to the conclusion that Obama is "more aligned to them than any other before" is beyond me. His admin works with business and also imposes regulation against them (something the right are against), just like any other admin before him.
If this is true, then we should be seeing a LOT more companies going out of business due to "unexplained circumstances" and not due to the fact that there were brought under via poor decisions and/or bad managements, the number one cause of business failure. The "corrupt" Obama would want to make much more on the deal than just Solyndra right?
You've got to try harder on your next conspiracy theory.
Again I don't know why you are targeting THIS presidency especially when the admin framework that is in place now concerning business and their influence on legislation has been around for a long time. How does THIS presidency take advantage of businesses and skew it to their advantage exactly given what I posted above about lobbying and big businesses having the influence on which way legislation swings? How indeed when it is the republicans who are against labor unions, a force AGAINST big businesses and not the Obama admin? I'm not even going to talk about the socialism part, the police force and public roads system are socialist structures that date back who knows how far. If you're against socialism as a concept you'd be against such systems as well.
You have a lot of questions to answer in order to peddle your opinions effectively as truth.
Geeze MMFVL, cling to utterly dishonest hypocrisy much?
So heres the breaks.
Fox News has the largest number of career politicians on staff, and employs them as active contributors. Fox is outstanding in media circles for this practice.
Furthermore, all of Foxs employees from the political circuit are far right career republicans. Its no exaggeration to say that Fox News is really just a mainstream media PAC for the GOP.
Its the GOPS close connection with Fox News that decides what will be on Fox, who should promote it, how much they should get paid, what budget should be set aside, how it should be geared for maximum effect, etc... (think of Glenn Becks own advertisements on gold.)
No occupational/journalistic activity can be undertaken at Fox without approval from far right demagogues. And everything which Fox puts out for public consumption must completely reify the same tired GOP talking points, even if it means telling baldfaced lies or fomenting inter-ethnic hate.
You make the effort to exempt Fox from your characterization of fascism, despite the fact that Fox News is a total and complete fusion of top-dowm GOP directive straight into mainstream media (thats pretty big government there, btw).
Furthermore, the Murdoch family, which owns Fox, is being tried for its complicity in the most unconscionable invasions of privacy..., a practice which has been part and parcel of their NewsCorp operations.
Can we call that big political journalism? One that defies even the protected rights of private citizenry?
You know MMFVL, altsoba (one of your fellow baggers that regularly trolls on here) recently went off on a nut about how great he thought Alex Jones was.
As foolish as his Tea Bag ramblings were, his decision to up the ante with the Jones reference made a nice springboard to the issue of Bohemian Grove...
You do know what Bohemian Grove is, right MMFVL?
if not, you should.
Bohemian Grove is an all-male frat party where exclusively right wing politicians get together with their big business CEO buddies, Wall Street bankers and other 1 Percenters.
Guess what they do there, in this cozy little meeting?
The principle purpose of these gatherings is to decide on the political/commercial/international agendae which actualize the political, military and business goals of the participants (again, all of whom are career right wingers, their business buddies, and wealthy admirers... eg, Tom Cruise.)
The main authors of the Iraq War (commercial, political and military businessmen all) met at Bohemian Grove to coordinate their efforts and sell the war to the public. Even Ron Paul admits to that.
That whole set up is nothing short of fascist, as represented by your cited definition.
And, for your good information, Rupert Murdoch is a tried and true member of Bohemian Grove.
So is Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Tea Party funder Dick Armey, etc... (for the record, many Tea party fanatics claim to disdain the activity at Bohemian Grove, despite the fact that their own leaders meet there, and their very own playbook was developed there... quite in keeping with the twisted, self-desluding, backasswards ideology of the group.)
Like it or not MMVFL, by the very definition which you have provided for fascism, not only is Fox News a principle and shining example of what fascism really is, the far right in this country offers the most solid illustration of fascism in action (right down to brainwashing its followers into ignoring the very fascist mechanisms that drive them.... thats called cognitive dissonance... look it up.)
So thanks for making the point for us, MMFVL.
And do yourself a favor, stop trying to make such an active equivocation for the very fascism that floats your ideological betters... its only hurting the country.
You are a LIAR. The Fox comment was absolutly correct. I see you are still too stupid to know what socialism is. You are a liar and useless trollscum MMM
You are a LIAR. You are stupid, you are brainwashed, you are pitiful but mostly you are just a LIAR. You get sheer joy from telling lies. You have no decency and no integrity. You hollow shell of a human being. You are nothing but trollscum
I hope the president comes to his senses purty dang soon. I'm losing confidence that he's going to do the right thing sadly.
comments from alternate points of view. I am not
a geologist, but after years of analysis and hundreds
of pages of research, the conclusion was it should
be allowed. That is, until Obama discovered he would
be held accountable by both environmentalists and unions
and chose to vote "present" instead. Safety and clean
air are very important, but the issue also has to analyze
the effect skyrocketing energy prices will have on
poverty and economic growth. Poverty is the major
cause of death globally, asthma doesn't even make the
list. My only point is until there is a viable affordable alternative to fossil fuels, it's best not
to get too extreme with "green" or more will be killed
than saved.
C'mon Mary, what's wrong with getting the energy that our Creator has given us to make our lives better by allowing economies to grow and create more productive jobs for individuals to enjoy and care for themselves, their families and fellow man?
Only issue is whether I continue to capitalize...
The Creator really wants this generation to destroy the Creation for short term energy usage. Just like nuclear power accidents, it's so wholesome you can bake apple pies using spent fuel cells.
Oh the horrid destruction!
Can I get an amen? or awomen?
I do care, but it has to do with creating jobs, saving the country's economy, being able to pass along the best of America to future generations. We need energy to do that and God has provided all kinds of safe ways to get that from the source to power economic growth. Green stuff just doesn't have the ability to power that engine, no now and not in the near future. We need and can utilize God's gift of ready available energy to improve quality of life, for us, the country, the whole world.
Rather than cutting off access, let's look to make certain it is mined, pumped, extracted safely and use it to benefit individuals and countries.
By the way would the man upstairs really appreciate the language? tsk, tsk
Sanctimonious as you are, shamelessly promoting the destruction of the environment to suck out the last gasp of ancient sunlight from the tar sands and calling that "God's gift of ready available energy" is the ultimate of hypocrisy.
You're advocating using it all up NOW and to h&ll with future generations.
That's called acting like a d&uchebag & a tool.
Amen.
Who immediately resists development of a clean energy? Environmental lobbyists who believe any economic progress that is readily achievable is bad. No let's try to find energy only in ways that are non-threatening to the environment. The windmills kill birds and bats, so they are shut down. They don't look very pretty either.
These are things that benefit life now and make it tolerable for future generations. Instead of making us move back toward the 18th century technologically, let's use what we have to make true capitalism work. Affordability of products. ready availability of energy sources, economic growth and freedom for individuals can be achieved.
I fear it is the terrible 'C' word that leftists hate and the individual freedoms that it provides.
I won't call you demeaning names either, you are just wrong.
Straw-man arguments about "environmental lobbyists" don't impress anyone here.
Your consciousness is all about digging into the earth and extracting resources that are NOT renewable, rather than looking to the sun and wind (looking up)
Your arguments are bankrupt.
You are a LIAR. In Dagett Cal they have been running a solar plant since the seventies. Generating consistantly for decades. We are running out of oil. Ignorant, brainwashed morons like you would have us just keep using the oil and fighting world ending wars for that last hundred thousand barrels so the oil companies can make obscene profits off the last drop then see civilization itself die rather than start transitioning NOW to sustainable energy. God told us to be STEWARDS of the land not predators.
You disgust me MMMoron. You lie so much it is soul sickening. I no longer care if you really are this stupid or just a punk and a troll trying to annoy us. Either way you are an intellectual plague rat spreading the disease that Rush has programmed you with
So do airplanes, all those innocent birds being killed by birdstrikes, we should put a stop to this evil industry at once for the harm they are doing to the avian species!!!
So too does farming and logging. Indeed the reason why there's even this point up is probably due an article cited by a certain Galileo(nardo) about a solar plant being planned for location on land where there are endangered species. The harm comes from where the plant is to be located and not with the inherent harm of solar energy itself. We could change the plant to an automobile factory and we'd still have the same problem.
I have no issue with solar, wind, geo thermal but until they can sustain a vibrant economy we must have access to other sources, use them effectively and safely. Get the government out of substantial underwriting of obtaining energy resources whether oil or wind.
My comments about moving backwards is that many on the left seem to say quality of human life is somehow less important than economic growth and development. A snail is more important than allowing individuals to work and create wealth.
Oil is in its essence a finite resource. It takes millions of years for a tree to become coal or a fossil to become petrol. Just because we have a lot now does not mean we must waste it. After all we need oil for more than just produce energy.
Wind, Solar and geothermal won't be doing anything if we don't invest in them. The reason more than half of the country even has electricity is because of government involvement. The idiotic "get government out of the way" is the reason or why now we yet have an advanced grid. Not only that, "getting government out of the way" not only could lead to monopolies like those of the guilded age. but also to excessive mining, even worse safety (since after all those things are costs and human greed has shown time and time again that short term profits completely trump everything else).
I don't know anybody who advocates for going back to the 18th century. If anything the fact that we would be moving away form dirty, finite sources like oil or coal would mean that we are moving forward. And economic growth does not trump living in a safe and hospitable environment. After all, how can you make money if there is no earth to make money on?
I posted about the vicious cycle that this mindset brings, don't invest unless you find a good alternative, but then if you don't invest you probably won't know this alternative or get to use it if it smacks you in the face.
And how is for example big oil receiving huge government subsidies an example of government undermining them? If you want to talk about regulations as undermining look no further than disasters like the Texas refinery explosion or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, both by big oil BP, to see a case for the necessity of regulations.
This is an exaggeration that isn't even true. The argument here is not that unfair weightage is placed on quality of a snail's life to that of human life, but whether on the whole this project causes more harm than good with regards to BOTH the environment AND human quality of life. (would there be more jobs gained or more jobs lost as a result?)
As for the implied more oil = better quality of life line in there, yeah I'd like you to explain that too especially when a significant proportion of the oil drilled domestically is sold overseas despite the fact that America's oil needs exceeds the oil that it generates through drilling. Would more oil cause a lowering of prices? Or would they simply go overseas with nary a change in the prices?
You are a LIAR. The left was not saying that. Also eventually the population WILL outreach food production. Population increases geometrically and the food production by definition can only increase arithmatically. There is no way out of this math. Too bad you are too stupid to understand this
Another ignorant false dichotomy. You are unbelievably stupid and you are dishonest. You are pure trollscum
The fact is that a lot of what man is doing harms the environment. Green energy sources are not only renewable, but harm the environment far less.
The point here is in looking for the alternatives because we need to and because its good to do so since current sources of energy won't last forever. No one but you is talking about going back to the 18th century (the other exception is Fox on rights for minorities and workers).
Your false dichotomy is not only stupid beyond belief it is dishonest. As usual you are a LIAR.
Your talking points are stupid and weak and have been beaten to death dozens of times. You are just a pitiful liar. What you will never get is that none of us are as stupid as you nor are we as brainwashed as you so you just look ridiculous with your spoonfed idiocy
You are too stupid to even know what civilized discourse is. Here is a hint. Your constant lying and mischaracterizations of the left are NOT civilized discourse. They are trollscum refuse.
I could explain for the fiftieth time what is wrong with your lapdog talking point but its too boring. You are a disgusting and pitiful troll
To find a "viable" alternative, money has to be invested in to those alternatives. Green tech is a possible alternative and money is being invested into it. I don't know what you mean by extreme, but considering the amount that oil companies get as subsidies from the government, and also considering that R&D needs real money to take off, I'd say extreme isn't a word to be used here (in fact it's safe to say bets are being hedged, no one green tech is being focused on in terms of investment, research into all types are being funded).
So if they don't find a viable alternative they don't "get extreme" with the money, but if they don't "get extreme" with the money they probably won't find the alternative.
Aha, yes he did!
We need to Brooking's view of how to count these jobs.
This is what the occupoopers at brookings said themselves. Check it out!
'preciate the company guys!
Why are you such a liar?
I await your answer and gender-neutral analysis .......
or this..
this one...
or was it this gem that provided your answer..
Help me out! How can I not find your wise and insightful response to either the brooking accounting comparison or you insistence on making comments regarding gender, or now, the lack of it in your posts? It would appear to folks here and myself that you believe it demeaning somehow to throw in the gender stuff in your responses. Do you actually hate a specific gender and utilize it throw assaults to opponents here?
highlyunlikleytohaveacoherentthought has nothing intellectual substance to offer here.
I have a goldfish. You can pay homage to ITS superior intellect while you are at it.
Every job that has a little green leaf next to it is considered a "green job". I suppose you'd have quite the fit at some of the job titles labeled as "green" within O*NET's site. You see, there are these things called workforce boards that go through each career and make that determination, not Obama, as you so badly want to assign this to.
So, your quote where the Brookings Institute labels careers in the manufacturing and public service clusters that involve waste disposal and the manufacture of energy can easily be labeled as green, because identifying something as a "green" job doesn't mean it's for tree-huggers, which is what I'm sure you and those like you have so cleverly conjured up in your minds.
So if those jobs are related to green activity, why wouldn't putting in a pipeline add jobs like in the apparel industry(those workers need uniforms) or transportation (Got to get those environmental destroying equipment to and from worksites) or food service, (those workers have to eat), those that transport those red meat products from the farmers cattle (the one's whose farts are destroying the ozone) or the farmers that raise cattle or the grain they eat and so on.
I would agree that any economic activity, including green, affects more than a single industry. I have no problem with efforts to use green energy, but it must be self sustaining and exist without heavy government investment. I say the same for other energy sources, let them find it, get it and bring it to market on their own.
The problem with the left is that economic activity that includes or focuses on more affordable energy is dismissed and the shallow depth of true green economic benefit is seen as all in all. It isn't now.
We can get to resources of energy in a generally safe fashion. Sure their are accidents, bad accidents but the industry is better at preventing and dealing with spills and land disruption. The gulf seems to have cleaned up enough for tourism and fishing these days.
So I will look at the O site and comment, but don't close your mind to the benefits economically and otherwise of this project and others to get fuel for everyone's benefit.
The downsides of this pipeline outweigh the benefits.
But they did NOT handle the spill as well as you say. The way BP handled the oil spill in the gulf was far from praiseworthy. Indeed the way they handled the Texas refinery explosion was even more damning, they tried to push the blame for management oversight onto lower tier workers.
As for the rest of your comments, the article above outlines why more harm than good would result from this project, and it's not all from a tree-hugger's perspective.
That is just the talking point you child molesting TeaTardTraitors are pushing. You are a LIAR and you are bad at it
The real issue you have here is what the definition of a green job is. You never gave that definition even in the thread you've linked to (and you got owned there). Brooking's is technically defining "green jobs" as jobs which do indeed help to "clean up" or provide a cleaner way of doing things (such as the examples mentioned in that very article you cited, the waste water industry and mass transit, which is a cleaner alternative to gasoline driven cars). That definition isn't actually wrong and is an acceptable one.
What is YOUR definition of a green job?
If you use the brookings method for tallying economic and job impact, I would say this this project would be at least as high as calculating how the green economy works.
Independent Experts: Industry-Funded Study Seriously Flawed
Wonder what makes for "Independent Experts" in a leftys' mind?
It didnt deserve anything but scorn trollscum. It made no point it was just a mindless poke at us. You are pathetic. You always will be pathetic
Or is that too much neural work for you.