It's too rapid a change, probably warmed up 10 degrees today from yesterday and I can't cope.

keep to the Fen Causeway

oooops

keep to the Fen Causeway

A green war on bald eagles

When bald eagles confront danger, most normal Americans would leap to preserve, protect and defend America's national symbol. But Team Obama wants to give wind-power companies long-term permits to butcher bald eagles on the altar of green energy.

The dirty secret about "clean" wind power is that its turbines are giant, whirling machetes. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "With more than 100,000 turbines expected to be in operation in the United States by 2030, annual bird mortality rates alone (now estimated by the Service at 440,000 per year) are expected to exceed 1 million."

Like other birds, eagles sometimes do not detect blades that often revolve at 200 mph. This is the first significant bad news for bald eagles since they have returned from near-extinction.

It never ceases to amaze me how the marketistas feel entitled not only to their own opinions, but also their own facts.

Dissecting......

Holy shit!  Wind turbines are going to 1 million bald eagles every year.  Wait a minute....

Hey, wait a minute, if you read the article, this guy doesn't cite even a single instance in which a bald eagle has been killed. Only golden eagles, which are a separate species. But still 67 golden  eagles are estimated to be killed at Altamont pass each year.

Wait a minute, how many golden eagles are there in the US?  Turns out that the Golden Eagle is a species of least concern, and numbers over 23,000 in the interior Western United States alone.  Still, wind turbines are going to kill a million birds a year. That must be a lot right?

Wait minute, turns out that cats kills around 500 millions birds a year. Oh my god, if they want to tear down wind turbines because they kill a million birds, they must be planning a kitty Auschwitz for the the five hundred million that cats kill.

Well, at least that bit about the Altamont Pass wind farm must reflect wind farms as a whole, right?

Wait a minute. Altamont Pass is an ancient wind farm, having been erected in 1981, and has tiny (by modern standards) turbines that rotate much faster than the very large turbines that are being built now.  So as turbines get larger, they move slower. Hence, less bird kills.

Finally, wind turbine blades move at 200 miles per hour.  That seems highly unlikely to me.  I'd think that at that speed the turbine would have long since locked itself down.  I'm certain that our resident wind power experts can clarify that.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

The dirty secret of American politics is that, for most politicians, getting elected is just not that important.  What matters is post-election employment.  It's all about staying in the elite political class, which means being respected in a dense network of corporate-funded think tanks, high-powered law firms, banks, defense contractors, prestigious universities, and corporations.  If you run a campaign based on populist themes, that's a threat to your post-election employment prospects.  This is why rising Democratic star and Newark Mayor Corey Booker reacted so strongly against criticism of private equity - he's looking out for a potential client after his political career is over, or perhaps, during interludes between offices.   Running as a vague populist is manageable, as long as you're lying to voters.  If you actually go after powerful interests while in office, then you better win, because if you don't, you'll have basically nowhere to go.  And if you lose, but you were a team player, then you'll have plenty of money and opportunity.  The most lucrative scenario is to win and be a team player, which is what Bill and Hillary Clinton did.  The Clinton's are the best at the political game - it's not a coincidence that deregulation accelerated in the late 1990s, as Clinton and his whole team began thinking about their post-Presidential prospects.

Corruption used to be more overt.  Lyndon Johnson made money while in office, by illicitly garnering lucrative FCC licenses.  It was the first neoliberal President, Jimmy Carter, who began the post-career payoff trend in the Democratic Party.  In 1978, Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas convinced Carter to back ethanol subsidies.  After Carter lost to Reagan, he faced financial problems, as his peanut warehouse had been mismanaged and was going bankrupt.  AMD stepped in, overpaying for the property.  But Carter wasn't nearly as skilled as Clinton, because he didn't stay in the club.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees.  In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank.  Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris.  As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors.  In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.  He didn't just reap speaking fee cash from the financial services sector - corporate titans like Oracle and outsourcing specialist Cisco paid up, as did many Israel-focused groups, Middle Eastern interests, and universities.  Does this explain the finance-friendly, oil-friendly and Israel First-friendly policies pursued by the State Department under Hillary Clinton?  Who knows?  But if you could legally deliver millions in cash to the husband of a high-level political official, it wouldn't hurt your policy goals.

In an hour-long press conference, he was flanked by two leading members of the radical Die Linke, a leftwing offshoot of the party of the Stasi secret police agency of former communist East Germany.

Most importantly, unlike Hamas' and Hezbollah's attacks from Gaza and Lebanon, Tel Aviv would be targeted in the case of this scenario, the home of the Israeli elites and the cultural and economic capital of the country. Most likely, a scenario similar to that of the Gulf War in 1991 would repeat itself (only this time it would be worse), when a high proportion of citizens left town temporarily because of the Iraqi missiles that rained down on the city. This time the population might find refuge in less inhabited regions that may not be as targeted by the missiles, or simply remain shut in their homes. Unlike in 1991 (when 40 rockets targeted Israel), however, hundreds if not thousands of missiles would be launched.

[...]

It is in this moment of attrition, proving the fallacy of the assumption of "getting the job done," where American diplomats could step in and offer a new package deal: an Israel-Iran ceasefire, monitoring of the future Iranian nuclear project and Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, as well as possibly the Golan heights if the situation in Syria is stabilized. This equation might compensate both the Israelis and Iranians for their losses, and especially imbue meaning and purpose to the Iranian sacrifice and thus help it to accept the equation.

The original headline was La OCDE dice que España tiene que cerrar ya los bancos que no son viables

"Cerrar ya" means "to close already"

"bancos que" means "banks which"

However,

"ya que" means "because"

Therefore, "The OECD says that Spain has to close because banks are not viable".

(h/t Drew)

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper