US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1996

In 2013, U.S. Navy researchers predicted ice-free summer Arctic waters by 2016 and it looks as if that prediction might come true. Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that there was less ice in the Arctic this winter than in any other winter of the satellite era. Given that the Navy has been making plans for “ice-free” operations in the Arctic since at least 2001, their June “Northern Edge” exercises may well prove to be just the opening salvo in the future northern climate wars, with whales, seals, and salmon being the first in the line of fire.

In April 2001, a Navy symposium entitled “Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic” was mounted to begin to prepare the service for a climate-change-induced future. Fast forward to June 2015. In what the military refers to as Alaska’s “premier” joint training exercise, Alaskan Command aims to conduct “Northern Edge” over 8,429 nautical miles, which include critical habitat for all five wild Alaskan salmon species and 377 other species of marine life. The upcoming war games in the Gulf of Alaska will not be the first such exercises in the region—they have been conducted, on and off, for the last 30 years—but they will be the largest by far. In fact, a 360% rise in munitions use is expected, according to Emily Stolarcyk, the program manager for the Eyak Preservation Council (EPC).

The waters in the Gulf of Alaska are some of the most pristine in the world, rivaled only by those in the Antarctic, and among the purest and most nutrient-rich waters anywhere. Northern Edge will take place in an Alaskan “marine protected area,” as well as in a NOAA-designated “fisheries protected area.” These war games will also coincide with the key breeding and migratory periods of the marine life in the region as they make their way toward Prince William Sound, as well as further north into the Arctic.

Species affected will include blue, fin, gray, humpback, minke, sei, sperm, and killer whales, the highly endangered North Pacific right whale (of which there are only approximately 30 left), as well as dolphins and sea lions. No fewer than a dozen native tribes including the Eskimo, Eyak, Athabascan, Tlingit, Sun’aq, and Aleut rely on the area for subsistence living, not to speak of their cultural and spiritual identities.

The Navy is already permitted to use live ordnance including bombs, missiles, and torpedoes, along with active and passive sonar in “realistic” war gaming that is expected to involve the release of as much as 352,000 pounds of “expended materials” every year. (The Navy’s EIS lists numerous things as “expended materials,” including missiles, bombs, torpedoes.) At present, the Navy is well into the process of securing the necessary permits for the next five years and has even mentioned making plans for the next 20. Large numbers of warships and submarines are slated to move into the area and the potential pollution from this has worried Alaskans who live nearby.

Here’s just one example of the kinds of damage that will occur: the cyanide discharge from a Navy torpedo is in the range of 140-150 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency’s “allowable” limit on cyanide: one part per billion.

The Navy’s EIS estimates that, in the five-year period in which these war games are to be conducted, there will be more than 182,000 “takes”—direct deaths of a marine mammal, or the disruption of essential behaviors like breeding, nursing, or surfacing. On the deaths of fish, it offers no estimates at all. Nevertheless, the Navy will be permitted to use at least 352,000 pounds of expended materials in these games annually. The potential negative effects could be far-reaching, given species migration and the global current system in northern waters.

On May 22 2015 20:50 ticklishmusic wrote:
There are well paying jobs, they just require more qualifications than they did in the boomer era because of automation, etc. That's just reality.

On May 22 2015 20:50 ticklishmusic wrote:
Increasing minimum wage is short sighted. It just creates a weird group of jobs that can't quite be automated yet that are paid too much. Or worse, it makes automation even more attractive from a cost angle. What's the next logical step after that?

Music: Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
Lyrics: Neil Peart

There is unrest in the Forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more sunlight
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the Maples
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the Oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the Oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the Maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the Forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the Oaks, just shake their heads

So the Maples formed a Union
And demanded equal rights
‘The Oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more Oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw…

On May 22 2015 21:57 Velr wrote:
My gut feeling tells me, that you don't want to go into a songtext battle against leftist positions .

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

On May 23 2015 00:13 farvacola wrote:
Increasing the minimum wage is indeed nothing more than moving the goal posts, but at least it's a move that helps those least able to help themselves. The alternatives, either do nothing as we wait for systematic progress or instead privy private interests, are far less satisfying in the eyes of anyone who sees poverty in the U.S. as a problem worth affirmatively addressing.

On May 23 2015 00:09 screamingpalm wrote:
I agree in theory, but setting a higher minimum wage is just moving the arbitrary goal posts and doesn't really do much to solve the real issues. And meanwhile, TPP negotiations continue behind closed doors.

On May 23 2015 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:
What is the real issue according to you then?

On May 23 2015 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:

What is the real issue according to you then?

On May 23 2015 00:31 screamingpalm wrote:


Well, I would place a much higher priority on the foundation. Universal health care and safety net programs, grants for community college. A solid socialized base to work from I guess. And as someone who was fired from employment while on FMLA, I'd say labor could use some love. I think setting a minimum wage will hurt small business and become a very short lived victory- and will not remain "livable" for long.

On May 23 2015 00:32 KwarK wrote:

Changes in the global economy have created effectively two classes, those who are still productive in providing the high tech services to the world economy (finance, tech, pharmaceutical etc) and those whose productivity has been undercut by foreign labour. The people at the top are richer and more productive than ever as they meet a global need, the people at the bottom are poorer than ever because they have to compete with global poverty. Between the two you have the secondary service industries, those who meet the needs of the people creating value at the very top, then the people who meet the needs of the people and so forth all the way down but it's unstable. The increasing globalization and mechanization of the workplace has destroyed a huge number of jobs and left a comparatively small proportion of the population creating value while the rest meet the needs of that group and one another.

It's only going to continue until we realize that we're all a bit too rich to still be trying to have everyone work 40 hour weeks for fifty years and start working less.