From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
One of the more clever phrases ever created is “Not in my backyard” or NIMBY. This pejorative phrase has been used to quickly characterize someone or some organization that is opposed to a particular project. The phrase is supposed to make you think that the entity so characterized is a selfish unevolved slob that stands in the way of the kind of progress that will benefit humanity. This may be what you think when you hear the term.
This is often not close to the truth.
Campaigns or spokespersons for campaigns that use that slogan are most often financed and carried by a monetized agenda against those that stand up to prevent themselves and others from harm caused by that agenda. The NYMBY is characterized as the obstructionist. Even though that NIMBY may in fact be operating from a knowledge platform that challenges and or DEMOLISHES the point of view that the development or project is harmful and not beneficial.
In my mind, NIMBY carries a heroic connotation rather than an obstructionist one. Standing up against the tyranny of the perceived majority, defending ones own property investments, and defending a community against a predatory wealth extractor that brings harm for generations to the planet are patriots engaged in constitutional freedoms that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
The crusaders that champion the use of NYMBY characterization against the brave souls that risk everything to stand up to the onslaught are often the apostles of the extreme anti-environmentalists that evangelize an anti-democratic and anti life philosophy in favor of social, ecological, and often economic destruction.
I first heard the phrase back when lumber and paper interests were trying to eliminate those arguing against clear-cutting our native ancient forests. The industry propagandists used the language to marginalize protestors and critical thinkers. This made it easier for the silent majority to accept the violence and publically funded police and military forces used to “clear” the protestors. The emerging nuclear industry adopted the language and strategies against those opposed to power plants and waste repositories that represented profitability for the industry and have harmed human health. The campaigns have continued by corporate agendas in the oil and gas industry and others that have gamed the system to allow for legalized and profitable pollution. Whenever I hear the phrase NYMBY I have come to think that there is a campaign underway to soften up the public for a soon to come clash that may mean violence and oppression.
A new phrase has begun to emerge in recent months, a phrase that is proudly waived as a banner by advocates for a saner and just world including climate change activists, renewable energy activists, habitat activists, and the 99% represented by the occupy movement. That phrase: NOOP. Not on our planet!
Speaking of Occupy-
Publicly funded police and military forces have a long held tradition of defending the oligarch’s interests from the 99%. The violent clearing of occupation sites across the America and the world in recent months should outrage any citizen that has a child that wants a future that works. Privatization of police and military forces funded by taxpayers and bolstered by laws that many think abrogate the Constitution, have eroded accountability and responsibility while increasing suppression and harm to American citizens here and abroad.
One small sampling of how we blind ourselves to truth involves the dangerous and caustic agent- pepper spray. It is advertised as “humane” in the same way that rubber bullets are advocated as “humane.” These are crowd control devices. Compared to National Guardsmen opening up on the kids at Kent State, it may be a more fair comparison, but pepper spray and rubber bullets are part and parcel of the violent and repressive actions that a police state is willing to terrorize peaceful citizens with. And they do cause physical harm and injury. Sometimes it is permanent. The use of these agents against peaceful citizens that are engaged in their constitutional rights is reprehensible and undemocratic. More and more and under the guidance of secret Homland Security initiatives, local police forces are becoming more militarized. This is a deeply disturbing development.
When the UC Davis security forces recently used pepper spray against defenseless students, following weeks of other police forces using the substances on occupy protestors, Fox News aired a snickering yuk yuk story characterizing pepper spray as a harmless “food” substance. By some accounts the report made people think that pepper spray is a nutritional and edible product. It is not. It is designed to stop and disable an adult human.
Rachael Maddow on her MSNBC show came up with a really good analysis of the real impact of commercial pepper spray used by police forces at all levels. She described that the chemical heat that comes from peppers is from a substance called capsasin. She displayed a chart called the Scoville Scale, designed by Wilbur Scoville to compare the powers and strengths of capsasin in various peppers and substances.
Scoville Scale
- A Sweet Bell Pepper 0 Scoville Units (SU)
- Poplano Pepper- 1,000-2,000 SU
- The Hottest Tabasco Sauce 2,500-3,000 SU
- Jalapeño Pepper- 3,500-8,000 SU
- Cayenne Pepper- 30,000-50,000 SU
(put a teaspoon of that in your mouth, or in your hands)
- Habanera Chile- 200,000-350,000 SU
Workers handling this use gloves.
-Bhut Jolokia, or Ghost Pepper, known as the hottest pepper on earth
-1,000,000 SU
- Concentrated Commercial Pepper Spray
-2,000,000 -5,3000,000 SU
- Pure Capsaicin, 15,000,000 SU
Deborah Bloom, author of the book “The Poisoners Handbook” says that commercial pepper spray is off the charts in terms of chemical power. The capsaicin is not only designed to disable a person but when sprayed into eyes causes a caustic reaction including cellular disruption, pain, and immediate shock. Repeated exposure to pepper spray can cause permanent damage to eyes, skin, and the repertory and nervous systems.
Rachael Maddow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45410896
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Why Western New York needs to have a public hearing about Hydrofracking
By Jay Burney, GreenWatch
In case you have not heard about it, New York State is currently evaluating whether or not to allow a controversial natural gas drilling process called hydrological fracking to take place across the state. This process allows extracting of natural gas from certain shale formations that lie underneath N.Y, including Marcellus and Utica Shale, both which are found below parts of WNY. NYS is accepting public comments on the matter until January 11. You can submit your comment by going here:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has held several public hearings on the issue across New York State. But not in Buffalo or Niagara Falls. Our proximity to the shale, and the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of this process on WNY should be a compelling reason for the NYS DEC to hold public hearings on this matter here. They have chosen not to. It is very likely that unless the DEC extends its public comment period on the process beyond the January 11th deadline and opts to hold a public hearing in or near Buffalo, a coalition of concerned citizens and groups may very well hold a “peoples hearing” to better alert the local press and to inform the DEC of the “opinions” of citizens in the WNY region.
One of the many reasons that the process of hydrofracking is controversial because it uses toxic chemicals which are injected into the ground under high pressure and at high volume. There is widespread concern and growing evidence that these chemicals will enter water supplies and aquifers and render the freshwater unusable and toxic to life, including humans. This is important to the people of WNY as it could effect our drinking water and the Great Lakes which are an increasingly valuable global resource representing about 20% of the earths fresh surface water and about 100% of our regions sustainable future.
Only some of the at last 300 chemicals that are used are known to the public. They include methanol, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, naphthalene, benzene, toluene and xylene. They are known to be endocrine disrupters, cancer-causing agents, or cause other negative human health impacts including respiratory ailments and birth defects. These chemicals have been found widely in drinking water and in aquifers near gas fields and wells.
The drilling companies consider other chemicals used as secret proprietary formulas and they will not release these formulas to the public for scrutiny. This is of some consequence.
According to a local anti-fracking group, Re-Energize Buffalo (http://renewnrg.blogspot.com/2011/03/radioactivity-in-wastewater-from-shale.html)
In 2009, NYSDEC analyzed 13 samples of fracking wastewater from gas drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale and found levels of radioactive radium as high as 267 times the safe limit for discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink. Studies conducted in Pennsylvania confirm those findings an have revealed some drinking water near fracking operations to contain radium at over 1,000 times higher than federal safe drinking water standards. In addition
Environmental and health professionals, as well as citizen activists around the United States share concerns that fracking with these contaminates will destroy the fresh water that life depends on, that we drink, and that our food supply requires. They are asking for more scientific analysis and that NYS proceed with great caution until there is more quantifiable information. The U.S. EPA is still engaged in evaluation of the safety of fracking and will not publish its findings until at least 2013. The potential multiplier effects of introducing known and unknown toxins into our water could be catastrophic for us and for future generations.
Proponents of the drilling process, mostly energy companies, engineering firms and law firms that will benefit from the extraction, argue that proposed regulations in New York mandate that the companies disclose proprietary formula’s to the DEC for appropriate review and that all well sites and associated water sources will be appropriately monitored and tested. Opponents including some DEC staff members say that the DEC is not equipped to oversee the number of wells that may be drilled, and that it is unlikely that enough money will every be appropriated to handle the regulatory oversight needed to insure even a modicum of safety for water sources.
Apparently New York State shares these concerns albeit at this time on a limited basis. The NYSDEC has already determined that they will not allow hydrofracking to proceed in the areas that make up both the New York City and Syracuse watersheds. WNY watersheds are not protected by the same rules.
Another reason that WNY deserves a public hearing is that when Governor Cuomo appointed an advisory panel early last summer to help the state evaluate economic and environmental consequences of hydrofracking, he neglected to appoint a single member from WNY.
Robert Knoer, Chair of the WNY Environmental Alliance which is comprised of 80 WNY environmental organizations, writing on behalf of the alliance noted in a letter to Gov. Cuomo in July:
“I must however express our concern that there are no representatives of the Western New York region on the panel. While acknowledging that this is not a "regional" panel I note that there has been a natural dichotomy created by the proposed SGEIS. The current proposed course of action distinguishes among watersheds: Disturbance around the New York City and Syracuse watersheds from hydrofracking activities is unacceptable within a 4000 foot buffer. However when addressing the Primary aquifers that dominate upstate non-filtered water supplies the DEC determined that "Horizontal extraction of gas resources underneath the Primary Aquifers from well pads located outside this area (500 feet) would not significantly impact this valuable water resource" (dSGEIS Executive Summary pg. 18).
There appears to be a distinction, albeit perhaps unintentional, of the impact of the state policy between Western New York and downstate aquifers. As such, we feel it is appropriate that the Western New York environmental concerns be fully and thoroughly vetted as this discussion proceeds.”
As of January 1, 2012, there has been no response to this letter.
Another reason for concern to WNY’ers is the proposal to accommodate fracking wastewater at the Niagara Falls N.Y. reprocessing plant. A portion of the hydrofracking fluid injected into wells is recoverable. This fluid needs to be treated before it is released. This fall the Niagara Falls N.Y. Water Board which oversees the city’s wastewater treatment facilities decided to explore the financial benefits of taking fracking wastewater, treating it, and discharging it into the Niagara River. There are serious and fundamental questions about whether or not the Niagara Falls facility can handle the known and unknown toxins and these are issues that citizens are demanding to be aired in a public hearing. Dumping fracking wastewater into the Niagara River where it will eventually flow into the Atlantic Ocean is an issue that needs intense scrutiny.
Last week (December 27), a coalition of 82 Mayor’s from around the Great Lakes called on provincial, state, and federal governments to hold public hearings for “utmost transparency and disclosure” when it comes to the potential impact of fracking waste on Great Lakes waters. http://niagaraatlarge.com/2011/12/27/great-lakes-mayors-raise-concern-about-proposed-fracking-waste-discharge-to-niagara-river/
The Niagara Falls Water Board has recently hired a PR firm to handle “questions” about the issue. Great.
False Jobs and Real Economic Consequences
Advocates of fracking including politicians, lobbyists, the energy industry and the engineering and law firms that will benefit economically from hydrofracking have used a “jobs” as the principle public argument to allow hydrofracking in New York State. Food & Water Watch, a national organization dedicated to safe food and water issued a challenge to the “jobs creator” theory in a November 2011 report entitled “New York State Exaggerated Potential Job Creation from Shale Gas Development.”
The report states:” The oil and gas industry, industry-funded academics, and ideological think tanks have promoted shale gas development as a sure-fire job creator in difficult economic times. Proponents of shale gas development have benefited from media and U.S. government reports in which the supposed economic benefits have gone unquestioned. Food & Water Watch recently analyzed one industry-backed job projection and found that it overstated shale gas job creation potential in New York by a factor of about 900 percent.
The report states that the NYS economic analysis report originally produced by Ecology and Environment, a Buffalo based engineering firm with strong ties to the oil and gas industry, predicted that an average NYS shale gas development scenario would bring 53,969 jobs. Food and Water Watch says that these projections are “deeply flawed”. For instance, close inspection of the footnotes revealed that that projection was based on a 30-year production scenario. According to the Food and Water Watch report, 30 years of production is an inflated scenario. Currently the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether or not shale gas companies have overestimated the productivity of shall gas wells.
Under the Food and Water Watch recalculated the New York analysis and concludes that in the first year of an average scenario only 195 new jobs would be created for NYS residents, and that after 10 years only 600 jobs. After the 10th year there would be almost no more new jobs created. The first year scenario would impact one fortieth of one percent of New Yorkers currently on unemployment.
The report says that the E&E report misuses the multiplier effects and the indirect job creation scenarios in ways that exaggerate the economic spillover from the jobs. The report also points out that E&E has close ties to the oil and gas industry.
In addition the F&W report states that the NYS analysis fails to account for the negative impacts that drilling and fracking would have on employment in other industries such as tourism and agriculture. These kinds of multiplier effects are shoved under the rug.
The report states: “Close examination of this job projection shows that allowing for such extensive shale gas development in New York would actually have a minimal impact on employment in the near term, primarily because most jobs would go to employees from out-of-state. Shale gas development would not provide the broad- based economic growth that New York now needs and that the industry has promised they could deliver. Instead, shale gas development would primarily benefit the oil and gas industry while bringing significant costs to public health, public infrastructure, and the environment.”
These costs presumably would be borne by the taxpaying public.
The Food and water Watch report concludes “The New York socioeconomic impact analysis, conducted by E&E Inc., fails to provide an accurate projection of the potential benefits of opening up the state to drilling and fracking for shale gas. By exaggerating the potential benefits, New York has failed to serve the public interest. In reality, current residents of New York can only expect intensive shale gas development to create several hundred new shale gas industry jobs for each of the first 10 years, followed by far fewer production jobs created for the next 20 years.
In late December, the Legislative Gazette, an Albany based newspaper covering NYS government, reported that three economists Jannette M. Barth, Senior economist at the Pepacton Institute LLC; Edward C Kokkelenberg, a research fellow at the School for Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell, and Timothy Mount, Economics Professor at Cornell sent a letter to Governor Cuomo that also detailed why the E&E economic survey provided to the State is flawed. The letter reads in part:
"The state's economic focus should be the realistic identification and estimation of the present value of all costs and benefits to the state and its citizens.” "The state should be concerned with maximizing the present value of the benefits to the State and minimizing the present value of all costs to the State and its citizens. The gas industry will strive to maximize the present value of the benefits to themselves and postpone costs, or more likely, make others pay the costs."
The Gazette interviewed Jannette Barth, one of the authors of the letter.
"(The E&E report) didn't take into account costs of wear and tear of roads and infrastructure," She said that the state's Department of Transportation circulated a memo from July detailing the potential damage fracking and well construction could do to roads and other infrastructure, especially from truck traffic.
"The research findings done by independent studies are vastly different from industry research," Barth said, saying that any study of fracking should be done not by any single agency, but a team of individual experts on all the ways that fracking could impact the economy and the environment.
"What we really, really need is the state DEC to insist on a comprehensive unbiased peer-reviewed environmental impact statement, based on data that is either published, or carefully scrutinized or verified because the industry has a bias in this," Barth said.
It is important that the DEC extend the public comment period beyond the current January 11 deadline, hold a public hearing in WNY, and extend the moratorium on issuing drilling permits until at least after the USEPA finishes its ongoing study about the safety and health impacts of hydrofracking. If this is not done, there will be a public hearing in Buffalo, conducted by citizens, and you will be invited to say your piece.
Revised Extreme Environmentalists, Fracking, Spills, Disasters, and the Freemarket
Language Counts
A Call for Radical Accountability
A Call for Radical Accountability
-by Jay Burney
In the years leading up to the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, arguably the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned it’s seasoned reporters and went with industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf, many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this planet changing disaster. This week, BP went on trial for the damages caused by the Macondo blow out that caused 11 direct human deaths and untold damages to the ecology and economic future of the Gulf Coast.
The New York State hydrofracking issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The phrase engineering is designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to hydrofracking.
This includes economic arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private gain from among other places, public properties and with public money. The truth is much further away.
An industry oriented projection analysis of fracking affiliated New York State jobs has been repeated by the New York State DEC as it seeks to justify hydrofracking operations in the state. DEC consultants, -a local WNY company with strong ties to the oil and gas industry, Ecology an Environment, wrote in a taxpayer funded report that an average NYS shale gas development scenario would bring 53,969 jobs. Food and Water Watch, an activist organization opposed to hydrofracking published an independent analysis last November entitled “New York State Exaggerated Potential Job Creation from Shale Gas Development.” It states that the Ecology and Environment projections are “deeply flawed”. It states that “in the first year of an average scenario only 195 new jobs would be created for NYS residents, and that after 10 years only 600 jobs. After the 10th year there would be almost no more new jobs created”.
There are other substantial economic, environmental, and social impacts. These include the probable boom and bust cycle that accompanies most natural resources extraction operations. Communities should experience extraordinary downsides once the fracking operations cease. These include significant infrastructure costs including roads and maintenance, damage to fragile and valuable ecological systems, and impacts on human health and well-being.
Principle concerns made by anti-fracking activists point to a consequential lack of science that substantiates that fracking safe. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is significant science that clearly links chemicals used in hydrofracking with human disease including a wide array of cancers. This business is as serious and as costly as death.
Many of these impacts are considered “externalities” by our traditional way of economic accounting. This means that many of the fracking costs will not be paid for by the industry and instead will be born by individuals and taxpayers.
One of the principle issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that they are kept secret by the industry. While we know mostly what the chemicals are, by hiding the truth behind specific proprietary disclosures, the industry can disingenuously argue that chemicals found in well water and aquifers cannot be traced to the drilling sources. In addition, gas and oil extractions are legally exempt from important parts of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Community Right to Know Act, the Clean Air Act, The National Environmental Policy Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. This Bush/Cheney era energy legislation enjoyed bipartisan support. Accountability and the ultimate health costs are protected by a complex and costly legal system that ensures that costs will be borne by a wider society, -the taxpayers and individuals effected. These corporate entitlements are outrageous and dangerous.
As of this writing the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of hydrofracking. Early drafts clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly linked to fracking operations. This brings us to the common sense fact that the “economic impact” of gas extraction may be far from positive. Individuals that have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists, economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
When the federal government states that they are considering requiring gas drilling companies to disclose proprietary formulas used in frack liquids, the question has to be “disclose to whom?” Unless this is fully disclosed to the public there is no possible way that the public will be safe. Nor can the public make informed decisions about fracking safety. Many, including those inside government claim that the government does not have the resources to oversee the many aspects of fracking. It is not hard to imagine that as the size of our government recedes, the ability of oversight will also diminish. If the formulas are disclosed to the public, we certainly will find a way to scrutinize, analyze and ultimately make informed and transparent choices about the activities, processes and impacts of this very dangerous industry and its economic, environmental and social consequences.
Environmental activists of all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm citizen knowledge. This assault is led by industry apologists and death merchants, many of which stand to make huge profits if we the people allow fracking.
Industry apologists continue to target citizen awareness.
In early December Fred Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on “extreme environmentalists on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals, use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed. Local news accounts from our “legacy” TV and print outlets carry that same message. More often than not the media carries uncritical accounts of hydrofracking issues from the point of view of the businesses that have the money to spend underwriting the local “news” operations. I am sure that most of you think that hydrofracking in NYS is good for our economy and will provide lots of jobs.
The propaganda greased by the big companies goes all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Some of the justifications go beyond the pale.
Recently, Republican presidential candidate Rick (google it) Santorum, whom seems to believe that his radical brand of fundamental Christianity should guide our political/economic/social destiny, suggested that God made planet earth in order to allow humans to exploit its natural resources. He said that “radical environmentalists believe that man should protect the earth”. He said, “That is a phony ideal, we are not here to protect the earth”, and that “the objective is man, not environment”. How does one even begin to address this exasperating disconnect? Without a healthy earth, a healthy planet, there is no “man”. If we poison the planet with phony idealism such as Santorums, humans disappear. Its that simple. This election may very well be about the ability of humans to survive.
Activists that are willing to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots. Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so green that the trees hug them doesn’t or shouldn’t mean that they are extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the criminals here?
Set Out
A Call for Radical Accountability
The first order of business is to ban fracking.
Beyond that we should make the industry be totally accountable by
-Revisiting the federal exemptions from environmental and community protections.
-Make the industry pay for independent analysis.
It is time that we adopt a newly emerged from the “Occupy Movement concept”- "Radical Accountability".
Lets take the promises of jobs and safety from of the industry and codify them, with financial incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability panel with each appointee and no members or their families linked to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel must be be funded by the private sector and will include a privately financed fund to independently evaluate health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of chemicals used, to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed bonding (A minimum $50 million bond for each well) for potential public damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. Let the freemarket decide! Make the externalities internal transparent costs.
-Publically disclosed job guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation contracts in public, and be financially incentivized and accountable if they turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the public takes all the risks, there is no free market and the corporate entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without ecosystems there is no economy.
Extreme Environmentalists, Fracking, Spills, Disaster, and the Freemarket
From January 2012
A Call for Radical Accountability
-by Jay Burney
In the years leading up to the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that lead to what is arguably the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned seasoned reporters and for the most part went with industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf, many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this planet changing disaster. Today we are exposed to TV commercials celebrating the resurgence of the gulf, replete with sun drenched images, smiling kids, and playful wildlife. It s like nothing ever happened. In the final second of the commercials the sponsor is revealed BP! Thanks for the support BP!
The New York State Hydrofracking issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The "phrase engineering" is designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to hydrofracking.
This includes economic arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private gain from among other places, public properties. And that this has to be done immediately without further delay. The truth is further away.
Some of the principle points made by those that are concerned about the industry’s technology involve a lack of science that substantiates that the process known as hydrofracking is safe. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is significant science that clearly links some of the known chemicals used in hydrofracking with human disease including a wide array of cancers. One of the principle issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that they are kept secret by the industry. The industry then disingenuously argues that chemicals that are found in well water and aquifers cannot be traced to the fracking operations and that they therefore cannot be held accountable for health problems and the ultimate health costs which will be borne by a wider society and the taxpayers and individuals effected. These corporate entitlements are outrageous.
As of this writing the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of hydrofracking although early drafts clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly linked to fracking operations. This all points to the common sense fact that the economic impact may be far from positive. Individuals that have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists, economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
Most are asking the DEC to both continue is public comment period, and extend its moratorium on issuing permits so that more information and science can be gathered and evaluated.
Environmental activists of all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm the citizens. Words count. This industry campaign against the well being of humans may be effective as the DEC denies the requests to extend public comment and to extend the moratorium. The economic influence greased by the big companies go all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Even though there is virtually no health assessment or economic scrutiny of industry claims on the public record. Even though the economic development argument and the jobs promises may prove to be at the very least disingenuous, try telling that to someone that has been marginalized by the oligarchs and needs to feed the family. Very often that’s where the critical thinking ends. Hunger and survival can leave very little room for resistance. This is an effective campaign.
Industry apologists continue the assault. In early December Fred Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on environmentalists on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals, use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed.
In a November 16 Buffalo News article about hydrofracking, and in other media venues, environmentalists that oppose fracking have been called “extreme environmentalists” and worse.
Activists that are willing to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots. Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so green that the trees hug them doesn’t mean that they are extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the criminals here?
A Call for Radical Accountability
Maybe it is time that we adopt a newly emerged from the Occupy Movement concept- "radical accountability". Lets take the promises of the industry and codify them, with financial incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability panel with no members or their families linked to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel will that will be funded by the private sector and will include a privately financed fund to evaluate health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of chemicals used to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed bonding (A minimum $1 million bond for each site) for potential public damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. If the costs must be passed on to the consumer, this gives the consumer more opportunities to choose. Let the freemarket decide!
-Publically disclosed job guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation contracts in public, and be accountable if they turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the public takes all the risks, there is no freemarket and the corporate entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without ecosystems there is no economy.
A Call for Radical Accountability
-by Jay Burney
In the years leading up to the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that lead to what is arguably the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned seasoned reporters and for the most part went with industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf, many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this planet changing disaster. Today we are exposed to TV commercials celebrating the resurgence of the gulf, replete with sun drenched images, smiling kids, and playful wildlife. It s like nothing ever happened. In the final second of the commercials the sponsor is revealed BP! Thanks for the support BP!
The New York State Hydrofracking issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The "phrase engineering" is designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to hydrofracking.
This includes economic arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private gain from among other places, public properties. And that this has to be done immediately without further delay. The truth is further away.
Some of the principle points made by those that are concerned about the industry’s technology involve a lack of science that substantiates that the process known as hydrofracking is safe. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is significant science that clearly links some of the known chemicals used in hydrofracking with human disease including a wide array of cancers. One of the principle issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that they are kept secret by the industry. The industry then disingenuously argues that chemicals that are found in well water and aquifers cannot be traced to the fracking operations and that they therefore cannot be held accountable for health problems and the ultimate health costs which will be borne by a wider society and the taxpayers and individuals effected. These corporate entitlements are outrageous.
As of this writing the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of hydrofracking although early drafts clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly linked to fracking operations. This all points to the common sense fact that the economic impact may be far from positive. Individuals that have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists, economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
Most are asking the DEC to both continue is public comment period, and extend its moratorium on issuing permits so that more information and science can be gathered and evaluated.
Environmental activists of all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm the citizens. Words count. This industry campaign against the well being of humans may be effective as the DEC denies the requests to extend public comment and to extend the moratorium. The economic influence greased by the big companies go all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Even though there is virtually no health assessment or economic scrutiny of industry claims on the public record. Even though the economic development argument and the jobs promises may prove to be at the very least disingenuous, try telling that to someone that has been marginalized by the oligarchs and needs to feed the family. Very often that’s where the critical thinking ends. Hunger and survival can leave very little room for resistance. This is an effective campaign.
Industry apologists continue the assault. In early December Fred Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on environmentalists on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals, use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed.
In a November 16 Buffalo News article about hydrofracking, and in other media venues, environmentalists that oppose fracking have been called “extreme environmentalists” and worse.
Activists that are willing to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots. Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so green that the trees hug them doesn’t mean that they are extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the criminals here?
A Call for Radical Accountability
Maybe it is time that we adopt a newly emerged from the Occupy Movement concept- "radical accountability". Lets take the promises of the industry and codify them, with financial incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability panel with no members or their families linked to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel will that will be funded by the private sector and will include a privately financed fund to evaluate health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of chemicals used to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed bonding (A minimum $1 million bond for each site) for potential public damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. If the costs must be passed on to the consumer, this gives the consumer more opportunities to choose. Let the freemarket decide!
-Publically disclosed job guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation contracts in public, and be accountable if they turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the public takes all the risks, there is no freemarket and the corporate entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without ecosystems there is no economy.
Language Counts, The Job Creators
From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
It seems that the elimination of a sophisticated consumer class is profitable. Today, the worker no longer counts. Wall Street schemes and corporate entitlements that come from fleecing the public by endless wars and secret bailouts are the wealth creators.
It would be nice if we could return to a time when public investments in good job creation were more fundamental to a successful economy. As the world teeters on financial collapse created by speculators and their mouthpieces represented by governments and most elected officials, it would seem that a return to a time when wealth and quality of life for the masses will count. But we will not get there without a fight and that starts with critical thinking. it seems that this is a struggle that the 1% don’t want you to engage in. And up until recently, many of us have not. Instead we acquiesce to the messaging of the 1% streamed constantly into our minds by the wholly owned by the 1% mainstream media. They do not want us to think, or act, or find a sustainable future that works for everyone.
Unfortunately in this era of privatization, public investments in jobs must first pass the test of maximum profitability for the “job creators.” The privatization of government services more often than not includes more costs to the taxpayer, smaller wages and benefits for the jobholder, and a profit margin that distinguishes government and private sector business models.
The big lie that we often fall for is the false equivalency of running government like business. Running a business is not like running a government. Government does not have to profit, it only has to break even to be efficient. Breaking even, without the privatization costs, can also result in tax reductions. When we think of eliminating waste and inefficiency in government why don’t we target the waste of taxpayer dollars that goes toward maximizing profits for the private sector? These entitlements dollars contribute to a decline in job and income opportunities and a decline in the consumer class. We pay more, get less, and dance blindly to the fallacious tune of the value added of privatized services. These privatization and profit strategies have contributed to the increasing costs of military spending, health services, education, and virtually every service that government contributes to protecting society. After more than a decade of these investments, American jobs have declined in numbers, and in the real values of wages, and benefits.
Accountability also takes a huge hit with privatization. Once former government services are privatized it is much more difficult to access financial and other records that were once covered by things like the Freedom of Information Act and the Freedom on Information Law. We are certainly hearing about corporate abuses from lost money in Iraq to the secret and hidden transactions involving the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, but we are not hearing enough. Even Julian Assange and his Wiki leaks are not shining enough light on where trillions of American taxpayer money has disappeared to in the last few years.
When the Bush tax cuts first took effect in 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Now the unemployment rate is over 9%. Americans lost 8 million jobs in 2008-09 despite the continuation of those tax loopholes for the very rich. Many of the new jobs are minimum wage and lack benefits and protections of, say, uninionized or government workers.
Fading Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas touts his job creation statistics in Texas claiming about 1/3 of the jobs created in America since 2008 were in Texas. He espouses a conservative and highly deceptive cut taxes to the wealthy “job creators” political invention to pander to the nattering nabobs.
But according to an article in the US News Weekly, all of the net job creation in Texas were government sector jobs, which have totaled about 115,000 while the private sector had a net loss of 40,000 jobs. In addition immigration to Texas from Mexico has boosted consumerism, which has led to more local jobs. However many of those jobs have been in the health care sector, notoriously low paying jobs and fully 10% of all hourly Texan jobs pay minimum wage or less. This is above the national average. And lets not forget, under Perry Texas has a $27 billion deficit last year.
Perry’s Texas dream is to create an army of minimum wage earners, which will allow wealthy corporations to get more wealthy. Is this really a vision of prosperity or will it lead America to becoming a third world nation?
Perry is the tip of the spear that represents the oligarchy’s attack on the American Dream.
“Job creator” is another phrase cooked up by Frank Luntz, the republican opinion maker. He urges pundits to shy away from fuzzy terms such as “entrepreneurs” and instead go for the soul searing gut-stirring phrase that explodes at the center of our reptilian brain. You know what a job is, and you will be instinctively attracted to supporting the job creator. Even if the creator is a myth.
Almost exclusively “job creator” schemes focus on taxpayer subsidies to developers and companies that demand substantial economic incentives.
The altercations often played out in a compliant and uncritical media can inspire hand wringing passions of all levels of media. The performances and sweaty ministrations are attention getters (audience builders), and often serve the profit takers, which fund the media makers.
Sadly and more often than not, they are misleading, disingenuous, and are served up uncritically on a talking points agenda that avoids any deep thinking or context. Such is the condition of the intellectual integrity of the mainstream and local media today. Most reporters and editors do not have an agenda that involves critical analysis.
Accountability
Lack of accountability takes hits in more than just the privatization schemes. As we downsize our elected representation Lobbyists that pay for government decisions find it easier and more cost effective to buy influence. It is a lot easier to corrupt one elected official than ten. And I bet you think that smaller governments save you money? Lobbyists and corrupted officials simply do not want daylight the jacking of public money.
The devil is always in the details. Scrutiny and critical analysis are the keys to accountability and that is supposed to count when it comes to public spending. Tools like the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are supposed to help decision makers and the public analyze the real costs and values of public investments and private sector development. And yet in the past decade lawmakers have detoothed SEQRA to the point that it is almost useless for these purposes.
Take, for example, last years Verizon proposal to build what they intimated would be the “world’s largest data center” at Somerset in Niagara County. Cheerleaders for this project including NYS Senator Maziarz, the Niagara County IDA, local politicians, and the local media that yelled loudly that 200 “well-paying” jobs would be created and that the overall economic development impact in our region would be transformational. This kind of language counts. Most of the local media hyperventilated with the story. Critical analysis was beyond the means and intent of the nightly news. A perfect scenario for picking the publics pockets. “Just do it” was the overwhelming cry from editorial pages, letters, pundits and online commenters, often anonymous.
A slightly more sobering and analytical account was presented in an article in November 2010, by the now former News reporter James Heaney. It did not get much attention. He explained that “in return taxpayers would provide Verizon sales and property tax rebates totaling $518 million. Additional discounted power would bring Verizon $96 million over 15 years. Heaney concluded, “The price tag for each job is $3.1 million.” Language counts. That is a lot of money.
Heaney's detailed article provided an analysis of the lasting economic impacts and just how the public money would flow into the private coffers of Verizon, an international conglomerate ranked 16 in the Fortune 500 with annual revenue of $106.6 billion in 2010. Among other things Heaney’s investigation concluded that “data centers are not regarded as significant economic engines” and “are at the lower end of the spectrum” for economic development. Hmmm. Unless you caught Heaney’s article, I bet you never heard that.
What Heaney may not have known, and which was reported by Verizon to the Niagara County IDA as early as September is that the project would only result in 30 jobs by the end of the second year and that no other jobs may be created beyond this pilot phase. This was not the figure that the media or the cheerleaders used. There was not a reduction in the ask for public investment. That means that the cost per job was actually closer to $20 million per job.
Here are a few other things that you might not know.
Senator Masiarz, an aggressive advocate of the project, pushed a fast tracking of a rezoning of the property that Verizon wanted. Without the fast tracking, Verizon threatened publically to abandon the project. The Senator continuously used the 200 jobs chacterization despite his probable knowledge of the 30 jobs reality.
Fast tracking means avoiding public scrutiny of important details through SEQRA. SEQRA mandates that a community, including public decision makers, fully evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project on certain rezoning requests. SEQRA allows time to develop and analyze information including an analysis of claims made by the party seeking to develop the project. In this case, as is the case often in major developments, the public input process was sped up and a “negative-declaration” was issued. A “neg-dek” states that there is no significant environmental, economic, or social consequence and no further scrutiny is required. This makes it seem like there is no harm possible from the development. Language counts.
However, there were some important public issues to consider. The 160 acres property in question is owned by AES, which also owns the adjacent 675-megawatt coal-fired generating plant as well as 163 other coal facilities worldwide. Did we mention that data centers such as the proposed Verizon center are huge consumers of electricity? Are there renewable energy/carbon footprint considerations to evaluate?
The property was originally zoned as “agricultural”. It was changed to “industrial”. In addition it was state/county certified farmland, which is supposed to give it additional protection against non-agricultural purposes. This is important in a world of vanishing cropland.
Are there additional infrastructure costs such as roadway, sewer, and other services that would have to be borne by the taxpayer? How would the zoning change and the development effect the property prices and use of adjacent land?
Do you think that there is a justifiable reason to scrutinize the carbon footprint and social and economic consequences of this project? Is there any potential harm to the taxpayer or residents? The neg-dek says no.
The project was fast-tracked. Within weeks the Somerset Town Board approved the zoning changes. NYPA approved the gift of power. The next day, Verizon announced that it had decided to phase the development and in for the time being it was going to reduce the size of the project. This would eliminate two of the three gigantic buildings that it had proposed. Verizon said that it would wait years to determine the viability of additional development.
Maziarz as it turns out has a long-term relationship with AES, the owner of the Property that Verizon sought, and Verizon. According to reported election records between March of 2008 and September of 2010, the Committee to Elect Masiarz State Senate received contributions totaling $26,500 from the two personcorporations.
-by Jay Burney
It seems that the elimination of a sophisticated consumer class is profitable. Today, the worker no longer counts. Wall Street schemes and corporate entitlements that come from fleecing the public by endless wars and secret bailouts are the wealth creators.
It would be nice if we could return to a time when public investments in good job creation were more fundamental to a successful economy. As the world teeters on financial collapse created by speculators and their mouthpieces represented by governments and most elected officials, it would seem that a return to a time when wealth and quality of life for the masses will count. But we will not get there without a fight and that starts with critical thinking. it seems that this is a struggle that the 1% don’t want you to engage in. And up until recently, many of us have not. Instead we acquiesce to the messaging of the 1% streamed constantly into our minds by the wholly owned by the 1% mainstream media. They do not want us to think, or act, or find a sustainable future that works for everyone.
Unfortunately in this era of privatization, public investments in jobs must first pass the test of maximum profitability for the “job creators.” The privatization of government services more often than not includes more costs to the taxpayer, smaller wages and benefits for the jobholder, and a profit margin that distinguishes government and private sector business models.
The big lie that we often fall for is the false equivalency of running government like business. Running a business is not like running a government. Government does not have to profit, it only has to break even to be efficient. Breaking even, without the privatization costs, can also result in tax reductions. When we think of eliminating waste and inefficiency in government why don’t we target the waste of taxpayer dollars that goes toward maximizing profits for the private sector? These entitlements dollars contribute to a decline in job and income opportunities and a decline in the consumer class. We pay more, get less, and dance blindly to the fallacious tune of the value added of privatized services. These privatization and profit strategies have contributed to the increasing costs of military spending, health services, education, and virtually every service that government contributes to protecting society. After more than a decade of these investments, American jobs have declined in numbers, and in the real values of wages, and benefits.
Accountability also takes a huge hit with privatization. Once former government services are privatized it is much more difficult to access financial and other records that were once covered by things like the Freedom of Information Act and the Freedom on Information Law. We are certainly hearing about corporate abuses from lost money in Iraq to the secret and hidden transactions involving the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, but we are not hearing enough. Even Julian Assange and his Wiki leaks are not shining enough light on where trillions of American taxpayer money has disappeared to in the last few years.
When the Bush tax cuts first took effect in 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Now the unemployment rate is over 9%. Americans lost 8 million jobs in 2008-09 despite the continuation of those tax loopholes for the very rich. Many of the new jobs are minimum wage and lack benefits and protections of, say, uninionized or government workers.
Fading Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas touts his job creation statistics in Texas claiming about 1/3 of the jobs created in America since 2008 were in Texas. He espouses a conservative and highly deceptive cut taxes to the wealthy “job creators” political invention to pander to the nattering nabobs.
But according to an article in the US News Weekly, all of the net job creation in Texas were government sector jobs, which have totaled about 115,000 while the private sector had a net loss of 40,000 jobs. In addition immigration to Texas from Mexico has boosted consumerism, which has led to more local jobs. However many of those jobs have been in the health care sector, notoriously low paying jobs and fully 10% of all hourly Texan jobs pay minimum wage or less. This is above the national average. And lets not forget, under Perry Texas has a $27 billion deficit last year.
Perry’s Texas dream is to create an army of minimum wage earners, which will allow wealthy corporations to get more wealthy. Is this really a vision of prosperity or will it lead America to becoming a third world nation?
Perry is the tip of the spear that represents the oligarchy’s attack on the American Dream.
“Job creator” is another phrase cooked up by Frank Luntz, the republican opinion maker. He urges pundits to shy away from fuzzy terms such as “entrepreneurs” and instead go for the soul searing gut-stirring phrase that explodes at the center of our reptilian brain. You know what a job is, and you will be instinctively attracted to supporting the job creator. Even if the creator is a myth.
Almost exclusively “job creator” schemes focus on taxpayer subsidies to developers and companies that demand substantial economic incentives.
The altercations often played out in a compliant and uncritical media can inspire hand wringing passions of all levels of media. The performances and sweaty ministrations are attention getters (audience builders), and often serve the profit takers, which fund the media makers.
Sadly and more often than not, they are misleading, disingenuous, and are served up uncritically on a talking points agenda that avoids any deep thinking or context. Such is the condition of the intellectual integrity of the mainstream and local media today. Most reporters and editors do not have an agenda that involves critical analysis.
Accountability
Lack of accountability takes hits in more than just the privatization schemes. As we downsize our elected representation Lobbyists that pay for government decisions find it easier and more cost effective to buy influence. It is a lot easier to corrupt one elected official than ten. And I bet you think that smaller governments save you money? Lobbyists and corrupted officials simply do not want daylight the jacking of public money.
The devil is always in the details. Scrutiny and critical analysis are the keys to accountability and that is supposed to count when it comes to public spending. Tools like the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are supposed to help decision makers and the public analyze the real costs and values of public investments and private sector development. And yet in the past decade lawmakers have detoothed SEQRA to the point that it is almost useless for these purposes.
Take, for example, last years Verizon proposal to build what they intimated would be the “world’s largest data center” at Somerset in Niagara County. Cheerleaders for this project including NYS Senator Maziarz, the Niagara County IDA, local politicians, and the local media that yelled loudly that 200 “well-paying” jobs would be created and that the overall economic development impact in our region would be transformational. This kind of language counts. Most of the local media hyperventilated with the story. Critical analysis was beyond the means and intent of the nightly news. A perfect scenario for picking the publics pockets. “Just do it” was the overwhelming cry from editorial pages, letters, pundits and online commenters, often anonymous.
A slightly more sobering and analytical account was presented in an article in November 2010, by the now former News reporter James Heaney. It did not get much attention. He explained that “in return taxpayers would provide Verizon sales and property tax rebates totaling $518 million. Additional discounted power would bring Verizon $96 million over 15 years. Heaney concluded, “The price tag for each job is $3.1 million.” Language counts. That is a lot of money.
Heaney's detailed article provided an analysis of the lasting economic impacts and just how the public money would flow into the private coffers of Verizon, an international conglomerate ranked 16 in the Fortune 500 with annual revenue of $106.6 billion in 2010. Among other things Heaney’s investigation concluded that “data centers are not regarded as significant economic engines” and “are at the lower end of the spectrum” for economic development. Hmmm. Unless you caught Heaney’s article, I bet you never heard that.
What Heaney may not have known, and which was reported by Verizon to the Niagara County IDA as early as September is that the project would only result in 30 jobs by the end of the second year and that no other jobs may be created beyond this pilot phase. This was not the figure that the media or the cheerleaders used. There was not a reduction in the ask for public investment. That means that the cost per job was actually closer to $20 million per job.
Here are a few other things that you might not know.
Senator Masiarz, an aggressive advocate of the project, pushed a fast tracking of a rezoning of the property that Verizon wanted. Without the fast tracking, Verizon threatened publically to abandon the project. The Senator continuously used the 200 jobs chacterization despite his probable knowledge of the 30 jobs reality.
Fast tracking means avoiding public scrutiny of important details through SEQRA. SEQRA mandates that a community, including public decision makers, fully evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project on certain rezoning requests. SEQRA allows time to develop and analyze information including an analysis of claims made by the party seeking to develop the project. In this case, as is the case often in major developments, the public input process was sped up and a “negative-declaration” was issued. A “neg-dek” states that there is no significant environmental, economic, or social consequence and no further scrutiny is required. This makes it seem like there is no harm possible from the development. Language counts.
However, there were some important public issues to consider. The 160 acres property in question is owned by AES, which also owns the adjacent 675-megawatt coal-fired generating plant as well as 163 other coal facilities worldwide. Did we mention that data centers such as the proposed Verizon center are huge consumers of electricity? Are there renewable energy/carbon footprint considerations to evaluate?
The property was originally zoned as “agricultural”. It was changed to “industrial”. In addition it was state/county certified farmland, which is supposed to give it additional protection against non-agricultural purposes. This is important in a world of vanishing cropland.
Are there additional infrastructure costs such as roadway, sewer, and other services that would have to be borne by the taxpayer? How would the zoning change and the development effect the property prices and use of adjacent land?
Do you think that there is a justifiable reason to scrutinize the carbon footprint and social and economic consequences of this project? Is there any potential harm to the taxpayer or residents? The neg-dek says no.
The project was fast-tracked. Within weeks the Somerset Town Board approved the zoning changes. NYPA approved the gift of power. The next day, Verizon announced that it had decided to phase the development and in for the time being it was going to reduce the size of the project. This would eliminate two of the three gigantic buildings that it had proposed. Verizon said that it would wait years to determine the viability of additional development.
Maziarz as it turns out has a long-term relationship with AES, the owner of the Property that Verizon sought, and Verizon. According to reported election records between March of 2008 and September of 2010, the Committee to Elect Masiarz State Senate received contributions totaling $26,500 from the two personcorporations.
Language Counts-Media and the Art of Influence
From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
The art of influence exists everywhere from the front pages and newsy teasers grabbing at us from every niche, to the shadowed recesses of the moments between moments on the video and internets tubes. Influence comes to us in the classroom, the workplace, the local barroom and the convivial kitchen table coffee klatches. We cannot be free of influence.
We experience this influence in all forms of the media. This public marketplace transcends mere advertising, which while on the surface may seem to occupy certain well-defined spaces, it does not.
We are saturated in media and messaging that attempts to inform our every waking and sleeping moment. This highly nuanced agenda setting works.
Fortunately, resistance is not futile. We, each of us, have the ability to think critically. In that fundamental context, language counts. Our critical thinking skills are informed by language. Language inspires learning, thinking, and action. Critical thinking is not a lost art. We can do this. This is fundamentally what humans do.
The Hidden Hands
Frank Luntz is someone that we should all know about. His job is to influence what you think. Luntz is a political pollster cum phraseologist who wrote earlier this year: “Words matter. The most powerful words have helped to launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.”
Luntz should know. His career as a consultant to Republicans focusing on messaging has been in the forefront of American thinking for over 2 decades. His expertise is in testing words and phrases that help his clients sell idea products and influence public opinion. Lets change that wording. He does not so much “influence” public opinion as he “creates” public opinion. Words count.
Early in Luntz’s career he worked with Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Western New York’s Bill Paxon, Tom Delay, John Boehner, and the conservative Heritage Foundation to help craft the 1994 “Contract With America”. This document, which was often called the “Contract On America” by an outgunned democratic political apparatchik, helped the republicans gain a historic Congressional majority. It catapulted Gingrich to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now that that Newton is resurgent, Luntz’s work will continues to shape our opinions.
One of the early phrases that Luntz coined was “death tax”. Prior to Luntz’s language engineering it had been called the relatively ambivalent sounding “estate tax”. This allowed the government to collect a fee from property inheritors in order to cover public expenses such as filing and paperwork to insure orderly transitions of property. The wealthy class considered this an unfair burden and launched a campaign to transfer this responsibility to the general public.
The phrase “death tax” evoked a powerful emotional and primordial image that sparked voter resentment.
It worked. According to James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60-Plus Association- “Republicans employed the term “death tax” so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon”. It changed thinking and the political landscape.
Media makers including reporters and news editors consistently employed the phrase uncritically. This is one of the fundamental successes of Luntz’s social engineering strategies. The designed attitude adjustments created by the language engineering has been used to fortify the somewhat undemocratic “don’t tax the rich” meme that runs deeply through the furrowed channels of contemporary politics.
The anti-tax movement, couched in the vapors of the fragrant greases of accusations that taxing the wealthy is in fact “class warfare” inspired by social justice leaders, is financed by the likes of the fabulously rich Koch Brothers. Their media message money has paid off. Today America remains tightly bound in the gridlock characterized by political blood feuds pitting “no taxes” v. “cut social spending” programs.
Language counts here. Important social programs that uphold quality of life for most Americans have been characterized as “entitlements”. That carefully crafted word has invaded our ability to reason. Now it prejudicially occupies our minds regarding every social program extant, proposed, or considered. It consumes us with the profound implication that people are getting something for nothing. In fact programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that have been paid for over a lifetime of investments by the recipients. Most programs that are designed to improve quality of life including education, health care, and a vast variety of employment and social services are bought and paid for by decades of the blood sweat and tears of the taxpayers. Our society has built these important social systems and this sets us apart from many other societies across the globe. This is the kind of American Exceptionalism that counts. These social systems that provide access to quality of life for all people make societies around the world want to be like us and not hate us. This is the shining light that people will come to, to replicate, to make the world a better place for all of humanity. Implying that ANY programs that improve the quality of life for humanity is “getting something for nothing” is a shameless, disingenuous, and unambiguous strike against the 99%. It is a false equivalency that promulgates class warfare. And it works.
The free market fundamentalists use the entitlements platform to argue oxymoronically that while corporations are people, they should not pay taxes like most people. They assert that the wealthy class should not pay taxes because these kinds of expenses prohibit the profits for the 1% and that those profits will trickle down to the 99%. Will Rogers may have created the “trickle down” phrase, but former WNY Congressman Jack Kemp famously used it to great effect. Kemp may have misunderstood Roger’s intent because whenever I hear it, looking up involves getting some of that nasty trickle splashed on my face. I want a better life for my children.
Reformist voices on the other side of the coin represent that everyone including the wealthy, should “pay their fair share”. Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive thinker, advocates for economic policies that that assert that no one in America has become wealthy on their own. No one should be excluded from paying a fair share of taxes. Warren makes the point that the 99% are significant tax-paying investors, fought for and died for our freedoms, and took all the risks to create opportunities for money to grow for the 1%.
She points out that taxpayer investments have allowed massive public spending including the building of infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water access, and the power grid.
What about “corporate entitlements”? TARP, and Wall Street and bank bailouts recently revealed to exceed $8 trillion are astonishing expenditures born on the backs of American taxpayers. What did the 99% get in return? Little access to wealth, no jobs, declining education, declining quality of life, decades of war, global depravation, and environmental destruction embodied in such things as catastrophic climate change.
Speaking of war, public spending for the military is one of the greatest creators of private wealth in the history of the world. This kind of closeted socialism of moving public wealth to the private sector are paid for in blood and taxes by the 99%, and create massive profits for the 1%.
The simple yet powerful reduction of complicated economic political theories to “trickle down” and to the next generation of phrases such “job creators” is incredibly deceptive. Deeper critical analysis almost always leads to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy class do not lead to genuine job creation. Real, “on the ground jobs” that are “trickling down” are leading to a brave new world of lower wages, reduced benefits, less education, and the elimination of the middle class. America is beginning to look like the third world country. At the same time the corporate economy is booming and private wealth is skyrocketing. Shouldn’t the equation creating the third world be the other way around? Shouldn’t a rising tide raise all boats? I guess we all need boats. Not that we are entitled to them, but given our generations of investments, maybe we can find a way to have better access to boats that float.
Next time- A Profile of the Job Creators.
-by Jay Burney
The art of influence exists everywhere from the front pages and newsy teasers grabbing at us from every niche, to the shadowed recesses of the moments between moments on the video and internets tubes. Influence comes to us in the classroom, the workplace, the local barroom and the convivial kitchen table coffee klatches. We cannot be free of influence.
We experience this influence in all forms of the media. This public marketplace transcends mere advertising, which while on the surface may seem to occupy certain well-defined spaces, it does not.
We are saturated in media and messaging that attempts to inform our every waking and sleeping moment. This highly nuanced agenda setting works.
Fortunately, resistance is not futile. We, each of us, have the ability to think critically. In that fundamental context, language counts. Our critical thinking skills are informed by language. Language inspires learning, thinking, and action. Critical thinking is not a lost art. We can do this. This is fundamentally what humans do.
The Hidden Hands
Frank Luntz is someone that we should all know about. His job is to influence what you think. Luntz is a political pollster cum phraseologist who wrote earlier this year: “Words matter. The most powerful words have helped to launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.”
Luntz should know. His career as a consultant to Republicans focusing on messaging has been in the forefront of American thinking for over 2 decades. His expertise is in testing words and phrases that help his clients sell idea products and influence public opinion. Lets change that wording. He does not so much “influence” public opinion as he “creates” public opinion. Words count.
Early in Luntz’s career he worked with Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Western New York’s Bill Paxon, Tom Delay, John Boehner, and the conservative Heritage Foundation to help craft the 1994 “Contract With America”. This document, which was often called the “Contract On America” by an outgunned democratic political apparatchik, helped the republicans gain a historic Congressional majority. It catapulted Gingrich to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now that that Newton is resurgent, Luntz’s work will continues to shape our opinions.
One of the early phrases that Luntz coined was “death tax”. Prior to Luntz’s language engineering it had been called the relatively ambivalent sounding “estate tax”. This allowed the government to collect a fee from property inheritors in order to cover public expenses such as filing and paperwork to insure orderly transitions of property. The wealthy class considered this an unfair burden and launched a campaign to transfer this responsibility to the general public.
The phrase “death tax” evoked a powerful emotional and primordial image that sparked voter resentment.
It worked. According to James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60-Plus Association- “Republicans employed the term “death tax” so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon”. It changed thinking and the political landscape.
Media makers including reporters and news editors consistently employed the phrase uncritically. This is one of the fundamental successes of Luntz’s social engineering strategies. The designed attitude adjustments created by the language engineering has been used to fortify the somewhat undemocratic “don’t tax the rich” meme that runs deeply through the furrowed channels of contemporary politics.
The anti-tax movement, couched in the vapors of the fragrant greases of accusations that taxing the wealthy is in fact “class warfare” inspired by social justice leaders, is financed by the likes of the fabulously rich Koch Brothers. Their media message money has paid off. Today America remains tightly bound in the gridlock characterized by political blood feuds pitting “no taxes” v. “cut social spending” programs.
Language counts here. Important social programs that uphold quality of life for most Americans have been characterized as “entitlements”. That carefully crafted word has invaded our ability to reason. Now it prejudicially occupies our minds regarding every social program extant, proposed, or considered. It consumes us with the profound implication that people are getting something for nothing. In fact programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that have been paid for over a lifetime of investments by the recipients. Most programs that are designed to improve quality of life including education, health care, and a vast variety of employment and social services are bought and paid for by decades of the blood sweat and tears of the taxpayers. Our society has built these important social systems and this sets us apart from many other societies across the globe. This is the kind of American Exceptionalism that counts. These social systems that provide access to quality of life for all people make societies around the world want to be like us and not hate us. This is the shining light that people will come to, to replicate, to make the world a better place for all of humanity. Implying that ANY programs that improve the quality of life for humanity is “getting something for nothing” is a shameless, disingenuous, and unambiguous strike against the 99%. It is a false equivalency that promulgates class warfare. And it works.
The free market fundamentalists use the entitlements platform to argue oxymoronically that while corporations are people, they should not pay taxes like most people. They assert that the wealthy class should not pay taxes because these kinds of expenses prohibit the profits for the 1% and that those profits will trickle down to the 99%. Will Rogers may have created the “trickle down” phrase, but former WNY Congressman Jack Kemp famously used it to great effect. Kemp may have misunderstood Roger’s intent because whenever I hear it, looking up involves getting some of that nasty trickle splashed on my face. I want a better life for my children.
Reformist voices on the other side of the coin represent that everyone including the wealthy, should “pay their fair share”. Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive thinker, advocates for economic policies that that assert that no one in America has become wealthy on their own. No one should be excluded from paying a fair share of taxes. Warren makes the point that the 99% are significant tax-paying investors, fought for and died for our freedoms, and took all the risks to create opportunities for money to grow for the 1%.
She points out that taxpayer investments have allowed massive public spending including the building of infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water access, and the power grid.
What about “corporate entitlements”? TARP, and Wall Street and bank bailouts recently revealed to exceed $8 trillion are astonishing expenditures born on the backs of American taxpayers. What did the 99% get in return? Little access to wealth, no jobs, declining education, declining quality of life, decades of war, global depravation, and environmental destruction embodied in such things as catastrophic climate change.
Speaking of war, public spending for the military is one of the greatest creators of private wealth in the history of the world. This kind of closeted socialism of moving public wealth to the private sector are paid for in blood and taxes by the 99%, and create massive profits for the 1%.
The simple yet powerful reduction of complicated economic political theories to “trickle down” and to the next generation of phrases such “job creators” is incredibly deceptive. Deeper critical analysis almost always leads to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy class do not lead to genuine job creation. Real, “on the ground jobs” that are “trickling down” are leading to a brave new world of lower wages, reduced benefits, less education, and the elimination of the middle class. America is beginning to look like the third world country. At the same time the corporate economy is booming and private wealth is skyrocketing. Shouldn’t the equation creating the third world be the other way around? Shouldn’t a rising tide raise all boats? I guess we all need boats. Not that we are entitled to them, but given our generations of investments, maybe we can find a way to have better access to boats that float.
Next time- A Profile of the Job Creators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)