Yeah, okay, but what makes me very nervous is that he still seems to be equivocating as if there is any question at all about the devastating environmental impacts of the whole deal. He should be calling "bullshit" on the pipeline in the strongest possible terms naming both the danger the physical pipeline itself poses AND how proceeding with the project so seriously represents a climate change point of no return(which we may be reaching anyway).

The one thing Obama is particularly good at is delivering a compelling narrative. I wish he'd start delivering(and repeating)one on climate change and its obvious connection to the need to get off of fossil fuels(including fracking acquired ones) and onto renewables in a big fucking immediate way. His lack of urgency is beyond maddening.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/28

The indirect jobs will be the in the clean-up crews to deal with the aftermath of the built pipeline.

ok i asked this in the proper thread and did not get an answer...at DU peops said your wyden article is very misleading because

Does anyone really believe he will shut it down? I do not. He has shown himself to be a corporate lackie.

Don't be confused by the "few weeks ago": a few weeks before this interview with Wyden was conducted is when the Obama administration asserted that it had closed the email surveillance program in 2011.

This was widely discussed here back in late June. A Guardian article from June confirms:

"The internet metadata collection program authorized by the Fisa court was discontinued in 2011 for operational and resource reasons and has not been restarted," Shawn Turner, the Obama administration's director of communications for National Intelligence, said in a statement to the Guardian.

"The program was discontinued by the executive branch as the result of an interagency review," Turner continued. He would not elaborate further.

http://www.guardian.co.u...-mining-authorised-obama

Even going by the Cornell study which seems to be the worst case scenario 2000 construction jobs would be helpful to 2000 people in this fifth year of our jobless recovery. Fifty to 100 permanent jobs would be helpful to 50-100 people. I suspect the actual job creation lies somewhere in between the claims of 20k and 2k for construction.

If you are truly concerned about "job creation," WingnutSteve @6, why not focus on green technology, like the solar industry, whose job growth is exponentially greater than the paltry number of jobs that the environmentally destructive dirty energy industry has to offer.

Instead of squandering billions on subsidies for an industry that threatens planetary survival, we could create full employment by widespread, public investment --- public dollars for public good that don't flow to the pockets of the 1% --- in a green environment.

I wish the green environment would create the jobs we need in this country. Whether it's the stubbornness of established industry, inept leadership, or government interference, we've seen recently that the green industry doesn't do what we all hoped it would. Solyndra and Abound Solar, there are several others which have failed in the early stages.

Bottom line in my opinion is we don't have the public money to toss at these enterprises because we can't afford to lose that money due to failure caused by government interference. That's just a hunch on my part. I know green technology is near and dear to the administrations heart, and I bet they're involved over their heads because they don't know fuck all about industry start ups. If the government stays out of the way and lets entrepreneurs do what they do I'm all for your plan Ernie.

Ernie -

It's no longer worth taking Wingnut Steve's troll bait. Either he is a completely disinformed wingnut and doesn't care. Or he's someone's paid tool. Either way, he is no longer worth the time to respond to when he writes shit like that.

Seriously, Steve? Solyndra? "We don't have the public money to toss at these enterprises"? You're really that dumb? It's getting hard to believe. But here's a deal: Since "we don't have the public money to toss at these enterprises", how about we just take all the "public money" we're currently tossing at the most profitably "enterprises" in the history of civilization (the fossil fuel industry) and just give that much to renewable energy industries?

And on the premise you are just that dumb and/or misinformed, I'll also let you know that the government-selected green investments performed WAY better than the average venture capitalist selected investments. But I suspect they don't mention that on Fox. Nor do they let you know that either 50 real jobs or 2000 or 20,000 pretend ones that will help hasten the death of your children and grandchildren isn't really worth "tossing public money" at either. But, again, they don't mention that to ya on Fox, you are not familiar with science, and you don't listen to the Green News Report, so you can't be expected to know much at all.

Now I'm done with feeding the trolls, as its proven to be a complete waste of time for too many years now.

You know Brad, you scratched your head the other day in your fundraising post wondering what you can do to entice more people to donate to the bradblog project. And then a few days later call one of the people who does donate a troll simply because he points out an inconvenient truth, and hell we can't have that here! You can't just disregard facts as being fox news crap because you disagree with the fact. Scratch that, you can because you have 50-60 loyal readers who will agree with virtually everything you say. But you're doing a disservice to them when you do so. When you and Ernie personally attack everyone who posts any comment which doesn't fit your world view you are limiting yourself to very few people in the fundraising game. Expecting mindless agreement to everything you post is unreasonable and boring, and might drive some of those thousands who visit your site daily away. My two cents. I know I know, fox news again. There, I said it for you....

WingnutSteve @ 10 said:

And then a few days later call one of the people who does donate a troll simply because he points out an inconvenient truth, and hell we can't have that here!

Yeah, part of being independent here means no quid pro quo. I thank you greatly for your recent donation. It does not buy special treatment, however. And, yes, that independence is exactly the reason it is difficult for The BRAD BLOG to do its work. There are many who don't care for the fact that we can't be bought.

Now what "truth", inconvenient or otherwise, are you referring to? I didn't notice anything even close to it in your comment @8 to which I was responding.

Expecting mindless agreement to everything you post is unreasonable and boring

I agree. That's why I don't. I always hope for mindful disagreement. That's why I work hard, deleting spammers late into the night, just so I can keep an open comment system here to make it easy for those who may be new or may disagree with me to post their thoughts.

Sometimes I get such mindful disagreement or correction or skepticism or criticism, and it's always welcome. Even you used to offer some of that before your long painful, played out for everyone here who pays attention, slide into full-on wingnut stoogery. Those days, sadly, seem to be long gone. Now you seem to offer little more here than the most long-ago debunked and pre-bunked and re-treaded and boringly substance-free Hannitology.

But you keep choking that Benghazi, IRS, Solyndra, fossil-fuel industry-friendly Republican chicken. Surely some aspect of something you re-type from Pretend World will have actual facts to support it some day. I'm certain of it!

And thank you again.

But you keep choking that Benghazi, IRS, Solyndra, fossil-fuel industry-friendly Republican chicken.

I don't recall ever mentioning Solyndra on this board. I recall one thread quite awhile ago where the subject was Benghazi, I don't recall ever bringing that up as a topic. Rarely have I ever gotten in the middle of any green vs. fossil fuel industry discussion because I am mostly in agreement with you on that topic. I'm quite sure you have the capability at your fingertips to search the archives and prove me wrong, although I'm not even expecting you would try to back up your ridiculous and patently false comment. I have raised the IRS scandal flag numerous times, a scandal which the "fiercely independent Brad" claims to be fake simply because it only effects the people who are considered enemies and therefore not important, or as you put it "not interesting".

No Brad, I don't expect any special treatment. The only thing I expect is a fair shake, and for you to have the journalistic integrity to not make erroneous claims like the one in the previous comment.

WingnutSteve said @ 12:

I have raised the IRS scandal flag numerous times, a scandal which the "fiercely independent Brad" claims to be fake simply because it only effects the people who are considered enemies and therefore not important, or as you put it "not interesting".

Let me be very clear here, Steve. You are welcome to be a dupe for wingnut corporate interests all you like. You are not, and I repeat, not welcome to make up shit I have never said and post it here as fact.

Are we clear about that?

I'm quite sure you know what I said about the pretend IRS "scandal", because I've used several thousand words on it in both articles and in courteously replying to your ridiculous pre-bunked bullshit about it. And I have never said anything even close to it being "not interesting" because "it only effects the people who are considered enemies." In fact, I was among the first in the nation to make the point that the vast majority of those affected by the IRS policy were not identified as "Tea Party"-related groups.

Again. You are welcome to lie about whatever you like, but you are not welcome to lie about what I have said or reported here. Clear?

The only thing I expect is a fair shake, and for you to have the journalistic integrity to not make erroneous claims like the one in the previous comment.

Steven, you have had more than a fair shake. And there was nothing erroneous in my previous comment. Nothing. You have been allowed, much more than I would allow some, to post knowing disinformation over and over again --- largely because I've give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply so misinformed, you don't even know what is horseshit anymore. You have been given every fair shake in the world. And, yes, you just spoke about Solyndra, you have spoken endlessly about the IRS nonsense, and you have spoken about Benghazi. But, in any case, my comment about "you keep choking that chicken" was not about what you have done, it was about what I was encouraging you to keep doing. Keep making an ass of yourself. It's a great reminder of how much work I still need to do, and how easily duped so many folks, like yourself, still are in this country, thanks to a failed corporate MSM who preys on easily conned dupes like yourself.

Okay, Steve,

From your own comment #8--

"Solyndra and Abound Solar, there are several others which have failed in the early stages."

From your own comment #12--

"I don't recall ever mentioning Solyndra on this board."

Here's what I'd like to know. Is Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve one person or several of you?

Cuz if there are really say, four, of you taking turns writing this nonsense it would help explain why "you"(plural)have so much trouble keeping anything straight and why continuity of conversation approaches zero.

Are you an experiment in hydra-trolling?

And therein lies the problem Brad. You are allowed to lie because it's your site, you can spread whatever disinformation you want about me. I on the other hand, can continue to try and make a point with someone so fiercely partisan that he just calls whatever he doesn't want to hear Fox News lies and he knows that the few regulars here are loyal people like David who will lockstep agree with whatever you say. And you can continue to beg people like lockstep David to donate more than they can afford and it will continue to get you nowhere.

You could choose to do the right thing and try using a little integrity. It doesn't hurt anything, except maybe your ego to realize that maybe once Brad Friedman isn't right.

Or, you could continue to be the blogger so detached from reality that even the nuts at thinkprogress.org consider you just another conspiracy theorist. Sadly, it seems you are stubbornly going to stay the reckless course.

Steve @15--

We all project to some extent. You, and others like you(Mark Crispin Miller describes the phenomenon in his book "Cruel and Unusual"), project your own feelings, fears, self-doubts, shortcomings, and idiosyncrasies almost continuously, and apparently with absolutely zero self-awareness that you are doing so. Makes conversation difficult(and often strange and ugly from your side, as again evidenced above), to say the least.

Oh, Steve. So sad. No, being even more petulant doesn't make your argument any more persuasive. Also, I think you may need to look up the word "partisan". I don't think it means what you think it means. If it does, you'll have to let me know which party I am so "fiercely partisan" for. That should be fun.

All of that said, despite your embarrassing unhinged tantrum, you are still welcome to post here. But, like everyone else, you must follow the rules. That includes the rule disallowing knowing disinformation. You charged that I "lie". That wasn't smart. Because I know that I don't. So if you can demonstrate a "lie" of mine, please do. If you can't, you would be wise to apologize and otherwise avoid acting out like that again, or you will end up being added to the "moderate" queue and lose your automatic posting privileges. So choose wisely. Or don't. Your choice, chief.

I stand by everything I said in comment 12 and in comment 15. I don't keep choking the Solyndra, Benghazi, Oil chicken here, have barely mentioned those subjects (if ever), and you saying I keep choking that chicken is a lie. That would be a prime example of the "knowingly spreading disinformation" you continuously accuse me of doing and of my comment that you are allowed to do so because it's your site. You need a moderator to moderate the "moderator". I will never apologize for speaking the truth, that's left wing PC garbage...

Steve -

You chose poorly --- again displaying the embarrassing reading comprehension skills which have earned you your proud position as a happy patsy for the folks who make a very good living by playing you for an absolute fool absolutely every day.

You said @ 18:

I don't keep choking the Solyndra, Benghazi, Oil chicken here, have barely mentioned those subjects (if ever), and you saying I keep choking that chicken is a lie.

...After apparently failing to read and/or understand my previously reply to you @ 13, which includes [emphasis in original]:

my comment about "you keep choking that chicken" was not about what you have done, it was about what I was encouraging you to keep doing. Keep making an ass of yourself. It's a great reminder of how much work I still need to do, and how easily duped so many folks, like yourself, still are in this country, thanks to a failed corporate MSM who preys on easily conned dupes like yourself.

So, apparently you had trouble understanding that graf? Did I use too many large words? Let me know. It's your final chance before you disappear into the moderated queue, where your posts will either be approved for publication, or not --- eventually --- as per the broad discretion and/or convenience of the moderators here. (That's usually the last step before a complete ban. Just FYI. Again, please both read and choose wisely.)