What Pennsylvania had the good sense to do that the rest of you haven't figured out

Would you vote for someone running for president if he said some of the following things? For now let’s call him Mister X. 

Mister X referred to schools as “factories,” and argued that they are a tragic blip on the historical radar. After the Industrial Revolution, Mister X said  “people came off the farms where they did homeschool or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools.” He added: “The idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic.”

Mister X said “We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,”  Mister X then went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”

 Mister X continued on the subject of global warming “When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government,”

Mister X said regarding birth control "It's not okay, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

In his book It Takes a Family, Mr. X called "mass education" an "aberration," writing, "It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

Mister X said “There are no Palestinians, All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis.  There are no Palestinians.  This is Israeli land,".

Mister X said "President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob ... Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”

Mister X on the Crusades "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

Mister X on same sex marriage  "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" "What about three men?" "If you think it's OK for two, you have to differentiate for me why you're not OK with three. Any two people, or any three, or four."  "That's not to pick on homosexuality," Mister X said in another interview. "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," he said.

Mister X said “Mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.”

Mister X said that this year’s election was like the time between 1940 and 1941 when Americans didn’t act against Adolf Hitler because they thought he was “a nice guy” and not “near as bad as what we think.” “It’s going to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s no cataclysmic event,” he explained, but similar urgency. “Is anybody reminding us who we are, what made us great, and what these assaults are all about?”

I am sure you have figured out by now that Mr. X is none other than Rick Santorum. Maybe you hadn’t seen all of the above quotes.

 Now I get that Republicans are frustrated and I get the lack of love for Mitt Romney.  With all his money and the extensive political machine that has been in place for years he can’t shake Rick loose. I get that Republicans love Jesus more than Democrats. And no one loves Jesus more than Rick. Heck I love Jesus too (see my previous blog) but I haven’t lost my mind.  The good people of Pennsylvania had the sense to vote Santorum out of office.  In the November 7, 2006 Senate election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980. Come on people, draft Jeb or Christy or dig up the Gipper you can’t seriously elect someone who believes that God will replenish the earth after we ruin it or government shouldn’t be running schools or that birth control is wrong.  Do we need to have the good people of Pennsylvania to slap some sense into us? 

Jesus is alright with me (it’s just you he’s not sure about)

Actually that’s not really true; I have no idea what Jesus thinks about you. How would I or anyone else for that matter. I was raised Catholic and am currently an atheist. But recently, and no thanks to the words and actions of certain Christians, I have been considering my own spiritual beliefs. I’ll get to that later but for now I want to talk about that group of Christians.

Dammit Jim I'm a blogger not a Theologian

I know I am on thin ice here talking about Jesus but I know a lot of people (my son included) who believe in Jesus as their savior and follow his teachings. I see their commitment to Jesus’ value system and instructions regarding the treatment of the poor.

“Overall, Jesus talks about mercy to those weaker and needier than oneself 24 times, tells people not to judge others 34 times, tells people to love and forgive even their enemies 53 times, tells people to love their neighbors as themselves and treat others like you would want to be treated 19 times, and tells people to help the poor and/or spurn riches and the wealthy 128 times.” 

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/what-bible-is-santorum-treading_b_1288094.html).

It’s also hard not to notice a group of Christians who through their actions and words either do not appear to focus on the above aspects of Jesus’ teachings or somehow they have a different understanding. It seems that in defense of “conservative principles” they often quote from the Old Testament to support their beliefs. The Old and New Testaments seem very different to me. I will quote Mike Lux again to help me with my point.

“Conservative Christians' primary argument regarding Jesus and politics is that all he cared about was spiritual matters and an individual's relationship with God. As a result, they say, all those references from Jesus about helping the poor relate only to private charity, not to society as a whole. Their belief is that Jesus, and the New Testament in general, is focused on one thing and one thing only: how do people get into heaven.

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his. How much he was involved with or interested in the political situation of the day is a matter of much debate and interpretation. Some say it was a lot and others that it was pretty limited or, as conservatives would say, not at all. However, much of a priority or focus it was, though, if you actually read the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit. Old Testament – animal sacrifice, masturbation, trashing gay people, and hanging out with women who are menstruating. New Testament But mercy, kindness, and concern for the poor and the weak and the outcast seems to matter a lot more, with literally several hundred verses referencing those agenda items. If you are a progressive, that is a pretty good ratio.”

I have seen it written that Jesus never condemned homosexuality or abortion for that matter.  Obviously there were issues of his time – perhaps his message of forgiveness or not judging covered those topics? Just saying? He certainly wasn’t taking up the cause for the job creators was he?

I am pretty unsure about Jesus’ DNA but I can’t see the harm in following his teachings or Gandhi or Buddha for that matter.

Ray Wylie Hubbard - awesome Texas songwriter

"Buddha was not a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist." –from the song “Conversation with the Devil” by Ray Wylie Hubbard

That we, as the collective us – we are the government, do we really want to pass the buck on who feeds the poor or provide help to the less fortunate? How does that fit in with the words of the great teachers? Tell that to the next homeless person you see, or the father who lost his job and can't feed his children. "Sorry man, you shouldn't get help from the big bad government. You should get it from the people individually.

Back to my own spirituality issue – lately I have been wondering about the existence of some “omni” like being. Not for the need for any organized religion but just whether there is a God. I’m sure Jesus lived I just sure not sure about his DNA. A dear friend of mine (BFBF) suggested considering Pascal’s wager as a good place to start.

Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that since the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason, but since in his view there was much to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist), a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly).

I appreciated BFBF’s support and I am not sure where my spiritual journey will take me but I will turn to Mike Lux again for ending this post.

“I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn't going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I'll be there with a lot of my favorite people”.

How we lost our focus on Global Warming or: How I learned to stop worrying and love Venus

A brief introduction - one of my favorite posters on this site and a friend of mine is Medina64. He has demonstrated his knowledge and passion on many topics but clearly has an wealth of knowledge on Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming - AGW. I thought it would be informative and beneficial to get him to share his thoughts with all of us. Thanks M64!

OK, here is my response to COD’s call for AGW guest blogs. I’m not going to talk about the technical aspects of AGW - IPCC, RealClimate, Tamino, and, of course, Jim Hansen (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ) do that infinitely better than I could.  Instead, I want to talk about how we lost our focus on AGW. 

First, some context.  The IPCC has said that we should limit CO2 to no more than 450 ppm and this was the generally accepted thought until about 5 or 6 years ago when Hansen and his colleagues began investigating in detail the effects of allowing CO2 to reach that level. Part of the impetus behind this was that the last time we had that much CO2 in the atmosphere was about 50 million years ago, when it was much warmer and there were no polar ice caps. The results of these investigations are summarized here, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 , and in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren”. The conclusions are, broadly, that at 450 ppm we risk crossing a tipping point from which we will not be able to retreat and which will have severe consequences for both human civilization and the biosphere in general - we have all evolved to live in much different conditions that will exist at 450 ppm. Furthermore, if we continue to burn coal, oil, gas, and tap into the Athabascan tar sands, consequently pushing CO2 concentration well above 450 ppm, there is a significant, non-zero, probability that the Earth could become like Venus, essentially wiping out all life on the planet. For reference, we are currently at 392 ppm and are going up at 3 ppm/yr.  Therefore, for people with young kids or grandchildren, it is very likely that those kids will be confronted with the changes associated with CO2 at or above 450 ppm. That thought was the main impetus for Hansen to write his first and only book.

With that context, how did we get to this point? When Hansen gave his now famous talk before Congress in 1988 it seemed like we were going to get our shit together and face this problem (note, LBJ mentioned the need to do something about AGW in a message to Congress in 1965). The story of why change was stalled is told in http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ .  Essentially there were a handful of very good scientists: Fred Seitz – physicist and former president of the National Academy of Science, Fred Singer – physicist and a leader in the development of the first weather satellites, William Nierenberg – physicist and onetime head of the Scripps Institute, and Robert Jastrow – physicist and one time head of Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All had worked on Cold War projects and Seitz, Nierenberg, and Jastrow had worked on the atomic bomb during WW II.  For various reasons, these guys were pissed off – a lot of it had to do with the opposition that occurred to Star Wars, some of it was personal friction with other scientists, and some of it was the feeling that the country was being taken over by people who didn’t understand Communism or the importance of the Cold War. They then recruited others with similar feelings. The fight began with denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer (to this day, leading climate denier and brilliant scientist Richard Lindzen says that it has not been proven that cigarettes cause cancer), then moved on to denying that coal burning causes acid rain, that CFCs were causing holes in the ozone layer, that second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer, that global warming is real, and are now involved in attacking Rachel Carson and saying that DDT is not a problem. 

Denial started out for reasons of ego, pride, and being pissed at others but as time went on, and the big money began to flow, and there was an economic incentive to do it also. Early in cigarette/cancer fight, the strategy adopted was to attack the science and scientists behind the claims, even though the tobacco companies themselves had proven in the early 60’s that cigarettes cause cancer. This strategy was refined as time went on and applied to all subsequent fights. OK, at this point, those who have kept reading are probably wondering how I keep my tin hat on when the wind is blowing and when am I going to start talking about the New World Order. In response, I ask you to go to http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ which is the Legacy Tobacco Document Library (LTDL) which was formed to house and maintain internal documents obtained during the lawsuits that occurred against the seven major tobacco companies.  Do some or all of the following searches:

• Global warming – Why the fuck are there hundreds of docs in the LTDL concerned with AGW?  Turns out the tobacco industry was also a large funder of AGW denial.
• The names of the above scientists – look at some of what they authored and proposed.
• “A Challenge to Scientific Judgment” – written in 94, note one of the coauthors is Sallie Baliunas, a noted AGW denier who has had to eat her words on several occasions. In this doc we learn that asbestos is fine for brakes, acid rain is not a problem, we need to loosen pesticide regulations, PCBs aren’t a problem, AGW is BS, and there is no problem with the ozone layer.
• “Bad Science A Resource Book” – this was a pamphlet put together by the tobacco companies that essentially laid out templates for attacking the science behind second hand smoke/cancer.  The templates require little change to refer to AGW. 

All right, I’m almost done. What is the issue here? A core group of scientists (with no expertise in many of the fields they were publicly attacking those who did) created a denial methodology based on attacking legitimate science and scientists in order to achieve their goals. In my opinion, one of the unintended consequences of this has been to diminish scientific credibility in the public’s eye. That is not good.  But I also think it shows how we as humans behave, we are not rational, we operate on motives that, after a while, are probably not clear even to us, and if we repeat incorrect shit over and over we begin to believe it ourselves.  This has been true throughout history (http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1 ), Einstein got death threats over relativity and cancelled talks because of them, in the mid 18^th century a guy made his living debating astronomers all over England claiming the earth was flat – and winning in the public eye, or for today’s equivalent go to http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/ . In the past, science has eventually won out – with AGW it is not clear who will win, nature is a tough competitor. Carl Sagan famously said that probably the reason we have not received any alien broadcasts after years of searching is that once a species is advanced enough to do that it is advanced enough to destroy itself, and probably does.

Vincent Cocotti and Global Warming

We can go back and forth all day on the daily shenanigans of politics debating whether corporations are people my friend or whether you would ever want to live in a state where the standing governor refers to an entire group of job applicants as either on drugs or illiterate.  

We are merely repeating a process as ancient and as acrimonious as when Plato insulted Socrates by saying he looked like Charles Krauthammer. We will continue to have political discourse and debate until we crawl back into the oceans from whence we came or if you believe otherwise, until God un-Adam and Eves us.

 What we should be able to say without debate is whether Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) actually exists but unfortunately the debate appears to continue. 

Google “man made global warming” and see what comes up.

First link is http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ - is from Dr Roy W. Spencer - “This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”  

The next link http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-global-warming-fears-dead/41257  claims “a forthcoming Climate Depot A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-made global warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is "worse than we thought." 

It is not until the fifth link that we see concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.”

So here is my problem – I am not a meteorologist nor an climatologist nor do I have a Dr. before my name.  I’ve read about AGW but no where near enough to be any kind of expert. But given the amount of information available and the stakes at hand you have to form an opinion. 

My belief are based on two things – 1. If you put enough stuff in the toilet it is going to overflow and  2. You want to avoid the worst thing that can happen.

Number 1 the “toilet” - according to the Union of Concerned Scientists burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

Now with scientists, funny group that they are, data should be data except when people take leave of their senses and try to push an agenda like the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia.

Like the character Vincent Cocotti said in the movie True Romance  “Woulda got away with it, but your son, fuckhead that he is, left his driver's license in a dead guy's hand.”. So would have the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia had they not left a bunch of emails in a dead guys’ hand. It resulted in a huge backlash on the position of AGW and cast doubt on the scientific research that supported it.  But support of AGW has since rebounded and the number of AGW voices have increased.

Number 2 - what is the worst thing that can happen – if we take action  to reduce AGW (if it is not to late) there will be a significant effect (some say dramatic) on the world’s economy. Now tanking the economy is bad – bad wrong for that matter but when compared to the effects of global warming; dangerous weather patterns, unstable agriculture and economy, effects on animals; a world we could potentially leave for our children.  Now that is just unacceptable.  No can do. 

I was motivated to write this blog by comments left during previous posts that referenced  global warming – I extend an offer to those more knowledgeable than me to use this as a forum.  The comment section is too restrictive – write a blog and I will post it here as a guest post. 

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates

High Heels and Healthcare

I have no idea what they are protesting.

A lot of people and institutions are up in arms over a new Health & Human Services rule that will require some Catholic institutions, such as universities and hospitals, to cover employees' contraceptive costs. Some claim it is an attack on religious freedom, others an attack on women's rights.

There are a couple of things to consider here. Religious organizations are to some degree state/federally funded organizations. Their tax-exempt status means they receive services and benefits funded from taxes you and I pay. Just from that fact alone, they should be forced to follow government guidelines. The same logic would apply to drug testing politicians that want to drug test welfare recipients. I am okay with fair.

 Healthcare should not be used as a tool by any organization based on selected beliefs. Should PETA be allowed to have provisions in their healthcare that does not allow for certain coverages? Say for brain damage caused by having a giant bite from a 3 lb burger block your airway for a few minutes? Healthcare may not be a universal right (it should be but just trying to avoid that argument for now) but the coverage should be universal. 

Anyone with medical insurance can choose not to use contraceptives. That should be the decision of the insured and not controlled by the Church or any business for that matter. Healthcare should not be a cafeteria-like option where employers would dictate employee options. The options should be the same for everyone and everyone should get to make their own choices. A recent report (Guttmacher Institute) shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. So clearly the congregation is not in step with the Catholic hierarchy.

If the argument is based on the morality of funding something a person/organization would be morally opposed to, then what about any number of activities funded by our tax dollars like the Iraq War or Iran Contra affair or authorized interrogation practices that are illegal under U.S. and international law that many including myself strongly disagree with?
It is clear that the major religions are male dominated. There is a long history of ongoing female oppression. I for one would like to see what women would do if they held the power. What would the Catholic Church’s position be if not only did the pope wear a funny hat, but had a nice pair of heels to match?  

Trump endorses Romney and the flying Dirigible gets renamed

Let me begin with a personal disclosure - I will own up to having a long-standing dislike of Trump going to the mid-80’s when he burst onto the NY real estate market and was a shameless self-promoter.  I thought he was a soulless, aggrandizing pompous ass then and he has done nothing to change my mind.  When Trump seemed to fade away in the early 90’s as his empire crumbled, over $900 million in debt, and  bankruptcy. I thought it was a clear repudiation of his failed business practices and I was happy to see him go away.  

But somehow, to my great dismay,  Trump re-injected himself into the mainstream playing himself on TV.   In 1999 he began to inject himself into the world of politics – talking out of both sides of his mouth as he donated money to both Kerry and Bush.  Since then his political contributions include questioning Obama’s birthplace and flip-flopping on issues.  According to an article in Newsweek by Howard Kurtz.

“Trump declared in 2000 that “we must have universal health care”; now he says Obamacare is unconstitutional. He once pronounced himself “strongly pro-choice” but recently discovered that, guess what, he’s pro-life. Obama was “amazing” and “phenomenal,” Trump wrote in 2009; now, not so much. And while Newt Gingrich is branded an adulterer, Trump conducted a tabloid-frenzy affair with Marla Maples, the second of his three wives.”

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

While endorsing Romney,  Trump claimed “ I have a great relationship, as you know, with the Tea Party folks. I mean, I love the Tea Party…..I have a great relationship with the entire Christian Coalition. I have amazing friendships in that whole group. And I love them and I respect them.”

What aspects of the Christian Coalition does Donald exemplify?  Shouldn’t the Coalition be objecting to someone like Trump?  Does anyone think Trump lives his life with Christian values - can we take any of this seriously? 

The Tea Party and Donald?  Exactly what points of convergence are there between Trump and the Tea Party.   According to a story in the L.A. Times “top issues among the self-identified Tea Party followers are jobs/the economy and the exploding federal deficit.”  Does anyone think Trump’s business practices of repeated bankruptcies hasn’t contributed to the federal deficit by fleecing banks? ABC News reports that Trump businesses have actually gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times - in 1991, 1992, 2004 and most recently in 2009. Trump used the government and abused the system to further his own end. 

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250#.Ty7KqsWXSRg

"I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on 'The Apprentice.' It's not personal. It's just business,"  Maybe that's part of what's wrong with the country - it's just business.

Doug Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said Trump is the "most egregious, almost comical example" of the disparity between what the average American faces when going through bankruptcy and the "ease with which the very rich can move in and out of bankruptcy."
Lawrence O’Donnell of MNBC referred to Trump as "lying vulgarian" who inflates his wealth and embarks on garish rounds of self-promotion in order to boost the ratings for his show.
I think there should be more people willing to stand up and say the truth.  Trump was running his mouth saying that he may be a presidential candidate - has being the President of the United States fallen so low that a huckster like Trump can be a credible candidate.

Trump Hotels& Casino Resorts, the publicly held firm, which owns gambling joints in Atlantic City and Indiana, has lost $170 million since 1996. Its stock, now trading at $6, has tumbled 83 percent from a high of $35 three years ago. The company, saddled with $2 billion in long-term debt, is often mocked by online sites like The Motley Fool and TheStreet.com. The website “thesmokinggun.com” found buried in a March 31 SEC filing that despite these financial woes, THCR has loaned Trump, the firm's chairman, a whopping $24.5 million and even gave the supposed billionaire an advance on his entire 1999 salary and expense account (another $1.5 million). www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/trump-and-crook-0

Self-aggrandizing blowhard – Donald Trump.   Now if you want a symbol of what’s wrong with America – we can start there.

If we feel the need to find people to look up to in business why don’t we use the Harris Interactive RQ Study, which measures the reputations of the 60 Most Visible Companies in the U.S.  In its most recent poll  Google ranked highest, supplanting Berkshire Hathaway, which falls to the 4th position. Johnson & Johnson ranked second again, followed by 3M Company at 3rd. Apple continues a steady rise begun in 2002, ranking 5th, as its corporate reputation catches up with its elite brand status.  Or how about in Social Responsibility - 1) Whole Foods Market; 2) Johnson & Johnson; 3) Google; 4) The Walt Disney Company; 5) Procter & Gamble Co. 

I don’t see Trump’s name up there but if you use the search engine from highly respected Google you can find plenty of stories about individuals who have been royally screwed by Donald Trump.

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

or if you want to have some fun with it.

www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-believe-are-true/
I feel bad now knocking Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin in my last blog.  Count Von Zeppelin was the inventor of the dirigible or "lighter-than-air aircraft" - kind of a hot air balloon if you like.  We shouldn't have called them Zeppelins we should have called them "Trumps".

The Trump explodes over Washington

 Oh, the humanity! And all the VOTERS screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. 

Solyndra and Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin

A pretty cool name ruined by a shitty design

Like Zepplin, Crapper or Steely Dan, the name Solyndra will live in infamy, a symbol to some of the Obama administration’s overall failures.  Now maybe it is a stretch to say Thomas Crapper's name will live in infamy but I would not be sure how else to describe what they did to his name. The poor bastard didn't even invent the flush toilet. 

Just a shitty name ruined by a good idea

But back to Solyndra - I hadn't followed the story very much and only heard snippets which included accusations against the Obama administration, financial contributors and the company itself.  

Today I heard a story on NPR’s “Fresh Air”, Washington Post environmental correspondent Juliet Eilperin explaining  how and why the clean-tech industry boom hit a wall. (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146280685/clean-tech-industry-facing-lean-times-after-solyndra). Solyndra was of course included.

And just a cool name for a shitty band

Her report prompted me to look into the story a little more.  Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of CIGS thin-film solar cells.  The CIGS cells were meant to compete and replace the more costly silicon panels that are currently in use.   Two things were responsible for the downfall of Zepplin, I mean Solyndra.  One was  the dramatic drop in the price of natural gas (fracking) since 2008, down 75% from its high, thereby lowering the incentive to invest in alternative energies like Solyndra.  The second item was the drop in the price of silicon, the very material Solyndra’s business model was based on replacing.  In 2009 things began to spiral down for Crapper I mean Solyndra.  In 2008 silicon for solar cells cost 450 bucks a kilo on the spot market.  In 2009 it was closer to 100 and projections were if you waited a month it may be cheaper still.   As of 2011 prices for immediate delivery fell to an average $50 to $53 a kilogram as demand dropped after European nations slashed clean-power subsidies according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data.

Solyndra bankruptcy and the governments financial backing has become the poster child for Obama’s failures and has negatively impacted other alternative energies going forward.

Two fundraisers for Obama were linked to Solyndra LLC, the California solar company that received a $528 million federal loan and then later declared bankruptcy, prompting a federal investigation. Steve Spinner, an Energy Department adviser, raised at least $500,000 and Steve Westly, a venture capitalist who was an unpaid adviser to the department, raised between $200,000 and $500,000.

Listening to Juliet Eilperin’s story I am not so sure there the criminal accusations being made are entirely correct.  In looking into the story a bit more it seems the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.  It has been said that the Bush administration tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.  The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.

The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years. 

And that about wraps it up for future alternative energy....

It appears that there is plenty of shame to go around – there was evidence Solydra’s realized that it was in trouble while still touting its chances for success to government officials.  

To me the shame in this story is the negative impact on alternative energies going forward. 

Below is a timeline published by Climate Progress and verified by Department of Energy officials - that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

·       May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

·       July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

·       February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

·       December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

·       Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

·       October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

·       November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

·       January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

·       March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

·       June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

·       September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years - not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be "scored." OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

·       November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month - on time and on budget - employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

·       February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company - which was a going concern - for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

·       March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

·       September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.