Deadbeat… You assume that ethics would be contrary to the interest of privately owned companies. I do not agree.

Journalistic ethics has always been a problem with privately owned companies. You can go back and see cartoons from the early part of the 20th century that has the newspaper editor dress as a bride getting married to the advertisers dressed as a groom. I’m not assuming that ethic and private ownership is contradictory and stating unequivocally that they are.

Also I am not implying that the Internet is availible to all although many public libraries has Internet access. I have a homeless friend who is quite capable of sending email this way. What I am saying is that the Left cannot count on the oligarch domination of the newspaper and TV industry to get its message across. They are going to have to find other means.

Private companies that own newspapers have editorial rights. That right should be respected. Every newspaper has the right to print, or not print, anything it wants. That is not the issue. The issue is the lack of journalistic ethics. Ethics are not required by law – or are they? If any individual interfered with the electoral process in such an extreme way that it influenced the outcome of an election, would it be acceptable?

The aforementioned by Ms. Jackowski is contradictory. How can there be journalistic ethics with newspapers privately owned by oligarchs? Trying to get the oligarchs to go against their interest seem futile to me. It is going to take time for people to adjust to different and alternative sources of information.

The youth seem to do that during the Obama campaign through the use of the Internet and their cell phones. The Left has to become more savvy at using new and creative outlets.

A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO2 does not help, because of the long lifetime of
atmospheric CO2. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to
continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left
in the ground or used in a way such that the CO2 can be captured and safely sequestered.

Tax and 100% dividend. A “carbon tax with 100 percent dividend” is required for
reversing the growth of atmospheric CO2. The tax, applied to oil, gas and coal at the mine or
port of entry, is the fairest and most effective way to reduce emissions and transition to the
post fossil fuel era. It would assure that unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar shale and tar
sands, stay in the ground, unless an economic method of capturing the CO2 is developed.

Beware of alternative approaches, such as ‘percent emission reduction goals’ and ‘cap
and trade’. These are subterfuges designed to allow business-as-usual to continue, under a
pretense of action, a greenwashing. Hordes of lobbyists will argue for these approaches,
which assure their continued employment. The ineffectiveness of ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ is made
blatantly obvious by the fact that the countries promoting them are planning to build more
coal-fired power plants. Hansen.

I am already reading many who say cap and trade may not get passed not because it will not work but because the people who stand to lose the most money make the most money. So the plan that Hansen has using math that helped unlock many of the Universes secrets and not the math used on Wall Street what chance does that have and of course they will yell socialism. Of course what we have seen the last few months is socialism for the people who make the most money. There is probably only one way and that is organize and make your voice heard. Easy to say hard to do. Some money is needed nonviolence is key it will not work any other way. Where to start well DV looks like a good place who is the best organizer or who has done it before. The point of course is to tell the policy makers you know and the time is now. Think Frank

The greatest trick these guys pull is getting folks to believe that as they’re acting in the interests of the incestous power configuration they belong to, that they are somehow being “liberal”. It’s to the point where so called liberals defend them from accusations from the right. Where do folks buying into this think their opinions are being formulated if not the media?

How often have you been accused of being a ditto head for bringing up scoundrels who served under Clinton?

Anyways, Thanks for your fight and good luck pissing them off if you can’t get them to think