Despair? Hopelessness? Uh Oh.

I distributed the Miller-McCune article: "Why Isn't Climate Change on More Lips?"-  http://bit.ly/vl17wI  - to several very intelligent, very rational people who don't spend much time in the Climate Science world. I asked for feedback about the article and whether it reflected their views.

I'm quoting one of the responses as representative of the general feeling below.

"read it...i think it is right on point. it describes alot of what i personally feel.                            
not so much denial...but the hopelessness. after you know you are going to die, then you
just wait for it. the sense of powerlessness is overwhelming."

Time to work on messaging, doncha think?

Related articles

• PHOTOS: How Do The World's Farmers Adapt To Climate Change? (huffingtonpost.com)
• How To Discuss Climate Change With Your Uncle During The Holidays (huffingtonpost.com)
• Steve Fleischli: Top Water-related Impacts of Climate Change (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rush Limbaugh Named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year (Video) (treehugger.com)

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Abstract

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 49, PAGE 464, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO490014

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)

Published 6 December 2011.

Citation: Schultz, C. (2011), Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(49), 464, doi:10.1029/2011EO490014.

via agu.org

This work does not discount the work due to be presented by Drs Semiletov and Shakhova sometime mid-year next year (2012). While the article from December 6th, above, indicates that the current evolution of methane may be from the condition change 8,000 years ago, it does not mean that we aren't seeing some speed up due to localized warming, similar to stirring or scraping the bottom of a pan on the stove.

Regardless, this problem and the apparent acceleration of methane release has to be added to the efforts to deal with carbon gas emissions. So an increase now is not helping.

Peak Oil - Club Of Rome - Ian Dunlop - YouTube

via youtube.com

A nice infographic about where all that energy comes from at 2GreenEnergy!

As a part of our ongoing quest to produce “infographics” that lay out the basics of energy, I invite you to check out the chart here, presenting the notion that all the energy we harness and use here on Earth came to us indirectly from the Big Bang. Whether we’re talking about nuclear, fossil fuels, or the many different forms of renewables, those forms of energy have been made available to us via one of four different pathways through time and space since that event 13.7 billion years ago.

Tags: alternative energy, Big Bang, biomass, clean energy, geothermal, green energy, Hydrokinetics, ocean thermal, Renewable Energy, solar energy, Tidal Energy, wave energy, Wind Energy

via 2greenenergy.com

Daily Kos: The way conservatives sound to liberals

Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM MST

---

The way conservatives sound to liberals

by sujigu

---

I had a good conversation with a right leaning friend of mine who is leaning libertarian.  He thinks government action always causes negative consequences, but he is FAR from a Rush-head right wing talking points person.  Bachmann and Cain are embarrassments to him and he would like to see Glass Steagal reinstated as well as setup the consumer finance bureau.  He liked the Tea Party at the beginning and I think he still likes their libertarian wing, but he doesn't think I'm trying to burn down America and he will listen when I explain liberal viewpoints.  I'm not highly liberal myself, but much more liberal than what he has to deal with on a regular basis.  I often read comments left on websites for political articles and have heard a lot of right wing arguments and viewpoints.  He always lets me know how liberal stuff sounds to a conservative, so today, I thought I'd return the favor by listing some talking points/philosophical points and showing how my brain processes the same information.

1. Personal Responsibility

I put this in the category of right wing phrases that sound so obvious they don't require saying.  It's why when I hear it I give a blank look.  Everyone is responsible for their actions, both in a legal sense and in a cause and effect sense.  The legal sense being if I go out and shoot your parents, then the police will catch me, I will be brought before a judge, and then punished.  If I don't study hard in school and get really poor grades, I might not make it into a first rate college and have to settle for something third rate.  Job prospects, marriage prospects, where I live, etc. will hinge on these decisions as a natural course.  I know many Teabaggers immediately bring up affirmative action, but in most cases, schools only give a few extra points on the basis of race if you happen to list it on your application, and you still have to get through school and graduate.  Even if you were surrounded with liberal professors who don't fail minorities (which is a total myth) if you go to a job that requires a GPA then they still may/may not bump you up even in that regard.   Even without equalizing factors my future would look pretty bleak, and I might leave college and find myself flipping burgers or working 80 hours at 30k a year job.  Conservatives in many ways, I think, relish the thought of someone they deem to be incompetent being punished by this imaginary meritocracy in their bid for pure social efficiency.  Herman Cain is a living example that we do not live in a meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is not something you have to go out of your way to say; it's a part of everyone's existence.  You cannot be a slave to efficiency to the point where you are willing to sacrifice people who are able and willing, but need a leg up, to get your revenge on a person you deem a failure.  Government intervention can cause inefficiency, but so what?  Removing hurdles is not a bad thing.  Hurdles aren't necessarily holy, and to be honest, if a person is of the mind to jump over them, no one is going to stop them.

I know, you are dreaming of the welfare queen with her 3 children she had to get more money for child credits, who gets her heat bill, gas, and lights paid at the local welfare office and figures she'll never work a day in her life.  Well, guess what, that's fine for several reasons.  #1 I don't see churches helping people on a regular basis with their bills.  I understand they have budget restraints, but I have gone to a church before and they are not reliable, because of funding or many times because the church is about enriching itself.  If churches did a better job of doing their job, then there wouldn't be a need for welfare, but since so much of their money is diverted to stopping gay people from being married or the next personhood bill, it looks like a lot of those funds won't make it to feeding, clothing, and keeping people warm.  #2 Telling her to get married to her father is not going to work.  You can't force people to marry.  You can minister to them to let them know how to make better choices.  The Catherine Ferguson academy in Detroit does an excellent job of this, and does it without arrogant Christian admonishment!  #3 She might decide to work later.  Heck, it's happened right before my very eyes.  I've seen people who used welfare later decide that they needed a profession, because they knew the money wouldn't last forever, and because they had their own dreams and ideas.  They had a basis to do this because of the help they received.  Besides, a lot of people use federal programs to help them, just ask Michele Bachmann!

2. Liberals want to punish success.

We must have completely different definitions of success.  I don't judge people by how much money they make.  That would be absurd.  That would make Rupert Murdoch better than the Dalai Lama.  Elizabeth Warren put it best when she said no one ever made it in this country on their own.  I think most conservatives have an atomized view of the individual with Ayn Randian libertarians at the furthest extreme.  You have a hard time seeing success, even in monetary terms, in context.  Again, we come to a crossroads where you argue something liberals don't even think about saying out loud: people are individuals.  No duh.  Even in highly collectivist cultures like S. Korea or Japan, people have lots of individuality and their experiences in life are defined by their characteristics.  I'm not trying to change that because I know there is no changing that as long as humans are humans.  However we also exist as groups within groups, each interconnected.  Liberals think in context.  It's the way we're made.  We know that in order to be rich you had to have a society of people willing to buy your product and could afford it.  I write books.  I need a literate populace filled with intellectually curious people who have the time to read books!  You have parents, a neighborhood, a school, the media, books written by other people, a vast interconnected world of human beings both living and dead in a constant conversation.  The atomized individual becomes blurred in this context, so when conservatives set themselves up as better based on the amount of money they make, it comes out as you thinking of yourselves as autocrats with the peasants below, and even more arrogant, thinking that those roles could never change!  

3. The government has invaded our lives

Sorry Mr. Tin Foil hat, but this one doesn't scare me.  I don't think in religious terms about the government.  I find many conservatives believe things as articles of faith.  I prefer reason.  The government as an institution can do a great deal of good, has done a great deal of good, and will do a great deal of good in the future.  Is it running smoothly and perfectly?  HA!  However, I think your attitude towards it and your confusion about it is the reason why we're having a hard time having a conversation.  When a Tea Bagger is afraid the Democrats want to destroy Social Security, we have a serious messaging problem on our hands.  When I hear you rail on the government I think to myself, "Does this person just want revenge on people he/she doesn't like, or are they really concerned with how this country is run?"  If you're concerned that student loans are inflating the price of education and flood the market with too many college grads with majors that aren't easily monetized, well, why don't you put forth a means of making sure we can have a college educated populace without the six figure fees?  When you take government out, you're not doing it so that you can make sure that degrees are available to anyone that wants them, you just want to satisfy some puritan fantasy.  Paul Ryan is a great example of this. He falls into the trap of seeing people as only atomized individuals.  "I did it so why can't you?"  We live in different times, come from different areas of the country, and have different options available to us.  Does he realize most college kids work and that many of them don't have enough money left over to pay down their college bills?  Does he realize the market requires a college education nowadays to even do 30-40k work?  Does he realize that those loans help people who are dirt poor get into a college, and is an important step on the rung of making sure intelligent people aren't working at McDonalds?  Your answer cannot be "well some people don't make it regardless."  I want a world where if you want to make it, you can try.  

4. Liberals solve things with the government, they don't rely on God

Oh this one steams me.  I'm Christian, recently converted from being an atheist.  I find it strange that self professed Christians who are supposed to give 10% of their income to charity, which is a handout, would hate that someone was getting assistance from the government.  Especially with the amount of graft in churches!  Maybe it's a reminder that your charity is insufficient or misguided?  You can feed kids in Africa and help to cure AIDS without lecturing their parents on working, but turn around and refuse to do the same in your own country?  Geographical location does not link directly to how much opportunity exists.  Besides, whenever I say why someone can't do something, you have some logical quip about how person X could do Y and Z to clear whatever hurdle is in their path.  Why don't you do that when you give to charities in other countries?  If you hate welfare so much, recognize that people are still hungry and start finding new ways to make sure people get food, clothing, and shelter and don't have to fear for it.  You'd be giving it away of your own free will, right, and that's really the only part of this matter that makes you angry, since taxation in all forms is somehow a crime.  You don't want taxation to pay for welfare, then do a better job yourself.  Oh wait, that's right, your pastor is busy buying snakeskin shoes and building a new juice bar in his megachurch so people can chat about who they're having adultery with.  My bad.

In the end, I don't think everyone is going to be a millionaire and financial inequality between people is not bad per se; again, natural consequences.  There are plenty of people who work at Wal-Mart for 20k a year and that's pretty much their speed.  The future is not set though!  Maybe they work there for 5 years, find out nursing is a much better field, and then try that out to raise the amount of money they make.  I want people to have lots of options and markets shut people out after a certain point because they busy themselves servicing smaller and smaller parts of the population.  It's not their job to include people, so why not open the window?  I don't want to take everything you have and give it to someone you hate (although I do relish the idea of putting O'Reilly in a 100% tax bracket of 1), but even if you do hate them, because it helps the group, because I know it gives someone else a chance or helps them have a platform to be what they want to be, your hatred or dislike is largely irrelevant.  Efficiency or adhering to your Puritan views is irrelevant.  

Originally posted to sujigu on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM MST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

via dailykos.com

I've seen many many screeds pushed by the various conservative blogs about what liberals say, and what they "really" mean when they say it.

It seems that "liberals" as defined in the overheated minds of some commentators are incapable of speaking plainly. Everything is code for the opposite of what it said. A sort of DoubleSpeak that these individuals have created. Demonizing your opponents is a great way to overturn said opponents, but it leaves no room for discussion or negotiation.

I think it's useful to provide a calm, clear view of how things sound on the other side. Perhaps it will reach out to the vast middle ground of people who aren't on either extreme and spend more of the day worrying about how to get through the week without catastrophe.

Thanks Sujigu for putting this post up!

U.S. should lead the way to halt climate change

The following editorial appeared in the Miami Herald on Friday, Dec. 2:

The U.N. Climate Summit opened over the weekend in Durban, South Africa, amid still more evidence of dangerous changes in extreme weather patterns. The drought in Texas and across the southern United States, along with record flooding in parts of Africa and Asia, are signs of an ominous trend supported by recent reports based on scientific data:

-Thirteen of the world's hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. As if to put an exclamation point on this alarming pattern, this year was also the hottest ever to coincide with the cooling effect of La Nina, the weather system in the Pacific that is supposed to reduce global temperatures.

-This year was the 10th hottest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began. This phenomenon brought higher temperatures all over the globe. In northern Russia, October temperatures were 7 degrees above average. Next-door Finland had the hottest summer in 200 years.

-Closer to home, sea ice in the Arctic shrank to its second lowest surface area after 2007, with measurements at record levels of thin ice. In the coming weeks, another scientific report is expected to declare that the risk posed by undeniably increasing levels in the ocean raises the prospect of destroying low-lying coastal areas of the Northern Hemisphere - including parts of Florida.

These findings were disclosed by credible, science-based groups, including the World Meteorological Organization and Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in separate but complementary reports that support what most climate experts have been saying for decades: The world is warming, and the warming is due to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity and exploding carbon levels.

Climate skeptics will doubtless brush this aside as the work of forces that want to impose government controls on carbon emissions and every conceivable human activity that affects the air we breathe, but it's harder to brush aside the conversion of one of the most prominent skeptics in academia, Richard Muller, a respected physicist at UC-Berkeley.

"Global warming is real," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal last October. Mr. Muller said the findings of his own research team confirmed the accepted conventional wisdom that he and others once scorned as the product of "activist frenzy" within the scientific community.

All of this lends a new level of urgency to the meeting in Durban, where politics and ideology threaten to obstruct progress toward concerted action by the world community to halt, or even reverse, the global warming trend. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists say the Obama administration has failed to live up to the president's promise as a candidate to lead the way to decisive action on climate change.

Specifically, the administration has been dragging its feet on the issue of what to do with the Kyoto Treaty - which focuses on emission reductions - when it expires next year. Instead of holding off until 2020 before any new treaty can take effect, as the administration has proposed, it should work to achieve consensus to strengthen the treaty before any more damage is done.

The point is rapidly approaching, scientists say, when global warming becomes irreversible. Action should be taken today to save the world of a devastating tomorrow.

via kansascity.com

These short summaries are showing up everywhere. Is anyone reading them?

I can't tell.

[Infographic] Get More Out of Google: Not for the Google impaired.

The good folks at HackCollege provided this infographic. See if you know all of these techniques.

 

Created by: HackCollege

MinnPost - Don Shelby: A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

A video of Rep. Don Young every American should see

By Don Shelby | Published Tue, Nov 22 2011 10:55 am

On Nov. 18 the celebrated historian, Dr. Douglas Brinkley, testified before the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. The committee was taking testimony on another congressional effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling.

Brinkley was there to suggest that the ANWR be designated a national monument, preserved and protected. Brinkley knows about conservation. Among his award-winning publications and best-selling books is "Wilderness Warrior" about Theodore Roosevelt's environmental policies. His most recent book, "The Quiet World," traces the history of Alaska's wilderness. He's currently writing a new history on the conservation movement in America.

After Brinkley delivered his testimony, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, walked into the hearing late. Please watch this short clip of what happened:

By way of full disclosure, Dr. Brinkley is a friend of mine, but had Dr. Brinkley been a stranger to me, I would still be mortified that a United States congressman would treat a guest of the House in such a fashion. I hope this piece of video is seen by as many Americans as possible. I shouldn't like people in other countries to see it. We still have an image to uphold in the world. Young makes it look like the most powerful nation on earth is run by the inmates of the asylum.

You may also notice that Dr. Brinkley doesn't suffer fools gladly. I talked to him about the confrontation. He told me: "I felt like I needed to hold my own against them. I feel good about it."

He continued: "I'm a historian and I read a lot of testimony. It is important to me to have an accurate record. I thought I needed to set the record straight for CongressmanYoung. My name is not Dr. Rice, it is Dr. Brinkley."

That is certainly part of it. It is likely, as well, that Brinkley had studied the history of Congressman Young before he arrived at the hearing. Brinkley told me he knew that Congressman Young, at another hearing, had waved a walrus penis bone at Mollie Beattie, the incoming chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Brinkley may have read the Rolling Stone article about Young that quotes the congressman as saying, "Environmentalists are a self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots." The quote continues, "[They] are not Americans, never have been Americans and never will be Americans."

I don't think Congressman Young would have dared say such a thing to Teddy Roosevelt's face.

Missed votes
Brinkley should not have been surprised that Congressman Young showed up late and missed the bulk of the historian's testimony. Young is often cited as the congressman missing more votes than any other member of the House. Brinkley would have known that Young was the co-sponsor, with discredited Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, of the bill to pay for the infamous "bridge to nowhere."

Brinkley told me: "Everyone knows that Young is just a menacing blowhard. He has a history of being rude, he browbeats and he's snotty toward anyone who cares about the environment."

I asked Brinkley if he was surprised that Committee Chair Doc Hastings took Young's side and continued lecturing the historian. "No," said Brinkley. "They are tied together at the hip. They are both oil company factotums. They are a tag team."

Had Young been in the room for Brinkley's testimony, he would have heard an interesting history lesson. Brinkley told those present that President Dwight D. Eisenhower had set aside the ANWR, and protected it the same way Ike had protected Antarctica. Brinkley is proposing that President Obama set aside the ANWR as a national monument using the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Dr. Douglas Brinkley

"Eisenhower created it as a refuge," Brinkley said.

So Brinkley suggests a new name and new status for ANWR. "I think it should be called the Dwight Eisenhower National Monument," he said.

But what about the oil?

According to the United States Geological Survey, there is a good deal of oil beneath the coastal plains of the ANWR. But there is, in relative terms, very little when compared to world demand. Pump it dry and it would be emptied in less than a year.

Another Republican congressman, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, always votes against drilling the ANWR. It makes him unpopular in the caucus room. But the old biology teacher-turned congressman doesn't object to drilling on environmental grounds. Bartlett told me that he votes against draining it now. He thinks it is smarter to save it for future generations who might need it, and use it more efficiently.

Bartlett doesn't think it is wise to pump the ANWR dry just to consume it in highly inefficient cars and trucks. Bartlett drives a Prius, which is another thing that drives the caucus a little crazy.

Same argument
Young chided Brinkley by saying that no one ever goes to the ANWR. Brinkley told me, "They used the same argument when considering whether to set aside the Grand Canyon. 'Nobody ever goes there,' they said."

The Grand Canyon is back up for debate, by the same forces who wish to open the ANWR for oil drilling. Congress is considering bills to open up areas near the Grand Canyon for uranium mining. It was being rushed through until someone noticed that the company doing the mining was from Russia, and no one had checked whether there were any safeguards preventing Grand Canyon uranium from going into Iranian nukes.  

"Our park lands, our treasured areas are under attack," Brinkley told me. "We fought hard to protect these wild places and that makes the United States unique. China is destroying its landscape. We have a history of preserving ours."

Brinkley believes Young and his ilk have another reasons for going into the ANWR, and it has nothing to do with oil. "I think they believe," he said, "if they can open up the ANWR, molest it piece by piece, they will demoralize the whole environmental movement."

Brinkley believes, as Young has made clear, there are members of Congress who see people who would protect wild places as the enemy of the country. "The Coastal Plain of the ANWR has an unbelievably rich marine environment," Brinkley said. "It is where the caribou calve. It is where the polar bear den."

To Congressman Don Young's ears, such talk borders on treason.

Brinkley has a ready response. "Congressman Don Young is a low-grade Joseph McCarthy."

via minnpost.com

Rep Young, the old fool, keeps getting reelected by the money machine in Alaska. I suspect that Alaska is the only place he could keep getting re-elected, since he'd be dumped by any electorate that actually cared who represented them.

Alaska has the fortunate distinction of remaining a frontier, which means that moneyed interests have huge legislative influence, and for most folks, if the law leaves them alone, they're happy.

I suspect most Alaskans (I only know a few) are pretty blase about politics until it gets in their way, like most frontier cultures. It's a position I understand, and used to support.

However, a penchant for ignoring politicians also means that sometimes they're in the chicken coop and are making plans to steal the barn before you know they're even there. And since they'll do it "all legal and proper", the sheriff is on their side, when he'd rather be on yours.

Dirtbag Don continues to go after a teeny puddle of oil that will have no long term effect on oil prices, because he's blinded by the dollar signs in his eyes, not because he's out for the good of Alaskans. He remains stuck on oil, when there are tremendous opportunities for Alaska business and citizens in the future technologies, not the expiring one he's so desperate to pursue.

Unfortunately, he'll probably still be around long after petroleum is viable, doing everything in his power to hold Alaska back while claiming he's looking out for the state and it's people.

He can't see what is in front of him, understand what the future holds, a task he was sent to DC to perform. So he will doom his state to long term poverty by sticking to a dying industry. The oil dividends to Alaska's citizens won't last forever. And "Get Rich Quick" Don Young just wants to please the Oil Lobby in his state, instead of figuring out how to make the future of its people viable.

"Such is the way of fools."

A Call To Arms on Climate Change

I found this in Forbes, to my personal surprise. Perhaps I've become too jaundiced from the insanity that now passes for "reality" inside Washington D.C.'s Beltway these days. I no longer expected a prestigious magazine like Forbes to permit a truly balanced comment. I must thank William Pentland for posting this in such an elite publication, and thank Senator Whitehouse for taking a strong and informed stand, where so many have lacked the moral substance, or just the plain backbone to say what needed to be said.  I hope he does not end up retreating or recanting, and I hope the people of Rhode Island see fit to re-elect someone who is so clearly a leader.

Enough of my babble, first the comments from Mr. Pentland, and then the Senator's statement. Ooooorah! Senator!

---

I  explain my allegiance with Al Gore the way John F. Kennedy explained his relationship with the Vatican. “I don’t speak for Al Gore and Al Gore doesn’t speak for me.”

I would not say the same about Rhode Island’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

In a speech delivered before the U.S. Congress a few days ago, Sheldon argued that America has a duty to respond to the risks posed by global warming.  Sheldon concluded:

Right now I must come before the Chamber and remind this body that we are failing in that duty. The men and women in this Chamber are indeed catastrophically failing in that duty. We are earning the scorn and condemnation of history — not this week, perhaps, and not next week. The spin doctors can see to that. But ultimately and assuredly, the harsh judgment that it is history’s power to inflict on wrong will fall upon us . . . 

It is magical thinking to imagine that somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our failure of duty. There is no wizard’s hat and wand with which to wish this away. These laws of nature are known; the Earth’s message to us is clear; our failure is blameworthy; its consequences are profound; and the costs will be very high.

I have posted the entire transcript of Sheldon’s speech below. Thank you, Senator. Semper Fi.

Is it possible that we could elect this person? I hope so.

Created by: Online MBA Programs

The Maddow Blog - Getting out the vote versus getting rid of the vote

The news day got away from me a little bit yesterday but I don't want to miss the opportunity to highlight Tuesday's most-gasped-at graphics. In the segment introducing Denver election clerk and recorder, Debra Johnson, Rachel compared the Denver Elections Division map of percentage of "inactive voters" per precinct (pdf) with a map of 2010 Census block data on race/ethnicity (pdf).

And then, sitting alone on my couch, I heard the internet gasp.
On the surface it looks like if you wanted to make it harder for blacks and Hispanics in Denver to vote, you could start by not sending "inactive voters" a ballot. I think the actual answer is a little different but not much more complicated. An inactive voter is defined as someone who didn't vote in the 2010 elections or more recent municipal elections, and hasn't taken care of re-upping. In other words, if you came out for Obama in 2008 and then went back to your life ignoring politics, the state regards you as "inactive" and the Secretary of State doesn't want to send you a ballot to vote (for Obama again?) in 2012.
It's doubly disappointing that people who are less engaged in politics are being encouraged to disengage further.

via maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com

Square State Democrats, are you paying attention?

The 48 Laws of Power

by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers

Law 1

Never Outshine the Master

Always make those above you feel comfortably superior.  In your desire to please or impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire fear and insecurity.  Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.

Law 2

Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies

Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy.  They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove.  In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies.  If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.

 Law 3

Conceal your Intentions

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions.  If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense.  Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

 Law 4

Always Say Less than Necessary

When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control.  Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike.  Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less.  The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.

 Law 5

So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life

Reputation is the cornerstone of power.  Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once you slip, however, you are vulnerable, and will be attacked on all sides.  Make your reputation unassailable.  Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen.  Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations.  Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.

 Law 6

Court Attention at all Cost

Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing.  Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion.  Stand out.  Be conspicuous, at all cost.  Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious, than the bland and timid masses.

  Law 7

Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause.  Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed.  In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered.  Never do yourself what others can do for you.

 Law 8

Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary

When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control.  It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process.  Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack.  You hold the cards.

 Law 9

Win through your Actions, Never through Argument

Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory:  The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion.  It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word.  Demonstrate, do not explicate.

 Law 10

Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease.  You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster.  The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you.  Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

Law 11

Learn to Keep People Dependent on You

To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted.  The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have.  Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear.  Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.

 Law 12

Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim

One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones.  Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people.  Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will.  A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

It is indeed fascinating, the things that exist in history. These things are so clear, so lucid, that it's hard to believe that even the most mentally challenged haven't retained some shred of the information.

Hitler is often credited with this statement:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

While the statement above captures the essence of the practice, here's what was really said:

"In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick. This is a fact that all the great liars and liars’ societies (meaning the Jewish press) in this world know only too well and use regularly." Page 205 Mein Kampf, Ford Translation.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ~ Joseph Goebbels

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”  ~ Joseph Goebbels

This approach is being applied in many areas, facilitated by something Goebbels would have killed a million Romani to have, today's mass media.

Next time you park yourself in front of your favorite cable news channel, try reflecting on what you're hearing. Does it make sense? Does it simply cater to your biases?

Could the "echo chamber" be repeating the same "messaging" for your reprogramming needs? Does the same message come out of the babble box over and over and over? Different words, but the same message?

Think it over.

What if the GOP was the Climate Change Party?

(ed. note: This needs to be spread around... if you like it, pass it on!)

By James Thindwa

Some of us say what we believe, and believe what we say. Some of us even fight for what we believe. There are also those who claim to believe something or other, but won't fight for it. That's the way of the world. So let's imagine a world only slightly different, with only the names changed to protect the guilty...

What If the GOP Was the Climate Change Party?

By James Thindwa

Imagine if you will, an alternative universe, in which the GOP believes in climate change, and the Democrats are the naysayers? How would a climate crusading Republican Party approach this most consequential issue?

In their customary hard-nosed fashion, the GOP would no doubt have made more progress on climate change—replete with tough regulations and high-minded international treaties—than we have seen so far. GOP politicians and talking heads would be making hay from all the horrible weather, beating the drums about the grave danger to our “national security” and way of life posed by climate change. They would be warning of gloom and doom and calling for—to hell with cap-and-trade—new legislation with stricter timetables for cutting greenhouse emissions, higher carbon taxes and stiffer penalties for polluters. And they would dare the president to veto it!

Republican politicians would be talking about climate change in town hall meetings, with obligatory reference to the increasingly ferocious tornadoes and hurricanes. “Climate change” and “green jobs” would become synonymous—a mantra seared into GOP political lexicon as Republicans declare that their legislation simultaneously creates jobs, limits greenhouse gases and stimulates the economy. Yes, Republicans would be ready to steamroll Democrats on this one.

For GOP leaders, Irene would be an opportunity to stoke the passions of environmentalists. They would urge activists to hold rallies in Washington and across the country. The GOP media machine—led by Roger Ailes at Fox—would parade environmental leaders on television and talk radio pontificating about local struggles to shut down polluting coal-fired plants, the imperative to raise CAFE standards for autos, insulate buildings and retrofit solar panels—the whole kitchen sink. Rightwing talking heads would be in full swing, prodding activists to hunt down “Democrat” lawmakers at “town halls” to demand they stop protecting Big Oil’s profits at the expense of our country’s future.

For GOP lighting rods like Michelle Bachmann and Sara Palin, climate change would be manna from heaven—red meat for the party faithful. They would be browbeating Democrats for standing in the way of strong regulations and shilling for corporate polluters (yes, they’d say it despite both parties’ footsy-playing with industry—they don’t care about the hypocrisy). Palin and Bachmann would be mocking Democrats for aligning themselves with a fringe element that hates science and would endanger our national security and the planet. Of course, GOP candidates would already have made climate change a central issue in the presidential election, and aiming to place it high up on the 2012 party platform.

As expected, GOP strategists would have learned how to capitalize on disasters from their successful experiment in New Orleans, where they quickly moved in after Katrina and expanded charter schools. Thus, a salivating GOP would seize this moment to remind all Americans affected by Irene that climate change is real and urge them to demand immediate congressional action.

For maximum impact, rightwing pundits would cite the Pentagon’s finding that climate change constitutes “a grave national security threat” and the military’s plans to cope. On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol would advise that invoking the military in this debate “is strategically brilliant” because Democratic are vulnerable on anything to do with "our men and women in uniform."

On the O’Reilly Factor, Ann Coulter would taunt President Obama for lacking “the kahunas” to take on corporate polluters. She would point to Obama’s cozy relationship with the likes of Exelon, and his silence on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. Sean Hannity would harangue the “liberal media” for ignoring the words “climate change” in their coverage of Hurricane Irene. Rightwing hothead and former UN ambassador John Bolton would announce on Fox his new campaign for a new international climate treaty. It would carry heavy sanctions—even military action—against countries that did not sign on.

Finally, GOP leaders would be all over the hypocrisy of Democratic governors for stoking hatred of government even as they, in this crisis moment, expect emergency relief from the federal government. On the campaign trail and in presidential debates, GOP candidates would use Irene to highlight the indispensable role of government not just in public safety, but in healthcare access, infrastructure investment, helping foreclosure victims and reining in predatory banks, and alleviating poverty—that silent but ongoing emergency for millions of women, men and children. They would forc efully explain to voters that paying taxes is not a subversive notion, but an act of patriotism.

 Yes, sir, that’s exactly what the GOP would do if it were the party of climate change.

(Are you listening, Democrats?)

Fortunately, James Thindwa lives very much in the real world, where he is a Chicago-based labor and community activist. He also writes for In These Times and serves on its board of directors.

via blackagendareport.com

Scorching August sets record as Fort Collins' hottest ever | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

Interestingly enough, we were just discussing the change in summers here in northern Colorado. My conversation partner is a young woman who has lived a large percentage of her life here, and we were both remarking that things began to change during her High School years, how the heat had increased to the point that many times in summer it was a challenge to make yourself go outside.

This is quite a statement from someone who is clearly a fan of sun and warmth.

Northern Colorado was a wonderfully temperate place. When I was young and visited the Centennial State, the weather and the people were profoundly different enough to make me determined to move back to Colorado once I'd "grown up".

Well, after almost a decade of struggles in the job market, I finally made it back. By this time it was 1988 and Colorado's climate had begun to change. In 1998, due to the vagaries of life and work around the Defense Department, I moved to northern Colorado, just 50 miles south of the Wyoming border.

Here I am, in 2011, it's hotter, drier, and the weather is weirder than I've seen in almost 24 years. Unfortunately, this all just confirms what I already know is happening around the world. Since I tolerate floods better than I tolerate heat, I may be looking to move farther north, possibly even moving to the other side of the Continental Divide. I haven't decided yet. At present, we'll see how things go. This chunk of Colorado is one of the few that has relatively minimal impacts, so it may be worth staying.

We'll see.

Blazing summer proves to be fourth hottest

12:26 AM, Sep. 2, 2011  |  

Written by

Bobby Magill
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com

-->

If this summer has seemed hotter than usual, it's no illusion.

Last month was the hottest and fifth-driest August recorded in Fort Collins, and this summer has shaped up to be the fourth-hottest in 123 years of recordkeeping at Colorado State University.

This summer's heat is part of a trend: The eight-hottest summers on record here have all occurred since 2000.

"The fact of the matter is, the state as a whole has had many of the warm summers since the late 1990s," said Colorado State Climatologist Nolan Doesken.

"That's consistent with what many climate scientists predict will be part of a response to greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we can make that direct tie, I don't know, but it's certainly a correlation."

Eight temperature records were either tied or broken in August, with one of the hottest records shattered on Thursday when Fort Collins' high of 97 degrees broke the previous Aug. 31 record of 95 set in 1960, according to Colorado Climate Center data released Thursday.

The highest temperature of the month was reached on Aug. 23, when the high of 98 degrees that day shattered the previous record of 94 set in 1919.

On Aug. 28, the nighttime temperature failed to dip below 65 degrees, shattering the record for highest low temperature for that date - 61 degrees - tied in 1929, 2002 and 2010.

The average temperature for August was 74.3 degrees, or 4.1 degrees above normal for the month, putting last month atop the list of hottest Augusts on record.

Not only was the month hot, but it was exceptionally dry, too. The city received only 0.16 inches of rain, 1.43 inches below normal for the month, which was the fifth driest ever in the city. The last year August saw less rain was 1974.

For the three-month summer season - June, July and August - this summer is the fourth hottest on record, with an average temperature of 72.2 degrees, only a few tenths of a degree below the all-time record set in 2006 when the average summer temperature was 72.8 degrees.

"We were clearly part of a large-scale regional persisting weather pattern," Doesken said. "That heat wave and drought over Texas extended out in all directions."

With the heat in Fort Collins rising to 91 degrees or higher, the first day of September didn't break the heat wave.

However, it isn't rare for 90-degree temperatures to occur in late summer and early fall. Fort Collins has even seen 90-degree heat in October, Doesken said.

The heat won't last, though, said Don Day of DayWeather in Cheyenne, Wyo.

Cool air is expected to settle in over the weekend, with some areas of Northern Colorado expected to see high temperatures around 80 degrees on Saturday and Sunday.

The high on Sunday in Fort Collins is expected to be 75.

"The temperatures are going to start to inch back up Sunday and Monday," Day said. "Next week, it looks very September-like. There's a bit of a weak cool front coming in the middle to the end of next week. We'll be returning a lot closer to normal."

via coloradoan.com

Can This Facebook Status Share Widely Enough To Reach Obama’s Job Czar?

GE used to “bring good things to life”. Now, they just bring good jobs to China.

COPY and PASTE the text below in your status when you share this link on Facebook!

2010: GE paid $0 in taxes when profits soared and U.S. revenue suffered.
2011: GE is spending $2 billion to create jobs in China when U.S. unemployment is at 9.1%. For GE, “imagination is at work” but Americans sure aren’t! REPOST IF YOU WANT MORE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA!

via front.moveon.org

This is quite clear.

The national campaign to Abolish Corporate Personhood and Defend Democracy.
Sign the Petition: http://MoveToAmend.org/motion-to-amend

* * *

Great work to our team at Boulder Move to Amend!

Special shout outs to Carolyn Bninski, Judy Lubow, Rick Casey, Scott Silber, Dan Gould, Regina
Cowles, Elena Nunez, all the volunteers who phonebanked to turn out the crowd, and to the folks
who gave public comment at the meetings. Thanks also to Councilman Macon Cowles for
introducing the measure.

Stay tuned: Missoula, Montana is up next - on Monday their City Council will consider placing a
similar resolution on their November ballot as well.

Boulder City Council Votes to Put Move to Amend Resolution on November Ballot

BOULDER, CO - Just days after Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney angered attendees
at the Iowa State Fair by declaring that “corporations are people,” the court-created doctrine of
“corporate personhood” is once again making headlines.

On Tuesday evening the City Council of Boulder, Colorado voted to place a referendum on the
November ballot calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that corporations are
not people and money is not speech. Boulder’s decision came after months of grassroots
organizing by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood.

“This is a very important development at exactly the right time,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a
national spokesperson for Move to Amend. “Americans are fed up with corporate dominance of our
political system. The people of Boulder have an opportunity to lead the way for other communities
throughout the country by taking a strong stand.”

Boulder’s decision comes just months after voters in Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin
overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal
status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively.

"Wow. What an outpouring of emotion and feeling and sincere interest in making changes, which
I don't think anybody in the room would deny we need at the highest level," Councilman Ken Wilson
told the crowd before he voted in favor of putting the referendum on the ballot. "My family and I were
very, very disappointed in the Citizens United decision. I think it's a real threat to our government,
and whatever we can do to change that, I think we should."

Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also
been introduced in the state legislatures of Vermont, Washington, Montana, and New Mexico. The City
Council of Missoula, Montana will be considering placing such a measure on the ballot next week.

“We are excited to be a part of this rapidly growing national effort,” said Carolyn Bninksi, a local
organizer with Boulder Move to Amend. “The strength of Move to Amend’s strategy is that it is based
on grassroots work at the local level. This is the only way to build a movement powerful enough to take
on entrenched corporate interests.”

Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and 130,000 individuals. The group
is committed to building a grassroots movement to demand corporate accountability to the public by
abolishing corporate personhood through an amendment to the US Constitution.

For more information visit http://www.MoveToAmend.org.

###

 

Move to Amend

P.O. Box 260217

Madison

, WI 53726-0217
United States

End Corporate Rule. Legalize Democracy. Move to Amend.

We're on Facebook & Twitter!

About Us | Move to Amend

“Today the business once transacted by individuals in every community is in the control of corporations, and many of the men who once conducted an independent business are gathered into the organization, and all personal identity, and all individualities lost. Each man has become a mere cog in one of the wheels of a complicated mechanism. It is the business of the corporations to get money. It exacts but one thing of its employees: Obedience to orders. It cares not about their relations to the community, the church, society, or the family. It wants full hours and faithful service, and when they die, wear out or are discharged, it quickly replaces them with new material.

The corporation is a machine for making money, but it reduces men to the insignificance of mere numerical figures, as certainly as the private ranks of the regular army.

~ Fighting Bob La Follette, speech on the Dangers Threatening Representative Government, Mineral Point, Wisconsin, July 4, 1897

via movetoamend.org

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for. - YouTube

via youtube.com

USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”

August 15, 2011

The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service today released new regulations on livestock handling, which for the first time defines “egregious cruelties”: Here’s the USDA’s brand new list of no-nos.

1. Making cuts on or skinning conscious animals;
2. Excessive beating or prodding of ambulatory or nonambulatory disabled animals or dragging of conscious animals;
3. Driving animals off semi-trailers over a drop off without providing adequate unloading facilities (animals are falling to the ground);
4. Running equipment over conscious animals;
5. Stunning of animals and then allowing them to regain consciousness;
6. Multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an animal immediately unconscious;
7. Dismembering conscious animals, for example, cutting off ears or removing feet;
8. Leaving disabled livestock exposed to adverse climate conditions while awaiting disposition, or
9. Otherwise causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, including situations on trucks.

Remember, everyone: no more “excessive beating,” or skinning animals alive.
Worth noting that none of these items were pulled out of thin air. Each of these items is known to happen or it would not have made the list. And the reason for the list is that, without being explicitly told these actions are unacceptably cruel, slaughterhouse inspectors couldn’t be counted on to report them. (Via Jolley and AMI.) Link [PDF].

via vegan.com

Mixed feelings. Glad that the USDA Finally Defines “Egregious Cruelty”. Truly pissed off that it had to be defined. http://bit.ly/nM2uNh

Crosspost: Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | updated 15 Aug 2011

Being the pain I usually am, I've provided some "emphasis" for some of the text. George has stopped short of making some comments that he's almost GOT to be thinking, so I'm going to provide a few of my own in the stream of the article. You'll know it when you see it. lwo   :)

Why is Top Gear apparently exempt from the BBC's editorial guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts?

• Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race
• The Nissan Leaf electric car – review

Jeremy "Lying sack of bantha poodoo" Clarkson sabotages 
a test drive of the Leaf electric car  Photograph: BBC

What distinguishes the BBC from the rest of this country's media? There's the lack of advertising, and the lack of a proprietor with specific business interests to defend.

(lwo Note: I now watch Top Gear on BBC America, which does indeed produce revenue for BBC Worldwide; perhaps I should now assume that BBC has no standards for the BBC America services?)

But perhaps the most important factor is its editorial guidelines, which are supposed to ensure that the corporation achieves "the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive[s] to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences."

Here's a few of the things they say:

"Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest."

"We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live."

"We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them."

Top Gear Paradise?
Image via Wikipedia

Woe betide the producer or presenter who breaches these guidelines. Unless, that is, they work for Top Gear. If so, they are permitted to drive a coach and horses – or a Hummer H3 - through them whenever they please.

Take, for example, Top Gear's line on electric cars. Casting aside any pretence of impartiality or rigour, it has set out to show that electric cars are useless. If the facts don't fit, it bends them until they do.

Tesla Roadster
Image via Wikipedia

It's currently being sued by electric car maker Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster's true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), and that it unexpectedly ran out of charge. Tesla says "the breakdowns were staged and the statements are untrue". But the BBC keeps syndicating the episode to other networks. So much for "acknowledging mistakes when they are made".

Now it's been caught red-handed faking another trial, in this case of the Nissan LEAF.

Nissan Leaf
Image via Wikipedia

Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy "We're only entertainment so our recommendations are as full of exrement as I am" Clarkson and James "time for me to drink my way across the UK"  May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car "unexpectedly" ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future".

(lwo Note: But it's clear from Clarkson's Lists that he will whore out his reputation just to get a self serving edge with whomever he fancies at the moment. Here's a recent and from what I can tell, fairly accurate review of Clarkson's abilities found out on the "Ultimate Car" forum:

People enjoy Clarkson's hard opinions and dry sense of humour. However, they seem to forget that he knows nothing about how cars handle, nor has after 20 years of driving supercars has any skills behind the wheel. A good example is when he put the current ZR1 against an Audi R8 and constantly said that the ZR1 was impossible to drive faster than the R8. Then in the hands of the stig it blitzed the R8.
I also remember him slagging off the Carrera GT calling it bland and uninteresting, reviewing it against the Enzo Ferrari.

and

AND Clarkson's comments are about getting readers/viewers attention and to sell his column, mag, book, video, tv show.

and

This guy has driven every major badass ultimately exotic supercar on this planet and he puts a Mazda CX7 on his top 25? Nothing against the CX7, is a nice SUV or crossover, or whatever, I drove it myself when I was checking them out a few months ago while considering one for my wife, but come on... Jeremy Clarkson's top 25?

In short, Jeremy Clarkson seems to emerge as the combined Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of the automotive