Jack's Potpourri Reaches 5000 Pageviews! - And on this Posting: Iranian Crack in the Door?, State of the Union Speech Reaction, Professors and Journalists as Opinion Makers and Keystone XL Pipeline Pro & Con

Look over on the right and a little bit down at the our "pageview" counter."  We have passed the 5000 mark!  That's the number of times someone in this country, or anywhere in the world, has accessed this blog since its inception in 2009.  (My own "hits," as I work on the blog, are not included in this count, so I cannot "fudge" the numbers.)  Let's see how long it takes for the counter to reach 10,000!

Iranian Door Open a Crack?

The posting of Tuesday, January 24 included a piece from Stratfor.com which hinted at a possible rapprochement with Iran.  All listeners to Tuesday’s State of the Union address will recall President Obama’s saying, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” but it should not be forgotten that he continued his remarks by adding “but a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”  This is the direction in which Friedman’s piece in our last posting pointed, and his reasons for saying so should be noted.  If you skipped over that posting, check it out now. The door is open, even if no more than a crack.  I get the feeling that there is something going on which you won’t see on TV nor in the newspapers. But you may on this blog.

JL

                                                    * * *    * * *   * * *

                              

Reaction to the State of the Union Message

I received an Email from a friend who was elated after hearing the President’s State of the Union Message, constrasting it to the un-statesmanlike utterances of the aspirants for the Republican presidential nomination.  I cautioned him to be less optimistic in the following Email, reproduced below:

Many elections have been lost because candidates overestimated the intelligence of the voters. Obama should carry all 50 states easily, but he won't, and he may not even be re-elected. An enormous amount of education, and debunking of the lies the Citizens United decision will allow to be broadcast daily, must take place. You can start by trying to convince some of your unenlightened neighbors that the President was not born in Kenya, is not merely a mouthpiece for George Soros, is not a socialist, is not out to destroy the State of Israel and that he is not a Muslim. Then you will get an idea of the problem at hand right here and throughout the nation.

JL
                                                              * * *   * * *   * * *

                                              

Ever write a "Letter to the Editor" of your local paper?   It's a great way of voicing your opinion.  The Florida campaign to re-elect Barack Obama makes it easy for you to do so and in view of the Republican primary here, suggests you give it a try.  Just go to http://fl.barackobama.com/Write-a-Letter and you're on your way!  And if you aren't interested in writing a letter in support of the President, the templates at the site can be used for any kind of letter you choose to write.  The site automatically forwards your letter to the paper of your choice.
JL

                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

Reporters and Professors – Makers of our Opinions?

I frequently hear complaints from conservatives saying that the opinions of those in the media and of academics should be taken with a grain of salt because those groups are traditionally liberal and hence, are not giving conservatives a fair shake.  With this complaint in mind, let’s look at how the media and the academic world approach things.

Professors are supposed to be objective.  That means that they should take in viewpoints and ideas and look at them from a logical viewpoint, adding up the facts, measuring the pros and cons, and come up with empirical decisions, factually based and not prejudiced by previous opinions.  Therefore, their conclusions based on facts and logic should be taken seriously.  

                                

My gut feeling is that conclusions drawn by academics are liberal 75% of the time. Some of this may be attributed to the idea that academics must maintain a mindset open to new ideas and that in itself is a liberal idea, but that does not mean that the other 25% of academics are any less objective in reaching their conclusions. All it means is that one should not generalize about academics and that there is room for disagreement as to whether they are always liberal or not. 

Similarly, professional journalists, in print, video and internet media, should be striving for objectivity in the same manner.  Bloggers and pseudo-journalists, and I admit that I am one of them, often are not so objective and should be distinguished from real journalists, and often ignored. 

                                      

Achieving objectivity is not an easy thing for a journalist since newspapers, television networks and electronic media often have an agenda to promote, and it is inevitable that such agendas hamper true objectivity to varying extents.  There also are sponsors paying the bill for media who must not be offended.  Even public radio and television find it difficult to always be objective since their non-commercial nature is in itself a statement as to where it stands in our otherwise commercial society.

Nevertheless, most journalists at least try to be objective, even if their doing so is no more than window dressing. Unfortunately, some are hopelessly opinionated and that is why a Sean Hannitty on the right and a Rachel Maddow on the left cannot be counted on to be objective, although each would stoutly maintain that they are.  But they are not. They spend too much time “preaching to the choir.”  Most journalists, more so in print than on TV, nevertheless try to be, as Fox TV claims it is, “fair and balanced.”  The very use of the word “balanced,” unfortunately, is a confession that what some journalists produce is indeed prejudiced and needs to be “balanced.”  

Sometimes there is a marriage of the academic and the journalistic such as Princeton professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Many think he is opinionated.  I am sure he feels that he is totally objective.  But so does another purported academic (my prejudices have just sneaked through), Newt Gingrich, feel that he is objective, basing his ideas on fact and logic.  One should not be the judge of one’s own objectivity.

By and large, however, if I have to make a judgment call, I must conclude that the opinion of an academic or a reporter is more likely to be based on facts and the result of logical thinking than the opinion of someone who is not an academic nor a reporter.  And more often than not, as I indicated above, academics end up on the liberal side of political and economic arguments and this, I suppose, applies to reporters as well.  That’s why conservatives often criticize the liberal media.  But don’t liberals similarly criticize Fox News? 

Does this mean that liberal answers are therefore the correct ones and that conservative ones are not?  Does it mean that conservative answers are not based on facts and logic?  Can the words “liberal” and “conservative” be reversed in the preceding two questions?  The answer to questions like these has to be “Maybe” or “Maybe Not.”  Think about this the next time you hear someone screaming about the liberal media or the head-in-the-clouds academic world, or the ideologues on Fox or MSNBC.  Learn the facts, if you can.  Apply some logic to them.  Form your own opinions.  (Send them to me for inclusion on Jack’s Potpourri.)  

And as an exercise in forming your own opinion, try to do so after reading the following article.

Jack Lippman

                                                        * * *   * * *   * * *

Facts About the Keystone XL  Pipeline – Form Your Own Opinion

The following, which can be read in its entirety at http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Keystone_XL_US-Canada_oil_pipeline  presents two sides of the arguments regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the Administration is not authorizing at this point.  Included are the Pro and Con arguments concerning the Environment and Human Safety.  Check out the above site for still more information, including the sources of this pro and con information.  Form your own opinion.  Don’t leave it to the reporters and academics.  Let us know and we will include it on Jack’s Potpourri.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

JL

Environment: Is the Keystone XL pipeline tolerable for the environment?
Pro    Keystone XL will not appreciably add to global emissions. A 2010 assessment of a US Energy Department study found that Keystone XL would "not appreciably increase" global life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. These findings were reinforced by the final Environmental Impact Statement from the State Department in August of 2011. Overall, it will simply be a drop in the bucket relative to global supply.[2]    Climate targets could still be met with oil sands. Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "I have no doubt that if you look at the amount of resources that are talked about with the tar sands, or around the world, if we were simply to burn all of these oil reserves, we could probably still meet some of the climate targets of two degrees or three degrees Celsius. You know, scientists say that we can release only another 500 billion tons of carbon, and if you look at natural gas or oil, we can probably burn through most of that and still meet those numbers. We can’t do that plus burn all the coal in the world, of course."[3]    Keystone pipeline important as long as economy depends on oil. Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "The larger debate [...] is whether we need to wean ourselves off of oil in the near term, period. And that is a debate worth having. But so long as we’re an oil addicted economy, the tar sands I think can play an important role in the world oil market."[4]	Con    Keystone XL will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions Russell K. Girling, TransCanada Corporation. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." The Hill. July 13th, 2011: "a new report from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods. It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions."    Keystone taps Alberta tar sands, the world's dirtiest fuel. "Keystone XL Pipeline." Friends of the Earth: "Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads."    Keystone XL will emit more than other oil production    Investing in tars sands delays transition to clean energy    Refining tar sands oil is more polluting to air quality    Keystone XL taps water-wasting tar sands
Safety: Is the Keystone XL pipeline safe for human communities?
Pro    Pipelines are the safest mode of transportation. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Pipelines remain the safest method of transporting oil – safer than tankers, trucks or rail. Each day in the U.S., more than 200,000 miles of pipelines move oil and other energy products safely to where they are needed. That’s enough pipe to circle the earth eight times."    Pipeline spills are uncommon. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "National pipeline statistics indicate that pipeline accidents are uncommon and that leaks tend to be small; most pipeline leaks involve three barrels or less, 80 percent of spills involve less than 50 barrels and less than 0.5 percent of spills total more than 10,000 barrels."   Keystone XL would be one of the safest pipelines ever. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Using the most advanced technology, the pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day through a centralized control centre. 16,000 sensors embedded in the pipeline provide data via satellite every five seconds. If the slightest drop in pipeline pressure is detected, remote valves are automatically closed, shutting off the flow of oil within minutes. Our pipeline would cross Montana’s Yellowstone River. As Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) pointed out, Keystone XL will use the most advanced construction techniques, including horizontal directional drilling that allows us to drill under the river a minimum of 25 feet. The pipe will be built with thicker steel, operate at a lower pressure and use advanced coatings to protect the surface from abrasion – all in an effort to further improve safety. To ensure the integrity of our pipelines longer term, they are cathodically protected, which means a low-voltage electric current runs through the pipeline, inhibiting external corrosion."	Con   Keystone XL pipeline contains significant risk of spills. "Keystone XL Pipeline." Friends of the Earth: "TransCanada already attempted to cut corners by seeking a safety waiver to build the pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel and to pump oil at higher-than-normal pressures. Thanks to the pressure exerted by Friends of the Earth and allies, the company withdrew its safety waiver application in August 2010. The threat of spills remains. In summer 2010, a million gallons of tar sands oil poured into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan from a pipeline run by another Canadian company, Enbridge. The spill exposed residents to toxic chemicals, coated wildlife and has caused long-term damage to the local economy and ecosystem. Heightening concerns, TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline has spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation, prompting a corrective action order from the Department of Transportation. Experts warn that the more acidic and corrosive consistency of the type of tar sands oil being piped into the U.S. makes spills more likely, and have joined the EPA in calling on the State Department to conduct a thorough study of these risks. The Keystone XL pipeline would traverse six U.S. states and cross major rivers, including the Missouri River, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers, as well as key sources of drinking and agricultural water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies two million Americans."   Keystone XL crosses and jeopardizes sensitive environment. Mark Bittman. "Profits before environment." The New York Times. August 30th, 2011: "XL is right: the 36-inch-wide pipeline, which will stretch from the Alberta tar sands across the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast, will cost $7 billion and run for 1,711 miles — more than twice as long as the Alaska pipeline. It will cross nearly 2,000 rivers, the huge wetlands ecosystem called the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, the country’s biggest underground freshwater supply."

                                                * * *   * * *   * * *                                                                                                                   
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  

Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of websites now includes www.politicaldrek.com, www.sportsdrek.com, www.healthdrek.com,  www.computerdrek.com  as well as  www.jackspotpourri.com.

Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.

Jack Lippman

                                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.