Starbucks Union

Vous êtes sur le site officiel des Travailleurs Industriels du Monde. Ici vous trouverez à peu près tout ce dont vous avez besoin pour rejoindre l'IWW et commencer à organiser vos lieux de travail et construire un grand syndicat au sein de votre communauté. La plupart des informations contenues ici traitent des Etats-unis et du Canada, mais nous avons aussi des liens vers d.autres sites IWW gérés ailleurs. L'IWW est une organisation syndicale pour tous les travailleurs, un syndicat dédié à l'organisation des travailleurs sur leur lieu de travail, dans leurs industries et leurs communautés. Les membres des IWW organisent les travailleurs pour obtenir de meilleures conditions aujourd.hui et construisent pour demain un monde économique démocratique. Nous voulons que nos entreprises fonctionnent au profit des ouvriers et des communautés plutôt que pour une poignée de patrons et leur exécutif. Nous sommes les Travailleurs Industriels du Monde parce que nous nous organisons industriellement. Ceci signifie que nous organisons tous les travailleurs produisant les mêmes biens ou fournissant les mêmes services dans un syndicat, plutôt que de les diviser par secteurs d.activité, ainsi nous pouvons mettre en commun notre force et faire triompher nos revendications ensemble. Depuis que l'IWW a été fondé en 1905, nous avons apporté des contributions significatives aux combats des travailleurs à travers le monde et nous sommes fiers de notre tradition visant à nous organiser indépendamment de critères sexuels, ethniques et raciaux bien avant que de telles méthodes soient courantes.lire plus

Comics-Based Movies Keep on Comin' (tags: film comics comicbooks)

By David RobertsNew York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has become the politicians other politicians love to love, and he came on stage in the wake of a glowing introduction from Harry Reid, greeted by enormous applause. Most of Bloomberg's speech covered familiar ground, bashing federal politicians for inaction on clean energy, lamenting how far behind America has fallen, and boasting about PlaNYC, his city's ambitious green agenda. The one new announcement had to do with NYC's issuance of a formal expression of interest for firms with experience in small- to mid-sized renewable energy generation. Bloomberg says he doesn't know what it will end up looking like -- could be tidal power on the Hudson, small wind turbines on buildings, solar PV on buildings, or ocean energy off the coast -- but that NYC is committed not only to using less energy but to generating its own. He wants NYC to become "the No. 1 city in the world" for green energy, and for America to become the No. 1 country in the world. The other recurring theme -- not new for Bloomberg but much more vehement this time than the last time I saw him -- was the need for new transmission. The kind of NIMBYism and short-sightedness that stand in the way of cross-country high-voltage transmission lines drive Bloomberg nuts. The CEO in him wants to cut through all the red tape. I suspect much of the Bloomberg worship, at least from other politicians, has to do with mayor envy. To Harry Reid, it must look like Bloomberg has almost unfettered power to make things happen, without Congressional protocols or an opposition party (Bloomberg's an Independent) to hold him back. Hizzoner reportedly flirted with a presidential run this year. From what I've seen, if the voting public was composed of business and political elites, he'd win in a landslide.

Regine Debatty: The REACTIVATE!! exhibition at the at the Espai d' Art Contemporani de Castelló, near Valencia (Spain), being an almost endless source of wonders i tried...

Regine Debatty: I first came across the name of this extraordinary place in one of the BBC's Imagine-documentaries about German director Werner Herzog, who asked to be...

By David RobertsA note to conference organizers everywhere: it's been documented by science that extended periods of exposure to light jazz leads to terminal dyspepsia and even brain tumors. So perhaps you should find something else to play in the lulls between speakers.

By Kate Sheppard Hurricane Dolly blew away John McCain's planned visit to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last month, but the senator made another go at it today. On a Chevron-operated rig 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, McCain reiterated his call for more offshore drilling and bashed his opponent for not being enthusiastic enough about oil exploration. "Sen. Obama opposes new drilling," said McCain (who himself opposed new offshore drilling until this summer). "He has said it will not 'solve our problem' and that 'it's not real.' He's wrong, and the American people know it. This platform we are at today sits above a field of 160 million barrels of oil, and is capable of producing on a daily basis 55,000 barrels of oil and 72 million cubic feet of natural gas." Actually, to the chagrin of enviros, Obama has said in recent weeks that he's open to a compromise on energy legislation that includes some offshore drilling -- if that's the only way to get a comprehensive energy bill that promotes renewables and measures to curb oil use. As for the question of whether more drilling would "solve our problem," experts from the federal Energy Information Administration and even the American Petroleum Institute posit that it would take about a decade for new offshore drilling to lead to an increase in oil production, but McCain says he's heard from oil execs that results could come much sooner.Speaking on the rig, McCain also emphasized other solutions to rising energy prices, including conservation and investment in alternative energy sources. "New drilling has to be part of our energy solution," said McCain. "It will not solve this problem alone. Alternative energy will not solve this problem alone. Conservation will not solve this problem alone. Solving our energy crisis requires an 'all of the above' approach. It will require aggressive development of alternative energies like wind, solar, tidal, and biofuels. It also requires expanding traditional sources of energy like clean coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling like that done on this rig." McCain and his campaign advisors have downplayed the environmental risks of offshore drilling, but the rig he visited today had to be given Coast Guard protection in 2002 because of the "potential for loss of life and damage to the environment" if an accident were to occur there. The Obama campaign shot back at McCain after today's rig visit: "For three decades, as our energy crisis grew, decision-making in Washington has been rigged against our national interests and the interests of American consumers," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor in a statement. "And for almost that long, Sen. McCain has been part of the problem. For decades, he has stood with the big oil companies and voted against the development of the alternative energy we need. When a critical proposal came before the Senate late last year that would have provided tax incentives for the development of alternative energy by revoking $13 billion in giveaways to the oil companies, he was the only senator who didn't vote -- and we came up one vote short."

By Jason D ScorseJust months ago there was a palpable sense of optimism that no matter who is elected president this November that the U.S. would soon embark on serious climate change legislation. I think recent events have shown that the chances of that happening are slim to none. Let's start with if McCain is elected. Today the senator from Arizona is going to do a photo-op on an oil rig because he has become the biggest champion of increased drilling this side of the Middle East. He wants to extend major tax breaks for oil companies and open up virtually all of America to more drilling. I was always highly skeptical of McCain's commitment to serious climate change legislation and the way he has talked about cap-and-trade on the campaign trail has only increased that skepticism. He has said repeatedly that he is against capping greenhouse gas emissions even though that's exactly what a cap-and-trade system does. In addition, he is in favor of freely allocating permits to energy companies, which is a trillion-dollar give away to big business. If McCain wins he is going to be so in debt to the right wing that I would not be surprised to see an extremely reactionary energy policy full of more big tax breaks for fossil fuels and increases in nuclear power, with minimal incentives for alternative fuels. Even if addressing greenhouse gas emissions ultimately makes economic sense, in the short term any serious policy acts like a tax on emissions (even with cap-and-trade) and I see no way McCain raises energy prices given the GOP's ideological aversion to taxes and the state of the economy. Lastly, McCain simply doesn't care much about domestic issues; he is a foreign policy person and little more. Don't expect him to spend the political capital necessary to enact any serious climate legislation even if he might have wanted to at some point. (While he would be facing relatively large Democratic majorities in Congress, I wouldn't be surprised to see him exercise his veto power rather liberally, although it is possible that the Democrats could build veto-proof majorities for better energy policy.) With respect to Obama I am a little more optimistic, but not by much. Obama's plan calls for the auctioning of permits and so far he has done a pretty good job of resisting the ridiculous drilling mania that has gripped the GOP base. Obama, however, will enter office with major crises to address along with major objectives that will be extremely difficult to enact. My guess is that he will use his political capital more on foreign policy than most expect, and that health care will be his domestic priority. I think he may make some significant progress on funding of alternative energy, but I would be surprised if a seriously binding cap on greenhouse gas emissions was accomplished in the first year or two, if at all during his first term. Progressives are fighting an uphill battle that will only get steeper. The public's tremendous ignorance on the determinants of gas prices and their widespread support for increased drilling is a serious obstacle that requires skilled leadership to circumvent. And for all the talk about the new environmental consensus within religious communities, pastor Rick Warren didn't ask McCain or Obama one single question about the environment in more than two hours of questions last weekend. Unfortunately, with the economy in the tank and numerous foreign crises brewing or still to be resolved, the environment ranks even lower in public consciousness. What to do about it? I'm not sure. To be continued ...

By Tom Philpott Photo: loudtiger When I lived in New York City, I used to marvel at the weeds that would force their way up through sidewalk cracks. What a will to live, I thought: From clumps of dirt crammed between concrete slabs, these vigorous shoots fended off the hard, slapping heels of a thousand rushing city dwellers, just to claim a place in the sun. The effort to save South Central Community Farm in Los Angeles reminds me of those defiant survivors. Stepped on by the city, evicted two ago years by a developer who gained title to the land in a sweetheart deal (as I laid out in this 2005 article), these pioneering urban farmers aren't done fighting back. Miraculously, there still seems to be a slim chance of restoring the formerly lush 14-acre property as a site for food production and green space in one of the city's poorest and bleakest areas. When developer Ralph Horowitz bulldozed South Central Community Farm in 2006, rumors swirled that the site would be converted into a vast warehouse for Wal-Mart. But now Forever 21 -- a clothing chain noted for its flimsy clothes, its past abuses of immigrant workers [PDF] in L.A.'s sweatshop district, its blatant knockoffs of haute fashion, and the fervent Christianity of its owners (John 3:16, anyone?) -- wants to lay down roots on the former farm site. And Forever 21 has been forging "close ties" of L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who once positioned himself as a champion of the farm, the L.A. Times reports. The L.A. Times piece doesn't mention it, but Forever 21 got tangled up in a sweatshop scandal in the first half of this decade. While other scandal-plagued brands like Nike and Gap were caught abusing workers in places like Honduras, brazen Forever 21 was doing it right in downtown Los Angeles. In 2001, 19 workers, who worked at sweatshops spread throughout L.A., sued the company for abuse. (The number of plaintiffs later grew to 33.) Here's what they charged (PDF): Sub-minimum wages No overtime Worked 10-12 hours per day Worked Saturdays and Sundays Had to take work home Dirty, unsafe factories with rats and cockroaches No potable water No health insurance Fired for asking for small wage increases or for asking for the minimum wage For three years, Forever 21 denied the charges and refused to pay the hundreds of thousands the workers say they were owed in back pay. Instead, Forever 21 counter-sued the workers, charging them with defamation. The company held fast against a national boycott called to protest the sweatshop conditions. Finally, in 2004, Forever 21 settled with the workers for an undisclosed sum. (The struggle to force Forever 21 to comply with labor law is laid out in the 2007 PBS documentary "Made in L.A.") It's odd to see Mayor Villaraigosa, who won office in 2005 amid much progressive hoopla, hop in bed with such a company. But hop in bed he has, the L.A. Times reports. Villaraigosa recently appointed Forever 21 Senior Vice President Christopher Lee to the city's Industrial Development Authority. And get this:Lee and Forever 21 founder Don Chang were two of several business leaders who accompanied Villaraigosa on his trade mission to Asia in 2006. Six months later, Forever 21 gave $100,000 to Villaraigosa's successful campaign to elect three new school board members. In recent months, the company agreed to give $1 million to Villaraigosa's Million Trees L.A. initiative, which encourages residents to plant more trees. The company also gave $150,000 to Villaraigosa's staging of the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Century City last year, a donation so significant that Lee was given a speaking role at the event's closing reception at the Griffith Park Observatory. Forever 21 is threatening to leave L.A. altogether if it can't plunk down a warehouse on the former farm site. The farmers, for their part, are urging the city to require an environmental-impact study before allowing Forever 21 to break ground on the warehouse. In place of a highly productive urban farm, they say, such a warehouse would bring in 2,400 daily exhaust-spewing truck trips to a neighborhood already choked with warehouses and semis.

By David RobertsA few more bits from Clinton's Q&A were of interest. First, he was asked how he would respond to ordinary people's pocketbook concerns on energy, and that's when he really shined. (Responding to average folk was always Clinton's strength.) He said that of course some of these reforms will raise the unit cost of energy -- any time you invest in a new area you raise the cost of doing things the old way. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And speaking of the costs, these economic doomsayers hardly ever take into account the rising, crippling costs of the status quo. This is a decade's worth of work ahead of us, which will create new jobs, which will tighten the labor market, which will raise wages -- the benefits to the country's working class will completely swamp the higher unit costs. If we'd listened to people like this we never would have built the highway system or gone to the moon. I wish other Dems could be as eloquent and unapologetic about green energy and the working class. Second, Clinton was surprisingly tepid about politics. When asked directly about the presidential race, he said he preferred Obama's plan but that McCain was good too -- "I'm encouraged by the rhetoric" in the presidential race. Perhaps he hasn't been paying attention lately. If Dems want to pull out of this tailspin they're in on energy, it might be advisable to stop praising the other side while its shiv is still stuck in them. And third, Clinton was asked whether the new president should be given authority to force the building of cross-country transmission lines for wind and solar over NIMBY objections. (Nobody used the words, but eminent domain was clearly implied.) He said "yes." That makes me very, very nervous.

By Kate Sheppard Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith (R) is in hot water over a water-quality violation at his family's food-processing plant. Wastewater from Smith Frozen Foods in eastern Oregon overflowed into a creek recently while the plant was processing corn, a violation of state environmental regulations. This is bad timing for Smith, who has been touting his eco-credentials in what's shaping up to be a tight race against Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley this November. Smith is the only Republican senator on the West Coast, and his seat is seen as one of the most vulnerable this year. Smith Frozen Foods is a multimillion-dollar business that processes corn, peas, lima beans, and carrots for companies like Campbell Soup. Gordon Smith ran the company before turning it over to his wife, Sharon Smith, when he entered politics in 1992. According to the local newsweekly Willamette Week, the company has a "long history of wastewater violations." A Smith Frozen Foods employee contacted the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on July 29 to report an incident that "resulted in a milky discharge to Pine Creek." An attorney for Smith Frozen Foods downplayed the situation. "The critical thing is it was self reported within minutes of discovery," said Tom Lindley. "It was a small quantity that was immediately stopped."

WorldChanging Team: We just got our fall catalog from our German publisher, and look what they put on the cover: We were so excited that we could...

By David RobertsRobert Rubin -- Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Citigroup Inc. and former Clinton administration Treasury Secretary, among many, many other things -- gave the afternoon keynote speech at the National Clean Energy Summit, focusing on the macroeconomic woes facing the economy and the possibility for good energy policy to ameliorate them. Those woes are familiar: the credit crunch, the mortgage crisis, stagnant wages, consumption slacking off. Putting it together, Rubin predicted, basically, more of the same, perhaps getting slightly worse -- with low probability of substantial, quick recovery, and low probability of sudden downturn. That means the next president should have three priorities: first, short-term measures to stabilize the economy, second, long-term measures to stabilize financial conditions, and third, energy. We've got to stop endlessly debating and move forward, now. What investors prize above all else, Rubin says, is certainty, so we must find a way of generating the political will to put in place stable, long-term policy. "If we can meet the political challenge," he said, "we can do everything else." This prompted yet another list of policy proposals, one slightly more corporate-focused than Clinton's, including subsidies to "retool" current dirty industries, reform of trade policy, and removal of "undue regulatory barriers" to nuclear, clean coal, and wind. Then Rubin, perhaps not knowing what he was getting into, took a few questions. Sure enough ... there was somebody from the Rainforest Action Network, which has been campaigning around Citigroup for years. How do you reconcile what you say about the need for carbon abatement with Citigroup's heavy funding of non-CCS coal plants? Rubin stammered, "It's a commercial institution. We have to have energy." He then hemmed and hawed about Citi's efforts to raise standards and create a new regime and blah blah. It did not look good. RAN woman followed up: Can we expect to see a drop in Citi's coal investment in the next few months? Said Rubin: No. The follow-up question took Rubin to task for boosting nuclear power and coal. He seemed totally unprepared to defend Citi and uneducated on these debates, which he did acknowledge we "should be having." Looks like we're having them!

By David RobertsVan Jones just got a standing ovation -- totally spontaneous and, to me at least, totally unexpected. It's the first sign of genuine enthusiasm I've seen at this conference. Speaks again to Van's incredible charisma and the power of his message.

The hedge fund Maverick Capital reports that it's dumped 12.5 million Starbucks shares. Other major investors that recently unloaded their shares were Nelson Peltz's Trian Partners (more than 800,000 shares), and Fidelity Management & Research (5.5 million). It begs the...

By Kate Sheppard The Washington Post reports today that F. Chase Hutto III, a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is likely to be appointed as a key official at the Energy Department. Hutto has been a leading opponent of environmental regulations within the administration. A promotion to assistant secretary for policy and international affairs would put him in charge of the department's policies on climate change. The DOE website says the assistant secretary serves as "primary advisor to the Secretary and the Department on energy and technology policy development," oversees policy analysis, and leads the DOE's international activities. From the Post: F. Chase Hutto III has played a prominent behind-the-scenes role in shaping the administration's environmental policies for several years, the officials said, helping to rewrite rules affecting the air that Americans breathe and the waters that oil tankers traverse. In every instance, according to both his allies and opponents, he has challenged proposals that would place additional regulations on industry. According to those who have worked with Hutto, he has been a strong supporter of free-market policies, arguing in interagency meetings against greenhouse-gas reductions and serving as a key contact in the administration for the oil and gas industries, the Post reports. Jason Burnett, former associate deputy administrator of the U.S. EPA, says Hutto is "naturally and philosophically opposed to regulation." Hutto's recent efforts included attempting to scale back rules proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that would protect endangered North Atlantic right whales from deadly run-ins with sea vessels. According to the Post, he also advocated for an expedited decision last year for Shell Oil as it petitioned NOAA for an "incidental harassment authorization" that would allow the company to injure or kill a small number of marine mammals in the process of drilling for oil and gas drilling off the coast of Alaska. Shell eventually withdrew the request. Hutto also reportedly opposed tightening federal rules for ozone and limiting mercury emissions from power plants. It's not clear yet whether Bush will formally nominate Hutto to the post or if he'll serve in an "acting capacity" until the end of the the Bush administration. Which is in 153 days, for those interested.

By David RobertsAs a conference Q&A session goes on, the chances of a crotchety, long-winded, eccentric old guy standing up and asking a quasi-question that runs on for over five minutes and confuses everyone approaches one.

By Jon RynnThe United States trade deficit is threatening to upend globalization as we've known it. The rise in the price of oil has been leading to a similar result: an international trading system in which there is much less trading. Now, that may actually be a good thing, in the long-run, but in the case of the United States it might happen in a very chaotic way. This problem that has been accelerating since George W. Bush took office: The United States has been buying many more goods than it has been selling. As I hope to explain, eventually this will lead to a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, which will lead to a sharp fall in our standard of living. If we have any hope of transforming our economy from one that is dependent on greenhouse gas-spewing fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and inefficient transportation systems, then we will have to embark on a truly gargantuan building program in order to construct all of the wind turbines, solar panels, high-speed rail, light rail, electric cars, organic farms, and energy self-sufficient buildings that we can. In order to do that however, we have to be wealthy. At the rate we're going, we won't be, and poor nations can't import lots of good stuff from abroad. Allow me explain why buying too much and selling too little could have such devastating effects: Nations eventually get into big trouble when they import from other countries too much, and they sell too little. When this imbalance occurs, it's called a trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit has been getting bigger and bigger for many years now. Last year it actually improved to $711 billion. Even though we exported $1,148 billion worth of goods and $479 billion worth of services, we imported $1,966 billion worth of goods (including $331 billion in oil) and $372 billion worth of services (all figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [PDF], part of the Department of Commerce). Since the total of all goods and services produced in the U.S. (GDP) in 2007 was $13,807.5 billion, that means that the trade deficit was equal to 5.1 percent of GDP. So, what's wrong with that? The problem is that the people selling us all of that stuff have $711 billion that they're stuck with. What do they do with the dollars? This has been going on for a while, so that there are now about $6,500 billion floating around the world because of our trade deficits. According to Economy in Crisis, over $2,000 billion has been spent buying up the United States since 1978, while most of the extra dollars have been deposited in a variety of ways, with the interest being paid to foreign governments and companies. But that's not the worst of it. The worst is what is happening in slow motion: The value of the dollar is collapsing. Why would that happen? Because people holding dollars can't buy what they want with the extra dollars, or can't buy as much as they used to. They may have bought most of the good things to buy in the United States. Another prop of the value of the dollar could be kicked away: The oil-producing countries accept only dollars for oil, and if the dollar keeps declining, they'll want to accept other currencies, meaning people will have even less reason to hang on to dollars. Price is determined by supply and demand. If supply goes up and/or demand goes down, the price goes down. The demand for dollars is going down while the supply is going up. When the dollar becomes worth less, then the cost, in dollars, of the things we buy from abroad go up. Foreign goods and services become more expensive, there's inflation, we buy less. It gets worse. What's supposed to happen next is what is not going to happen next: since the value of the dollar is sinking, the cost to foreigners of our goods and services will go down, making our goods more attractive, meaning that foreigners should buy more of our goods, our exports should go up, the trade deficit should go down, bada bing, everything should be hunky-dory. And exports have been going up, except that according to The New York Times, the "Export boom helps farms, not American factories": But the world is not suddenly snapping up made-in-America goods like aircraft, machinery and staplers. The great attraction is decidedly low-luster commodities like corn, wheat, ore and scrap metal ... while Boeing's aircraft or Caterpillar's tractors are distinctive and sought after, corn grown in Iowa is virtually interchangeable with corn grown in Argentina or any other bread-basket country. "Over a long period," Mr. Bivens [of the Economic Policy Institute] said, "commodities contribute right around zero to export growth." This export boom is related to ethanol production, which is destroying the soil, and will lead to an impoverished agricultural system in the future ... which means it can't last anyway. Even though the dollar is going down, exports of manufactured goods are not going up. And why not? The manufacturers themselves acknowledge that they gradually undercut their ability to export as they moved more and more production to factories overseas. Bringing that production back to this country, so that it could be exported, would dismantle global networks constructed relentlessly over the last 25 years. "We have achieved a worldwide manufacturing base, and we are not going to shut down our factories overseas," said Franklin J. Vargo, vice president for international economics at the National Association of Manufacturers. "But on the margin, we will shift a little bit of manufacturing back to the United States." Thanks a bunch, Vargo, for some marginal adjustments. Meanwhile, as the dollar falls, the only way for the trade deficit to close will be for the dollar to fall even further until foreign goods are so expensive, and we import so much less, that our imports equal our exports. What has this got to do with globalization? Since about $600 billion of that trade deficit comes from China, Europe, Japan, Mexico, and Canada[PDF] (table I.18), a slashing of trade would have a major effect on global trade patterns. China, in particular, has been unilaterally keeping its currency, the yuan, at too high a value; either they have to allow it to be valued by the global currency market, or the U.S. will be forced to unilaterally revalue the dollar (perhaps with tariffs). The irony is this: in order to save globalization, the U.S. will have to lessen it. If the U.S. rebuilds its manufacturing sector so that it doesn't have to import as many goods and can export more goods, then the dollar will not collapse, and a healthy amount of trade -- that is, trade that will be possible with expensive oil -- can continue. But if the U.S. continues to hollow out its manufacturing base, eventually it will turn into the equivalent of a poor country, only able to sell raw materials to the richer countries that can manufacture. Rebuilding the manufacturing economy by building up green industries like wind and solar equipment, rail, and electric cars is not only good for green collar job creation, but it will also allow us to balance our trade because we would not have to import oil and we could trade our manufactured goods for foreign manufactured goods. Here's the political punchline: We can either have a green economy or a poor one.

By David RobertsFamed oilman T. Boone Pickens gave the morning keynote at the National Clean Energy Summit, in what might have seemed hostile territory. "I don't see anyone here from my party," said the longtime Republican and funder of the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry. "I'm making new friends. That's good." And make friends he did -- by the sound of it, the crowd was utterly charmed. Pickens reeled off the familiar numbers -- see PickensPlan.com -- about America's small sliver of world oil reserves (3 percent) and its large appetite for oil (25 percent), which is leading to a growing share of oil being imported (70 percent). "We are getting very close to a disaster," he said. He rehashed his plan to boost wind and move natural gas over to transportation. He made a point of saying that Al Gore's plan to move directly to green electricity in 10 years, including transportation, is "unrealistic." We need a bridge to get there, he says, and that bridge is natural gas, which is being discovered in huge shale reserves in Texas and elsewhere. In an implicit response to concerns about environmental degradation and climate change, he said: "I'm for everything American." (Pickens has been quite vocal in his support for offshore drilling and coal.) The crowd applauded, perhaps not entirely grasping the context. The only government money needed to get wind built up through the center of the country, he said, is the production tax credit. Both parties say they support it, "so why don't they pass it?!" (Note: Republicans have blocked bills containing the PTC numerous times in this session of Congress.) Pickens has withdrawn from active support or involvement in the presidential race. He has discussed energy with both candidates, and both are "equally concerned." He said he wants and expects strong leadership in the first 100 days. Finally, "if you've got a better plan," he said, "tell me what it is. This isn't about T. Boone Pickens, it isn't about Democrats and Republicans. This one's about America." Pickens took no questions.

Clark Williams-Derry: Downtown housing affordability is an international problem. Interesting article:  Alan Ehrenhalt argues in The New Republic that cities throughout North America are undergoing a "demographic...