404 error for me.

The Libs basically want a feudal system where Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama get to live in big houses and a lot of serfs run around adjusting the wind towers for them.   In the Pelosi-Clinton view of the world, there is no such thing as a "middle class" and their noisy 4 bedroom homes with central air conditioning and kids and minivans and happiness.   Ted Turner and Richard Branson get to own half of Montana and the Caribbean and you get to scrub the floors...oh, but don't fret, because by not having anything of value yourself you're actually "saving the planet".

When will you idiots learn that oil is what made most people in this country and this world have the energy to move out of the mud and into decent clean sanitary living?

if we greenies are serious about jobs creation, we will look to local, decentralized renewables instead of Big Wind and Big Solar, which don't provide as much employment.  PV and microwind installation is local, skilled, and can't be outsourced.  

most of the manufacturing, design and engineering for Big Wind and Big Solar is being done overseas, with a few construction jobs and a few O & M jobs...

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

If you want to "create jobs", you can do thinkgs like force people to build new dams with wheelbarrows rather than dumptrucks, and you can outlaw Eli Whitney's cotton gin, which put a hell of a lot of cotton-seed pickers out of work.

For that reason, I'm always uncomfortable with strategies which "create jobs".  I'm more comfortable with strategies that use resources (including human labor) more efficiently, more humanely, and more sustainably.  Sometimes that will eliminate a number of less-desirable, low-skill jobs, in the name of efficiencies.  Which is OK (in my opinion), as long as the resulting societal benefits (e.g. profits) get widely shared.

The latter, of course, is the big problem.  More and more of society's profits are getting shared among a handful of obscenely wealthy owners of the means of production.  THAT is what has to be changed!

this is a great argument to be able to retort with.

However, be careful about the "job" argument in general.  Our argument should be that right livelihood is more important than jobs.  If you just want to create jobs, you could open a baby burning factory.  Prioritizing the job issue gets you Nazi Germany if you're not very careful.

"Our argument should be that right livelihood is more important than jobs."

Wolverine
Try telling some guy who has a family, mortgage payments to make, food and electric bills to pay, that jobs are not important. See how "right" someone will live if he's unemployed and losing his house.

Victory in Pattani

John,

You missed my point, though the offensiveness of the baby burning portion obviously worked on you.  The point is that there are many environmentally and ecologically destructive jobs in this destructive society.  If "jobs" is your priority, you can easily end up with a very destructive result.  That was the point of the baby burning example, and that's the reason I chose the most offensive thing I could think of.

Mac,

As someone who had one quarter of his family killed by the Nazis, I can unequivocally say that it's far more important what people are doing than whether they're employed.  I'd much rather that those running concentration camps, and even in the German military, were unemployed than that they did what they did.  The same goes for those in jobs that are environmentally and/or ecologically destructive.