Tag Archives: billionaire

Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

Ten Democratic candidates for president took the stage in Atlanta to talk impeachment, health care, the economy, paid leave, and, oh yeah, our overheating planet.

Those hoping for a debate heavy on what Bernie Sanders called “the existential threat of our time” were surely disappointed. Climate change was awarded a single question, though candidates found chances to bring it up throughout.

Moderators from MSNBC and the Washington Post opened the night with a question about impeachment. Healthcare and the economy also dominated the conversation (no surprise there). About halfway through the night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked the debate’s only question about rising temperatures. Many viewers care deeply about climate change, she said, then Maddow offered up a question from a viewer in Minnesota: What do candidates plan to do about it, and how do they aim to drum up bipartisan support for their plan?

The question went to a frontrunner, naturally. Just kidding. Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii got first dibs. Gabbard said she aims to prioritize climate action if elected, a promise that would be easier to take at face value if she wasn’t the only candidate on stage who hasn’t unveiled a comprehensive plan to combat rising emissions. To be fair, Tulsi introduced the OFF act, a bill to wean the United States off fossil fuels, in Congress last year. Tom Steyer, the billionaire who runs a progressive advocacy group called NextGen America, got a chance to take a stab at the climate issue next and made a more passionate case for action.

“Congress has never passed an important climate bill ever. That’s why I’m saying it’s priority one,” Steyer said (an echo of Governor Jay Inslee’s line: “If it’s not number one it won’t get done.”) Steyer was the only candidate on stage who said he aims to declare a national emergency over climate change as president.

Sanders was the first to bring up the subject on his own, calling it “the great existential threat of our time.” Later, he talked about climate change refugees, something he said will become a major security issue in the coming year. He promised to go after oil and gas companies, an industry he said could be criminally liable for knowingly misleading the public about the effects of burning fossil fuels. “They have lied and lied and lied,” Sanders said. He also took issue with the idea that the effects — drought, floods, and extreme weather — are decades away. “If we don’t get our act together in eight or nine years,” he said, major cities will be underwater all over the world.

Even though moderators asked one question about rising temperatures, several candidates were able to weave the topic into responses to other questions. Andrew Yang and Steyer shared a moment of camaraderie when Yang gave Steyer props for using his money to tackle the climate crisis. “You can’t knock someone for having money and spending it in the right way,” Yang said.

Pete Buttigieg talked about a farmer in Boone, Iowa who told him farmers would rather be focusing on conservation over trade wars. “American farmers should be one of the key pillars of the solution to climate change,” he said. Elizabeth Warren plugged her proposal to employ 10,000 young Americans and veterans in public parks and climate resiliency projects. Toward the beginning of the debate, Steyer incorporated the need for sustainability in urban planning and development.

Climate change has been the topic of less than 10 percent of the questions asked at each of the previous four debates, and this debate was no different. But the fifth debate did demonstrate once again that candidates are ready to talk climate, even if moderators aren’t.

Continue reading here – 

Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

The Koch brothers hate public transit. But they can’t always stop projects in their tracks.

The infamous Koch brothers have bankrolled climate deniers, propped up polluting industries, and even tried to turn the black community pro-fossil fuel. But, as a recent New York Times story shows, the billionaire conservatives have been steadily exerting pressure against public transit as well.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative lobbying group funded by the Koch family, has rallied against public transit works across the country. With a mix of political ads and door-to-door campaigning, the organization managed to get a transit tax increase shot down in Little Rock in 2016. Koch-linked groups have successfully watered down legislation in Indianapolis and blocked efforts in Florida.

This spring, the organization financed conservative activists in Nashville, Tennessee, to oppose a mass transit referendum. The plan would have increased the city’s sales tax in order to fund a light rail system, eight new bus lines, and 19 transit centers in the city. The anti-transit campaigners knocked on 6,000 doors and made 42,000 phone calls, all while repeating the anti-tax party line. The referendum, once a sure bet, failed, with almost 64 percent of voters rejecting it. Public transit experts were disappointed, but unsurprised.

Yonah Freemark, a transport researcher and doctoral student at MIT, says that the Koch effort has been around for years. “They have been focusing on regions without a strong transit constituency [or] historical support for transit investment,” he says. That’s perhaps why Americans for Prosperity has not focused as much on Seattle, San Francisco, or Los Angeles — but has targeted relatively conservative cities.

While it might seem puzzling that any group would be stridently opposed to public transit, the Kochs have both financial and ideological reasons to reject transit spending. The New York Times cited their extensive financial interest in the automotive industry, combined with a libertarian and anti-tax ideology.

“It’s part of their overall agenda of conservatism, and part of an ideology tied up with cities and transit being bad, and suburbs as good,” says Jeff Wood, a transit consultant and blogger based in San Francisco.

Luckily for transit enthusiasts, the Kochs have not always been successful, even in sprawling cities with a sizable Republican base. Phoenix, Arizona, successfully expanded its light rail system in the face of opposition from the organization’s state branch.

And the Nashville plan had other, compounding factors. Mayor Megan Barry, who introduced the referendum in October 2017, became embroiled in a sex scandal with her head of security and eventually resigned in March. Her resignation further ignited the already bitter conflict between pro- and anti-transit activists.

So transportation experts are still hopeful that the Koch brothers will not derail many more projects. “Despite the fact that we have these people going out and running smear campaigns against public services, the large majority of such referenda have passed,” says Freemark. In 2016, large transit plans were passed in Atlanta, Seattle, Raleigh, and Los Angeles. “Americans are not universally buying into these tactics,” he concludes.

Wood is similarly optimistic, and believes that the Nashville failure can inform future efforts. “I think we are going to see other places learn from this,” he says. “I don’t think this ideology can win forever.”

Original link:

The Koch brothers hate public transit. But they can’t always stop projects in their tracks.

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Koch brothers hate public transit. But they can’t always stop projects in their tracks.

Richard Branson Describes “Bizarre” Lunch in Which Donald Trump Waxed About Revenge

Mother Jones

As our own David Corn noted just this week, Donald Trump loves nothing more than seeking cold revenge. It turns out billionaire Richard Branson has a Trump story that illustrates Trump’s obsession with vengeance perfectly.

Branson, the billionaire owner of the Virgin Group, wrote a post on his company’s website on Friday afternoon describing an out-of-the-blue lunch the two men shared “some years ago.” Branson says it was the first time he and Trump had met, but Trump had only one topic he wanted to discuss.

Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people.

He didn’t speak about anything else and I found it very bizarre. I told him I didn’t think it was the best way of spending his life. I said it was going to eat him up, and do more damage to him than them. There must be more constructive ways to spend the rest of your life. (Hopefully my advice didn’t lead to him running for President!)

I was baffled why he had invited me to lunch solely to tell me this. For a moment, I even wondered if he was going to ask me for financial help. If he had, I would have become the sixth person on his list!

Branson wrote earlier this month that “Mr Trump’s temperament is irrational and aggressive,” and added on Friday that those character defects are perhaps the scariest part of this election. “What concerns me most, based upon my personal experiences with Donald Trump, is his vindictive streak, which could be so dangerous if he got into the White House,” Branson wrote.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.

Continued: 

Richard Branson Describes “Bizarre” Lunch in Which Donald Trump Waxed About Revenge

Posted in Casio, Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Richard Branson Describes “Bizarre” Lunch in Which Donald Trump Waxed About Revenge

Gates Foundation quietly dumps all of its BP stock

Gates Foundation quietly dumps all of its BP stock

By on May 12, 2016 5:16 pmShare

Has the world’s largest charitable foundation started shifting away from fossil fuels?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sold off its $187 million stake in the oil giant BP sometime between September and December of 2015, according to a recent filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The move came after the foundation sold off $824 million in ExxonMobil stock, as disclosed last fall.

The foundation has been under pressure from climate activists demanding that it drop all investments in fossil fuel companies. The Guardian’s “Keep It in the Ground” campaign and the Gates Divest campaign have both been particularly dogged in focusing on Gates.

But the foundation has refused to comment on its investment decisions, so the significance of these recent oil-stock sell-offs is unclear. Bill Gates, the billionaire cofounder of Microsoft, has been skeptical of the fossil-fuel divestment movement and last year called it a “false solution.”

According to public records, the Gates Foundation held about $1.4 billion of investments in coal, oil, and gas companies at the start of 2014. Now it holds only about $200 million of those stocks, according to the Guardian — though it may have made new fossil fuel investments that haven’t been publicly disclosed.

Given the big troubles the coal industry is facing right now, and the volatility in the oil and gas sector, it’s the perfect time for investors like Gates to get out.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source – 

Gates Foundation quietly dumps all of its BP stock

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gates Foundation quietly dumps all of its BP stock

T. Boone Pickens backs Trump, expects to be dead by the time country collapses

T. Boone Pickens backs Trump, expects to be dead by the time country collapses

By on May 12, 2016 5:04 pmShare

T. Boone Pickens has given up.

After penning a blog post last year indicating sympathy for the #NeverTrump cause, the billionaire oilman has abruptly reversed course and endorsed Donald Trump for president.

“We’ve turned our presidential selection process into a reality TV show,” Pickens lamented in that post in 2015. “Hell, it’s worse than reality TV. Why? Because this reality TV show is about selecting the leader of the Free World.”

But now, it seems, Boone has come to terms with the idea a reality TV star in the Oval Office, as ThinkProgress reports.

“Yes, I’m for Donald Trump,” Pickens said at a conference in Las Vegas this week. “I’m tired of having politicians as president of the U.S. Let’s try something different.”

Trump certainly is “different.” In addition to his famed plan to build along the U.S.-Mexico border, the real estate mogul has called for banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and has repeatedly said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese.

As for why Pickens — who gave $100,000 to Jeb Bush’s campaign — would change his mind about Trump, well, Pickens will probably be dead soon anyway. “I’m ready to take a chance on it,” the 87-year-old said in Vegas. “And just in case it’s a mistake, [I’ll] be gone.”

If only the rest of us were so lucky.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View article – 

T. Boone Pickens backs Trump, expects to be dead by the time country collapses

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on T. Boone Pickens backs Trump, expects to be dead by the time country collapses

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Politico interviewed “nearly five dozen Republicans” recently and heard a consistent message: nobody with even a trace of policy cred wants to work in a Donald Trump administration. “The A-level people, and there are not that many of them to begin with, mostly don’t want to work for Trump,” said a former Bush official. “He will cut the A-level bench of available policy talent at least in half, if not more.”

But not to worry. This is all part of the plan:

A source familiar with Trump’s thinking explained that the billionaire businessman was reluctant to add new layers of policy experts now, feeling it would only muddy his populist message that has been hyperfocused on illegal immigration, trade and fighting Islamic extremists.

“He doesn’t want to waste time on policy and thinks it would make him less effective on the stump,” the Trump source said. “It won’t be until after he is elected but before he’s inaugurated that he will figure out exactly what he is going to do and who he is going to try to hire.”

That’s a confidence booster, isn’t it? We’ll all have to wait until after the election for Trump to tell us what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, he’s just going to keep tossing out anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, and anti-Chinese bombs because that seems to appeal to his fans. But once he wins, he’ll be the most presidential president in the history of presidenting.

Continue at source: 

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

If Money Is Speech, the First Amendment Is a Billionaire’s Dream

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The argument for a union shop is pretty straightforward: even if you hate your union, they perform collective bargaining for everyone, including you. Since you benefit from that bargaining, you should be required to pay union dues. After all, if dues are optional, why would anyone pay? Why not just let all the other suckers pay while you reap the benefits free of charge?

There’s another version of this argument that’s even more straightforward: if union shops are illegal—as they are in so-called “right to work” states—it’s all but impossible to set up a union. This is why the Chamber of Commerce and pretty much all Republicans are great fans of the open shop. It basically destroys the ability of unions to operate.

But what about public employee unions? What if you object to your union’s political views and don’t want to sponsor them? The answer, in many states, is that you can partially opt out of union dues, paying only an “agency fee” specifically designated for collective bargaining activities.

Problem solved? Not quite. What if you think that even collective bargaining is inherently a political stance when you’re bargaining with the government? Should you be allowed to opt out of union dues entirely? Today the Supreme Court heard arguments on this, and it didn’t go well for union supporters:

The justices appeared divided along familiar lines during an extended argument over whether government workers who choose not to join unions may nonetheless be required to help pay for collective bargaining. The court’s conservative majority appeared ready to say that such compelled financial support violates the First Amendment.

Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer, and issues like merit pay, promotions and classroom size are subject to negotiation.

The best hope for a victory for the unions had rested with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written and said things sympathetic to their position. But he was consistently hostileon Monday. “The problem is that everything that is bargained for with the government is within the political sphere,” he said.

In one sense, there’s nothing new to say about this. The liberal-conservative split on the Supreme Court has hardened over the past couple of decades, and we simply don’t see very much principled opposition to party lines anymore. Conservatives hate unions, so conservative Supreme Court justices are going to rule against unions whenever and wherever possible. They’ll make up the reasons afterward.

But there’s another sense in which this is interesting: it’s yet another step in the evolution of the conservative Supreme Court’s insistence that money is speech. In Citizens United and subsequent cases, they’ve all but wiped out any possible regulation of campaign finance on the grounds that campaign donations fund campaign speech. So if you can’t regulate political speech, you can’t regulate political money either.

Now they seem set to do the same for unions. If collective bargaining is inherently political speech, then you can’t force people to fund it. That’s a prima facie violation of the First Amendment.

I wonder how far this can go? After all, you can make a case that spending money is nearly always implicit speech: my purchase of a Snickers bar is a public declaration that Snickers bars are delicious, and my company’s dodgy advertising claims are a declaration of deeply held corporate emotions. So much for regulation of sugary snacks or false advertising.

Money is speech. Speech can’t be regulated. Therefore, money can’t be regulated. It’s a pretty simple syllogism. And, possibly, a pretty handy one.

Read More:  

If Money Is Speech, the First Amendment Is a Billionaire’s Dream

Posted in alo, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If Money Is Speech, the First Amendment Is a Billionaire’s Dream

Friday Fundraising and Catblogging – 11 December 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Don’t worry: catblogging isn’t being ditched today. But first, I’m going to make you read about our year-end fundraising pitch. Why? Because Monika and Clara have written a piece that breaks down our entire operation in chart form. Be still my heart! As you can see, two-thirds of our operating budget comes from readers:

From our beginning almost 40 years ago, we have made a bet that you would support a newsroom that tells the stories no one else will. And you did. Today, two-thirds of our annual budget comes from readers; some 40,000 of you contribute, more than at any other nonprofit news organization outside public radio and TV.

….Some of you—about 175,000, to be exact—subscribe to our magazine. Another 12,000 folks buy individual issues on the newsstand. About 10 percent of our subscribers also become donors—they tack on an extra $20, $50, or even (hooray!) a five- or six-figure gift. Then there are donations in response to specific appeals: For example, about 6,000 people have pitched in online to help us fight the billionaire who sued us for covering his political giving and anti-gay activism. What’s critical for the long haul is that our base is broad and deep enough to ensure that we’re not dependent on any single check or revenue stream.

Click the link if you want all the gory details of how we operate. Or, if you’re one of the brainy ones and you already get it, just click the button below:

And now for catblogging. Because you guys deserve it. This week is a classic: a cat in a box. Lots of Christmas stuff comes in boxes, and that means the house is full of cat toys this time of year. And cat chew toys, since Hopper likes to gnaw boxes to shreds. She’s no pussycat about it, either. (Wait. Am I allowed to say that?) I tell you, she goes after boxes with a will. Every time she bites off a piece, she spits it out and makes a yucky face, but it doesn’t stop her. She may not like the taste, but she really likes to shred cardboard. She also likes to stick her furry little snout into the camera, which gives you a picture like this—taken early in the week when the box was still relatively intact.

See original article here – 

Friday Fundraising and Catblogging – 11 December 2015

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Fundraising and Catblogging – 11 December 2015

Donald Trump Just Accidentally Gave His Opponents an Attack Ad

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday morning, GOP front-runner Donald Trump inadvertently gave his opponents a ready-made attack ad. During an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer on Today, the billionaire, who often gives the impression that he built his fortune from scratch, even though he hails from a wealthy background, explained the challenges of building his real estate empire. “It has not been easy for me,” he said. “It has not been easy for me.” He said his father, real estate developer Frederick Trump, had given him a “small loan,” which he repaid with interest, and which enabled him to begin buying properties in Manhattan. The size of the loan? It was for a paltry $1 million.

See original article here: 

Donald Trump Just Accidentally Gave His Opponents an Attack Ad

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Just Accidentally Gave His Opponents an Attack Ad

Donald Trump Screws Up GOP Loyalty Pledge, Making it Extra-Meaningless

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday, Donald Trump pledged his fealty to the Republican party with a largely meaningless pledge not to run as an independent candidate during the 2016 campaign for the White House. In doing so, it appears the billionaire presidential hopeful also affixed the wrong date to his signature:

Brilliant.

View the original here:  

Donald Trump Screws Up GOP Loyalty Pledge, Making it Extra-Meaningless

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Screws Up GOP Loyalty Pledge, Making it Extra-Meaningless