Tag Archives: brennan

Science is in ‘crisis’ under Trump, new reports show

Acceptance of the root cause of climate change — human beings — is growing among the American public. But among policymakers, acceptance is on the decline.

That’s the dismal conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Communications published on Thursday. Between 2010 and 2017, Washington policymakers became less supportive of the science behind climate change. What’s more, Washington elites have formed ideological echo chambers — metaphorical hidey-holes for people who have the same views on stuff — and become increasingly polarized.

The researchers who wrote the study surveyed dozens of Washington elites, not just in the government but at think tanks, environmental groups, and other policy-related institutions, in 2010, 2016, and again in 2017. The researchers asked about the respondents’ attitudes on climate change and also where they go for “expert scientific information about climate change.”

In 2010, “the science of climate change was considered settled among policy actors,” the researchers found. But “respondents changed their views to be less supportive of the science that climate change is anthropogenic” between 2010 to 2017. And in 2017 — after President Trump had taken office — the experts formed multiple echo chambers according to whether they agreed that climate change is caused by humans.

Think that’s bad? There’s more.

Another alarming study out Thursday from the Brennan Center for Justice says federal science has reached a “crisis point.” Government science and research are becoming increasingly politicized, and the process that ensures that federal positions are occupied by qualified people is crumbling. The report looks at recent and historical examples of the politicization of government research. The task force members, which include former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, U.S. attorney Preet Bharara, and former U.S. defense secretary Chuck Hagle, make a number of proposals that could counteract the trend.

Here are a few examples from the Brennan Center report that show how the government has led by example when it comes to politicizing climate research:

The EPA approved new regulations that stop experts from serving on congressional science boards and stocked those boards with industry researchers.
The Department of the Interior reassigned its head climate scientist after he raised the alarm about the effects of climate change.
When Trump made a false statement about Hurricane Dorian reaching Alabama, his Chief of Staff threatened to fire officials at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration in order to pressure them into releasing a statement that supported Trump’s false assertion.

The study warns that, if Trump’s efforts continue unchecked, it could create a “vicious cycle” and encourage future administrations to take similar steps to undermine science and research in the government. That’s particularly disturbing considering that government science and research has delivered smash hits like, oh, I don’t know, putting a man on the moon, lifesaving medicines, the internet, and more.

It’s just a coincidence that these two studies came out on the same day, but taken together they paint a bleak picture of the state of climate science under President Trump. The Trump administration has made efforts “to undermine the value of objective facts themselves,” according to the Brennan Center for Justice. And the Environmental Research Communications seems to suggest that those efforts have worked: The objective fact that humans are the main driver behind climate change no longer holds as much sway among policy elites. Will the Trump era deal a fatal blow to objective truth? Only time will tell.

Excerpt from:

Science is in ‘crisis’ under Trump, new reports show

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Science is in ‘crisis’ under Trump, new reports show

Ex-CIA Chief: There Was Intel About Trump Campaign-Russia Contacts That FBI Needed to Probe

Mother Jones

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

Former CIA director John Brennan testified on Monday that he grew alarmed last summer about efforts by the Russian government to “suborn”—perhaps unwittingly—members of the Trump campaign, and that his concerns formed the basis for the FBI’s probe into possible collusion between Trump officials and the Kremlin. His remarks came during a hearing of the House intelligence committee, which is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including potential coordination with the president’s campaign.

When Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed Brennan on whether he had seen any evidence of collusion, Brennan replied: “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that.” He added, “I don’t know whether or not such collusion…existed…but I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not US persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials.”

Later in the hearing, Gowdy continued to push Brennan about whether he had seen “evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russia state actors.” Brennan said he could answer that query more fully in a subsequent closed hearing, but noted that the intelligence regarding Russian contacts and the Trump campaign “raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians—either in a witting or unwitting fashion—and that served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion, cooperation occurred.”

Brennan, who stepped down when Trump took office and took the unusual step of criticizing an incoming president, explained it was not the CIA’s job to make a judgment about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia but to supply the FBI with the evidence it had gathered to investigate the case.

Jump to original:  

Ex-CIA Chief: There Was Intel About Trump Campaign-Russia Contacts That FBI Needed to Probe

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ex-CIA Chief: There Was Intel About Trump Campaign-Russia Contacts That FBI Needed to Probe

Even business titans are getting awfully worried about environmental threats.

New California Sen. Kamala Harris grilled Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo about his views on climate change during a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday.

She asked if he has any reason to doubt current CIA director John Brennan’s assessment that climate change is a contributing factor to rising instability in the Middle East and other areas. Pompeo, a prominent tea partier, said he was unfamiliar with the analysis Harris mentioned. When Harris followed up, asking about whether or not he believes climate change is even happening, Pompeo was equally noncommittal.

Pompeo essentially argued that climate change isn’t relevant to the job he’s being vetted for: “Frankly, as the director of CIA, I would prefer today not to get into the details of the climate debate and science,” he said.

In the past, Pompeo has directly denied the reality of climate change. He has also called President Obama’s environmental agenda “radical” and “damaging,” and said that Obama’s signature climate change initiative, the Clean Power Plan, would not provide “any measurable environmental benefit.”

Unsurprisingly, Pompeo is friendly with the Koch brothers and has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, which has donated over a million dollars to his campaigns.

Read this article:

Even business titans are getting awfully worried about environmental threats.

Posted in alo, American Educational, Anchor, Cascade, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even business titans are getting awfully worried about environmental threats.

Even in a Complex World, There Are Still Plenty of Facts That Can Be Checked

Mother Jones

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

Over at the Corner, Patrick Brennan suggests that political journalists are lousy at fact checking, and debate moderators shouldn’t try to do it in real time. There’s a case to be made for this, but he sure picks a weird example:

Liberal Twitter was all a-huff about how the debate commissioner cites the unemployment rate as an area where the facts are up for debate — har har, they say, you know there literally is an official unemployment rate the government publishes, right?

Except anyone smart saying this is being remarkably coy: People of good faith and serious economic training debate about whether the “official” unemployment rate is a good representation of the unemployment rate all the time!

How absurd is it to complain about the commissioner’s statement here? Say Trump says something along the lines of “the real unemployment rate is much higher than the government tells you.”

This might well be true — although it all depends on what you mean by the real unemployment rate….The people braying for fact-checking in debates are thus asking for moderators to attempt, in real time, to adjudicate disputes that divide Ph.D. economists and of course, a whole range of other such disputes on which the respective experts — trade economists, classification experts, presidential historians, whatever — often don’t agree.

Brennan suggests this is all a high-minded argument about U3 vs. U6 and the declining labor force participation rate and so forth. Silly liberals! Who are they to say that the unemployment rate is a clear fact when even professional economists argue about it?

And, sure, fair point—if this is what Trump was talking about. He’s not. He’s said on multiple occasions that the unemployment rate is “really” 42 percent or 21 percent or 35 percent. The headline figure from the BLS (currently 4.9 percent) is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” In fact, it’s “one of the biggest hoaxes in politics.” This is presumably because Donald Trump doesn’t waste his time with anything other than the very best hoaxes.

This is not an academic argument about what unemployment “really” is. It’s idiocy. It’s a lie. It’s a shameless extension of Trump’s juvenile populism, and Brennan knows it. If he thinks debate moderators shouldn’t even push back on something this rank, he’s showing a contempt for the truth every bit as casual as Trump’s.

Source:

Even in a Complex World, There Are Still Plenty of Facts That Can Be Checked

Posted in alo, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even in a Complex World, There Are Still Plenty of Facts That Can Be Checked

Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

Mother Jones

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

“Hillary and I both feel a special indebtedness for the friendship and the leadership of Joe Biden,” Bill Clinton said during a November 1994 campaign rally in Wilmington, Del., the evening before the midterm elections. “Without him, there would have been no crime bill this year. And because of him, lives will be saved and children will grow up safer and this country will be a less violent place in the years ahead. We are in his great and abiding debt.”

Then-Sen. Joe Biden had scored a career-defining victory that year. After a good deal of twisting the arms of his colleagues, Biden managed to shepherd the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act through the Senate.

Biden’s bill put over 100,000 new cops on the street and spent $9.7 billion on the construction of new prisons. The wide-ranging bill implemented a host of liberal policies, including an assault weapon ban and the Violence Against Women Act. But it also expanded the number of crimes that qualify as death penalty cases, bumped up mandatory minimum sentences, criminalized gang membership, eliminated Pell Grants for inmates, and put in place mandatory drug testing for people on supervised release. States had to implement policies that greatly reduced opportunities for parole in order to qualify for the new prison funding.

Clinton was right that crime rates would soon drop. The exact cause for the nationwide decrease in crime is up for debate. (We at Mother Jones have a favorite theory.) But there’s little question that Biden’s law helped cement the nation’s system of mass incarceration. “We took a shotgun to it and just sent everybody to jail for too long,” Clinton says now of the bill.

Joe Biden is reportedly eyeing a 2016 campaign bid to challenge Hillary Clinton, with a final decision expected early next month. There’s a Draft Biden super-PAC that has been agitating for Joe, pushing him as the more genuine alternative to Clinton, who’s perceived as over-manufactured by poll-driven talking points.

Yet should he enter the race, Biden will face a Democratic electorate that has grown increasingly concerned with mass incarceration and the disparities minorities face in the criminal justice system—particularly when it comes to the mandatory minimums Biden helped augment. The issue has already bedeviled a few of Biden’s potential Democratic opponents, who have struggled to answer questions about race and justice. At the liberal confab Netroots Nation last month, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were both shouted down by Black Lives Matter protestors who challenged the presidential candidates over whether the could confront structural racism, with both offering answers that didn’t satisfy the activists. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been actively courting Black Lives Matter activists at events and in online postings.

Like many Democrats who served in the 1980s and early 1990s, Biden has a complicated history with the criminal justice system. As crime rates spiked across the country, Democrats adopted a harsh tough-on-crime posture. Yet few pushed the issue quite as hard as Biden. During the 1980s he was a staunch advocate for ramping up the war on drugs. Biden devised the national “drug czar” position and worked alongside Republicans during the Ronald Reagan years to craft oppressive anti-drug laws, including co-sponsoring the law that instituted far longer prison terms for possession of crack cocaine than of powder cocaine. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander called Biden “one of the Senate’s most strident drug warriors.”

“There’s a tendency now to talk about Joe Biden as the sort of affable if inappropriate uncle, as loudmouth and silly,” Naomi Murakawa, author of The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, said in an interview with The Marshall Project. “But he’s actually done really deeply disturbing, dangerous reforms that have made the criminal justice system more lethal and just bigger.”

Biden’s anti-crime efforts culminated in the massive crime bill he pushed through the Senate in 1994. Crime rates had peaked a few years earlier, and the country was on edge following the Rodney King riots. “It was a time in our criminal justice history that people were very scared,” says Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center’s Justice Program. “A lot of this had to do with the media, and fear. But it was a time when there was more violence, there was more crime, and the urban centers were part of this crack epidemic. A lot of people were scared of what was happening. Since then, crime has been cut in half, and at the same time we’ve increased our jails and prisons. We now incarcerate 2.3 million people.”

The crime bill increased mass incarceration by pushing states to keep felons locked away for longer periods of time. In order to receive the law’s funds dedicated to constructing new prisons, states had to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws: policies that reduce options for early parole and generally force inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their original sentences. Before the crime bill, just five states had those strict policies on the books. Within five years of the crime bill, 29 states had adopted truth-in-sentencing provisions. “The country had already been on this trajectory of creating more draconian sentencing policies,” Eisen says. “And then the crime bill was so significant because they incentivized the states to create harsher penalties.” Those harsher penalties led to an explosion in the prison population, which has doubled since the early ’90s.

In addition to keeping people in jail longer, Biden’s crime bill also made it harder for them to reenter society once they were released by ending the Pell Grants that had allowed inmates to receive further education while imprisoned. “All of the research indicates that education increases post-release employment, reduces recidivism, improves reentry outcomes,” Eisen says. “The research is there that cutting Pell Grants for inmates and eliminating this education funding is just not smart policy.”

The vice president’s office didn’t respond to a Mother Jones inquiry on whether Biden regretted any portion of the 1994 crime bill or stood by the full measure.

As Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden has dropped much of the tough-on-crime language. Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, Biden said that cops and minority communities need to bridge their divides. “We need to agree in this nation on two basic statements of truth,” Biden said. “Cops have a right to go home at night to see their families. And two, all minorities, no matter what their neighborhood, have a right to be treated with respect and with dignity. All life matters.” During a police conference later that month in Washington, DC, Biden suggested that tensions between cops and the communities they police had been overblown. “This is not nearly as bad as it has been in the past,” Biden said. “The press exaggerates how far off this is. But we have to nip it in the bud.”

Earlier this year, Biden contributed an essay to a collection titled Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice, compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. The book assembled thoughts on criminal justice from a host of 2016 candidates. Hillary Clinton wrote that the country had “allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and I hope that the tragedies of the last year give us the opportunity to come together as a nation to find our balance again.” Marco Rubio said that the US needs to “reduce the number of crimes.” Rand Paul called for ending mandatory minimums, noting that “our criminal justice system traps nonviolent offenders—disproportionately African-American men—in a cycle of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration.”

Biden? He touted the old community policing policies from his 1994 bill.

Source article: 

Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

Posted in alo, Anchor, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

Mother Jones

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

In several races around the country on Tuesday, the victors won by razor-thin margins. Many of these races were in states that had recently enacted voting restrictions expected to depress turnout amongst minorities, young voters, and the poor, according to a new report released Wednesday by the Brennan Center. No one knows how many of the newly disenfranchised may have voted. Nevertheless, the report’s author Wendy Weiser notes, “In several key races, the margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of disenfranchisement.” Here’s look at the numbers in some of those elections, all via Brennan:

Kansas Governor: Republican Gov. Sam Brownback got 33,000 more votes than his Democratic challenger Paul Davis.

In 2011, Kansas implemented a requirement that voters provide documentation of citizenship to vote, and just before the 2012 election, the state enacted a strict photo ID law.

More than 24,000 Kansas voters tried to register this year, but couldn’t because of the state’s proof of citizenship law. In addition, it’s estimated that the state’s photo ID law reduces turnout by about 2 percent, or 17,000 voters.

North Carolina Senate: Republican House state speaker Thom Tillis beat incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan by 48,000 votes.

In 2013, North Carolina enacted a law—which Tillis helped write—limiting early voting and same-day registration, which the Justice Department warned would likely depress minority turnout. During the last midterms in 2010, about 200,000 North Carolinians cast their ballots during early voting days that the state’s new voting law eliminated.

Virginia Senate: Democratic Sen. Mark Warner beat GOPer Ed Gillespie by a margin of just over 12,000 votes.

Voters this year faced a new voter ID law that the state enacted in 2013. This type of law tends to reduce turnout by about 2.4 percent, according to New York Times pollster Nate Silver. Applied to the Virginia Senate race this year, that would mean that turnout was reduced by over 52,000 voters.

Florida Governor: Republican Gov. Rick Scott eked out a victory over former Democratic Gov. Charlie Crist by roughly 72,000 votes.

In 2011, Florida reduced the early voting period. The same year, Scott imposed a measure making it nearly impossible to vote for convicts who have already served their time. The move essentially disenfranchised nearly 1.3 million formerly incarcerated Floridians, about one in three of whom are African-American.

See original: 

The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

John Brennan Needs to Leave the CIA, One Way or Another

Mother Jones

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

What’s going on with the CIA hacking into Senate computers? Here’s a very brief, very telescoped timeline to get you up to speed:

2009: The Senate Intelligence Committee begins working on an investigation of CIA torture during the Bush administration. CIA Director Leon Panetta secretly orders a parallel internal review.

December 2012: The Senate finishes a draft of its report and submits it to the CIA for review and declassification.

March 2013: John Brennan takes over from Panetta as CIA director.

June 2013: The CIA issues a blistering response to the Senate report, vigorously disputing its conclusions that the CIA routinely engaged in brutal torture of detainees.

December 2013: Sen. Mark Udall reveals the existence of the “Panetta Review”—actually a series of memos—written at the same time Senate staffers were collecting material for their report. He suggests that it “conflicts with the official C.I.A. response to the committee’s report.” In plainer English: the CIA lied about what its own review concluded.

The CIA, apparently under the impression that Senate staffers had gotten access to the Panetta Review improperly—and had removed copies from their secure reading room at CIA headquarters—hacks into the computers used by Senate staffers. As part of their secret investigation, they read emails and do a keyword search to find out how the Senate staffers had gotten access to the memos.

January 2014: The CIA presents the results of its investigation to the Senate Intelligence Committee and accuses its staffers of misconduct.

March 2014: Sen. Dianne Feinstein launches a blistering attack on the CIA for hacking into the Senate computers in violation of an explicit agreement that they wouldn’t do so. Brennan counterattacks vigorously. “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth,” he says.

Yesterday: The CIA inspector general releases a report admitting that Senate staffers had done nothing wrong and that five CIA staffers did indeed hack into Senate computers. In other words, Panetta was very badly mistaken in March when he loudly insisted that nothing of the sort had happened.

So then: The CIA lied about the conclusions of its own internal review. The Senate found out about this. The CIA then hacked into Senate computers to find out how they had discovered the incriminating evidence. Then they lied again, denying that they had done this. David Corn lays out two possible explanations for Brennan’s misleading statements in March:

Either he knew that his subordinates had spied on the Senate staffers but had claimed otherwise, or he had not been told the truth by underlings and had unwittingly provided a false assertion to the public. Neither scenario reflects well upon the fellow who is supposed to be in-the-know about the CIA’s activities—especially its interactions with Congress on a rather sensitive subject.

Nope. Either way, he ought to resign or be fired. This is simply not excusable behavior in a public official.

Read this article: 

John Brennan Needs to Leave the CIA, One Way or Another

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Brennan Needs to Leave the CIA, One Way or Another