Tag Archives: citizen

While protestors surrounded the White House, Obama was golfing with oil executives

While protestors surrounded the White House, Obama was golfing with oil executives

Obama playing golf closer to home.

When some 35,000 protestors descended on Washington, D.C., on Sunday, they hoped to send a message to President Obama: Kill the Keystone XL pipeline. Show real leadership on the climate. From the Mall up to the White House they marched, hoping that Obama would see the crowd and read the signs and be moved.

But Obama wasn’t there to see the crowd. He wasn’t in the White House. He was in Florida, playing a round of golf with two directors of Western Gas Holdings, a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum focused on natural gas fracking. From the Huffington Post, which broke the story:

Obama has not shied away from supporting domestic drilling, especially for relatively clean natural gas, but in his most recent State of the Union speech he stressed the urgency of addressing climate change by weaning the country and the world from dependence on carbon-based fuels. …

But on his first “guys weekend” away since he was reelected, the president chose to spend his free time with Jim Crane and Milton Carroll, leading figures in the Texas oil and gas industry, along with other men who run companies that deal in the same kinds of carbon-based services that Keystone would enlarge. They hit the links at the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club, which is owned by Crane and located on the Treasure Coast in Palm City, Fla.

Not only are Crane and Carroll with Wester Gas Holdings, Carroll is also the chair of CenterPoint Energy, which provides residential and commercial electricity and natural gas — and which just today announced it is accepting bids for proposals to transport its oil out of the North Dakota Bakken region.

When news of Obama’s golf partners broke, environmental organizations responded as you might expect. Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum: “It’s clear that folks in the oil industry have access to the president.” The Sierra Club’s resident law-breaker Michael Brune: “There’s an old adage that you’re only as good as the company you keep” — though Brune remains optimistic.

A bit of good news for those activists whose rallying cries probably didn’t carry the 950 miles from D.C. to Palm City: If I know anything about golf, the president and his oil industry executive friends weren’t talking during their entire round. Even if they pled their case for expanded drilling, Obama didn’t hear them, either. If I know anything about golf, that is. Which I don’t.

Source

Obama Golfed With Oil Men As Climate Protesters Descended On White House, Huffington Post

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

From: 

While protestors surrounded the White House, Obama was golfing with oil executives

Posted in Citizen, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on While protestors surrounded the White House, Obama was golfing with oil executives

¡Yanqui, No!: Why Latin America Didn’t Join Washington’s Counterterrorism Posse

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

The map tells the story. To illustrate a damning new report, “Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detentions and Extraordinary Rendition,” recently published by the Open Society Institute, the Washington Post put together an equally damning graphic: it’s soaked in red, as if with blood, showing that in the years after 9/11, the CIA turned just about the whole world into a gulag archipelago.

Back in the early twentieth century, a similar red-hued map was used to indicate the global reach of the British Empire, on which, it was said, the sun never set. It seems that, between 9/11 and the day George W. Bush left the White House, CIA-brokered torture never saw a sunset either.

All told, of the 190-odd countries on this planet, a staggering 54 participated in various ways in this American torture system, hosting CIA “black site” prisons, allowing their airspace and airports to be used for secret flights, providing intelligence, kidnapping foreign nationals or their own citizens and handing them over to US agents to be “rendered” to third-party countries like Egypt and Syria. The hallmark of this network, Open Society writes, has been torture. Its report documents the names of 136 individuals swept up in what it says is an ongoing operation, though its authors make clear that the total number, implicitly far higher, “will remain unknown” because of the “extraordinary level of government secrecy associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition.”

No region escapes the stain. Not North America, home to the global gulag’s command center. Not Europe, the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. Not even social-democratic Scandinavia. Sweden turned over at least two people to the CIA, who were then rendered to Egypt, where they were subject to electric shocks, among other abuses. No region, that is, except Latin America.

Continue Reading »

Read this article: 

¡Yanqui, No!: Why Latin America Didn’t Join Washington’s Counterterrorism Posse

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on ¡Yanqui, No!: Why Latin America Didn’t Join Washington’s Counterterrorism Posse

SCOTUS to Consider Challenge to Campaign Donation Limits

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

This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (PDF), a case challenging the nearly 40-year-old cap on aggregate contributions to federal candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) as a violation of donors’ right to free speech.

Thanks to the court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010, donors can already give unlimited funds to super-PACs and 501(c)(4) groups, which are ostensibly prohibited from coordinating directly with the candidates they support. However, under federal law, donors are limited to giving no more than a total of $46,200 to federal candidates and $70,800 to parties and PACs during any two-year election cycle. Overturning those limits would not affect how much a donor could give an individual candidate (currently $2,600 per year), but a donor would potentially be able to cut a single multimillion-dollar check to a joint fundraising committee set up to distribute funds to multiple House and Senate candidates and state party committees. That committee could technically funnel the entire donation to a single candidate through a series of transfers.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that restricting outside contributions violated the First Amendment, it overturned 100 years of legal precedents. If it takes a similar track in McCutcheon, laws limiting campaign contributions that date back to 1974—and affirmed by the court in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo—would be overturned.

“If the Supreme Court reverses its past ruling in Buckley, the Court would do extraordinary damage to the nation’s ability to prevent the corruption of federal officeholders and government decisions,” Fred Wertheimer, president of the reform group Democracy 21, said in a statement. “It would also represent the first time in history that the Court declared a federal contribution limit unconstitutional.” Democracy 21 has been involved in the McCutcheon case since it was dismissed by a DC district court and subsequently appealed; the group is preparing an amicus brief defending the constitutionality of the current donation limits.

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told Politico that the outside spending groups that arose from Citizens United made aggregate limits less important but wrote that the “broader significance” of the McCutcheon case is that it could make future constitutional challenges against contribution limits much harder to defeat.

Yet the current justices have shown that they are sympathetic to some limits on campaign fundraising. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in Citizens United, argued in 2003 that donor caps on loosely regulated “soft money” were constitutional “under Buckley‘s anticorruption rationale.”

See original article here:

SCOTUS to Consider Challenge to Campaign Donation Limits

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on SCOTUS to Consider Challenge to Campaign Donation Limits

Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

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

During a Google+ “Fireside Hangout” Thursday evening, President Barack Obama was asked if he believed he has the authority to authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil.

He didn’t exactly answer the question.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko transcribed the whole exchange. Lee Doren, a conservative activist, asked the question; here’s Obama’s answer:

First of all, I think, there’s never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil. And, you know, we respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside the United States. The rules outside the United States are going to be different then the rules inside the United States. In part because our capacity to, for example, to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different then in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

But what I think is absolutely true is that it is not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we are doing the right thing. I am the head of the executive branch. And what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues. But part of what I am going to have to work with congress on is to make sure that whatever it is we’re providing congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands what’s going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are. And that is something that I take very seriously. I am not someone who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism. There have to be legal checks and balances on it.

Doren isn’t the only one who wants an answer to this question. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has placed a hold on John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, “until Brennan answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) posed that exact question to Brennan in a written questionnaire, but his answer was as opaque as Obama’s. “This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Brennan wrote.

So why didn’t Obama just say, “no, the president cannot deploy drone strikes against US citizens on American soil”? Because the answer is probably “yes.” That may not be as apocalyptically sinister as it sounds.

“Certainly, we routinely ‘targeted’ U.S. citizens during the Civil War,” says Steve Vladeck, a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law. “Even if the targeting was with imprecise 19th-century artillery as opposed to 21st-century unmanned arial vehicles.” If he had the technology, President Abraham Lincoln would most likely have been within his authority to send a drone to vaporize Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Drone strikes in the modern context, however, aren’t being used against uniformed commanders of a traditional military force. Instead, we’re talking about strikes that target individuals suspected of being part of terrorist organizations where “membership” is an inherently more nebulous concept.

There are two government agencies known to conduct drone strikes, the CIA and the Department of Defense. CIA involvement in a domestic drone strike is probably off-limits, says Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who is now a professor at Georgetown University. The idea is really far-fetched anyway, Pillar argues. “I expect that if the CIA were to do anything like that within the U.S. it probably would violate some of the legal restrictions that are placed on all of the agency’s activities as far as inside-U.S. operations are concerned,” Pillar wrote in an email to Mother Jones. “Nothing like this is ever going to arise as far as drone strikes are concerned, so I don’t see it as a live issue.”

Since the CIA is probably out, that leaves the military. Congress has long held that the president has the authority to use the military domestically in some circumstances. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed after Reconstruction to limit the use of military force on US soil, states that the military can be used to enforce the law “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” The last time this happened was 1992 when, citing the Insurrection Act, President George H.W. Bush called out the National Guard to suppress the Los Angeles riots in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict.

According to US law, Congress can authorize the use of the military inside the US. The question is whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, counts as “express authorization” to carry out a targeted killing on US soil. The Obama administration stated in its white paper explaining its legal authority to kill US citizens abroad that capturing a suspected terrorist should be “infeasible” before a strike is authorized. But “the government’s going to have a devil of a time proving that capture is infeasible for any individual found within the territorial United States,” Vladeck says. And there’s no reason to believe that local or state authorities, or if necessary the FBI, wouldn’t be left to handle a situation involving suspected terrorists. (Local police dropped a bomb during an armed standoff with the radical group MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985, proving that civilian authorities can be just as lethal as the military.)

The law says military force can sometimes be used against people on American soil, such as if it were needed to fight an armed domestic insurgency. But we still don’t know how broad the Obama administration thinks that authority is. Less than a week before President George W. Bush left office, the Justice Department withdrew a series of memos written by torture memo author John Yoo that envisioned near-dictatorial authority for the president, including the authority to deploy military force against terrorism suspects inside the US. Yoo had basically given Bush the executive branch equivalent of the Konami Code.

The Bush Justice Department argued that Yoo’s theories should no longer “be treated as authoritative for any purpose.” The question is whether the Obama administration has envisioned similar authority for itself. The answer to that question lies in the classified documents explaining the Obama administration’s legal rationale for the targeted killing program—documents that the Obama administration has so far refused to fully disclose to Congress, let alone release to the public.

Link – 

Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why Obama Won’t Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can

The Pistorius Case and South Africa’s Gun Problem

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

South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, the first double amputee to compete in the Olympics, has been charged with murder for shooting his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp, early this morning. While initial reports suggested that the 26-year-old athlete had mistaken Steenkamp for a burglar, the BBC reported that authorities were skeptical: “Police say neighbours heard screaming and shouting around the time of the shooting, and that they had been called to investigate incidents of a domestic nature at the same house in the past.”

Pistorius’ ownership of and affinity for guns has been well documented by journalists, including the New York Times Magazine‘s Michael Sokolove and others. Check out this tweet from last November:

(Following the shooting, Nike pulled a South African TV ad featuring Pistorius and the tagline “I am the bullet in the chamber.”)

The shooting is the most high-profile case from a country that, like the United States, has recently grappled with the impact of its well-established gun culture. Interestingly, firearms are not mentioned in the South African constitution, and a tough gun control law was passed in 2000. When it went into effect five years later, it put a five-gun limit on most citizens, allowing just one gun per person for self-defense purposes. As the Times explained:

But getting any gun at all, critics say, is the big task. Guns are to be automatically denied to drug or alcohol abusers, spouse abusers, people inclined to violence or “deviant behavior” and anyone who has been imprisoned for violent or sex-related crimes. The police interview three acquaintances of each applicant before deciding whether he or she is competent to own a gun. Prospective gun owners must pass a firearms course. They also must install a safe or strongbox that meets police standards for gun storage.

South Africa now ranks 50th in the world in gun ownership rates, and gun-related crime has dropped 21 percent since 2004-05. Shooting murders of women, particularly by their partners, has dropped, as shown by this chart from a 2012 report (PDF) by the South African Medical Research Council. (Murders by partners are called “intimate femicides.”)

Still, in 2007, the country’s gun homicide rate was among the highest in the world, ranking 12th at 17 gun murders annually per 100,000 people. To put that statistic in context: In 2007, there were 8,319 gun deaths murders in South Africa, a country of roughly 49 million people. The United States—No. 1 in gun ownership, and with more than six times as many people—had 9,960 gun deaths homicides in 2012.

In many ways, American and South African gun culture and gun violence are quite different. But the possibility that Pistorius intentionally shot and killed Steenkamp brings to mind two of the most prominent pro-gun myths: namely, that keeping a gun at home makes you and your loved ones safer, and that guns make women safer.

Continue reading:  

The Pistorius Case and South Africa’s Gun Problem

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Pistorius Case and South Africa’s Gun Problem

GOP Not in Kansas Anymore

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

Over at the New York Times Magazine, Robert Draper has a long piece about the woes of the Republican Party. A lot of it focuses on their inability to embrace the kind of technology favored by young people, but Ed Kilgore points out that the problem goes way, way deeper than technology. Here’s an excerpt about a focus group conducted recently by a GOP pollster named Kristen Soltis Anderson:

About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. “I’m going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind,” she said. The first word she wrote was “Democrat.”

“Young people,” one woman called out. “Liberal,” another said. Followed by: “Diverse.” “Bill Clinton.”“Change.”“Open-minded.”“Spending.”“Handouts.”“Green.”“More science-based.”

When Anderson then wrote “Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.”

….The session with the young men was equally jarring. None of them expressed great enthusiasm for Obama. But their depiction of Republicans was even more lacerating than the women’s had been. “Racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful” made the list — “and put ‘1950s’ on there too!” one called out.

Ed sums up: “If you had to choose one theme that underlies the arguments Draper’s hearing from the cool kids of the GOP, it’s that the Christian Right has gotta go.”

For years, Democrats complained about the fact that so many working class voters had abandoned them on pocketbook issues and instead began voting on social issues. These voters didn’t like hippies or abortion or busing, so they voted Republican even though the GOP was the party of rich people.

But now the worm is turning. The Reagan Democrats who started this trend are now senior citizens, or close to it. They’re no longer natural Democratic voters who are defecting to the Republican column, they’re just natural Republican voters who are voting for Republicans. That doesn’t really help the GOP.

What’s worse, social issues are no longer a trump card with 20- and 30-something working class voters. So now Republicans are feeling some of the same frustration that Democrats did during the Reagan era, because they probably think they have a decent pocketbook case to make to younger voters: Democrats want to raise your taxes; Obamacare forces you to buy insurance you don’t want, and raises your premiums in order to subsidize older folks; liberals won’t let you send your kids to better schools; they’re wrecking the economy with higher entitlement spending and a refusal to save Social Security.

Obviously liberals have answers to all this. Still, Republicans probably feel like they have a reasonable case to make. And they do. Not a slam dunk case, but a reasonable one.

But it doesn’t matter, because a growing block of voters is still voting on social issues. The problem is that the social issues they’re voting on aren’t hippies and abortion. The issues are global warming, gay rights, gun extremism, contraception, immigration, and a generally toxic attitude toward anyone non-white. And in this generation, all of these issues help Democrats. Even centrist 30-somethings largely don’t have a problem with gay marriage, are appalled at objections to contraception, and are offended when Fox News goes on one of its xenophobic jags. They want no part of this, even if they’re not super thrilled with the Democratic Party’s economic agenda.

So who’s going to write the conservative version of What’s the Matter With Kansas? I’m not sure. But someone sure needs to write it. My own guess is that for a lot of voters who are only marginally engaged with politics, they simply don’t believe that either party is really likely to help them financially. So no matter how much they tell pollsters that their #1 issue is jobs, it often doesn’t affect their actual vote that much. Social issues are all that’s left, and these days, outside the Christian Right, that mostly helps Democrats, not Republicans.

View this article:

GOP Not in Kansas Anymore

Posted in Citizen, GE, LG, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on GOP Not in Kansas Anymore

Courting White House arrest over Keystone XL: Rancher, financier, Kennedy, Sierra Club head

Courting White House arrest over Keystone XL: Rancher, financier, Kennedy, Sierra Club head

For the first time in the Sierra Club’s 121-year history — and only 164 years after Henry David Thoreau’s famed treatise on the topic — the executive director of the organization will be arrested in an act of civil disobedience.

The event (which entices members of the press with a promise of “great visuals”) will happen shortly before noon today outside of the White House. The issue spurring such drastic action by Sierra Club director Michael Brune is the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, meaning that Brune will be something like the 1,200th person arrested at the White House protesting that issue.

Brune will be joined by about 50 others, including Bill McKibben of 350.org (and Grist’s board), civil rights leader Julian Bond, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and actress Daryl Hannah (who has been arrested at a White House Keystone protest before). Also included at the event: Randy Thompson, a Nebraska rancher who has emerged as a leader in that state’s fight against the pipeline. According to Fortune magazine, fund manager Jeremy Grantham also plans to participate. “I have told scientists to be persuasive, be brave and be arrested, if necessary, so it only seems proper to do this,” Grantham told the magazine. (Full disclosure: Grantham’s foundation is a funder of Grist.)

tarsandsaction

From a November 2011 protest against Keystone XL.

In a tweet this morning, McKibben suggested that the goal isn’t protest.

A letter from event organizers reinforces that message.

The president can’t work miracles by himself. An obstructionist Congress stands in the way of progress and innovation. But President Obama has the executive authority and the mandate from the American people to stand up to the fossil fuel industry, and to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline right now. …

Today we risk arrest because a global crisis unfolds before our eyes. We have the solutions to this climate crisis. We have a moral obligation to stand stand for immediate, bold action to solve climate disruption. We can do it, and we will.

Several years ago, NASA climate scientist James Hansen suggested that building the Keystone XL pipeline would be “game over” for the climate, helping to inspire robust opposition to it from environmentalists. Last January, the president declined to approve the permit needed to build the pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, following the initial campaign of protests from 350.org and other activists.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original post here: 

Courting White House arrest over Keystone XL: Rancher, financier, Kennedy, Sierra Club head

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Courting White House arrest over Keystone XL: Rancher, financier, Kennedy, Sierra Club head

In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

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

In the first State of the Union address of his second term, President Barack Obama sent a clear signal: he will vigorously pursue an unambiguous progressive agenda in his final years as president. Universal preschool, boosting the minimum wage, passing gun-safety legislation—Obama delivered a left-of-center demand list for Congress and his administration. He talked far more about jobs than taming the debt. He certainly cited his own efforts to reduce the deficits and hinted at another version of the grand bargain—pairing cuts in entitlements with a boost in tax revenues—the holy grail of the inside-the-Beltway set. But he advocated “modest” Medicare reforms, citing limits on payments, not benefits, and decried those calling for deep cuts in this program and Social Security. And he declared he would not yield to those seeking such cuts to stave off the soon-to-hit sequestration.

“We can’t just cut our way to prosperity,” Obama insisted, once again drawing the line between his progressive view of government as a source of investment in jobs-creating innovation and infrastructure and social development and the tea party-ized GOP’s belief that the only solution to the nation’s economic woes is slashing government and the tax bills of the well-to-do. This was the face-off he established after the shellacking of 2010 to set up the campaign of 2012. And that certainly worked out as he intended. Now re-elected by a healthy margin, Obama is willing to defy the conventionalists of Washington who fixate on debt and, instead, speak of other priorities: educating children, enhancing the purchasing power of low-income Americans, and protecting citizens from gun violence. This is a president setting his own course.

The speech was more than a Clintonesque recital of favorite policy initiatives. It was a thematic presentation of a to-do list. He nodded toward the deficit hawks, defied the Republican tea partiers, and forged ahead with the vision of America that he repeatedly explained during last year’s campaign. Having won a three-quarters-loaf victory in the fight over the Bush tax cuts weeks ago, Obama pivoted from using that tussle over tax rates for the rich to cold-cock GOPers to confronting them over private interest tax loopholes. You want to cut programs for middle- and low-income Americans to deal with the nation’s debt? he said. Well, that’s not going to happen, especially if you won’t support ending tax breaks for the well-heeled: “After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks?” He essentially dared House GOPers to play chicken with him again over government spending and the debt ceiling:

So let’s set party interests aside, and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.

Obama has said this before. When he proclaimed, “let’s be clear: deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan,” he was not breaking new ground in his ongoing stand-off with the Rs.

What made this speech different was his forceful advocacy of fundamental progressive proposals. He called for an infrastructure-boosting bridge-building program and the launching of high-tech manufacturing hubs. He beefed up his demand for climate change action—and cornered Senator John McCain by urging “Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.” He added, “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Noting that fewer than three in ten four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program, Obama proposed working with states “to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.” That is, as Joe Biden might say, a BFD. The president renewed his call for comprehensive immigration reform and insisted that Congress pass legislation that addresses the gap in pay between women and men. And Obama said it was time to boost the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. (This, though, does represent a scaling-back of ambitions: In 2008, he called for it to be raised to $9.50 an hour by 2011.) He announced the formation of a commission to address the rampant problems in the nation’s voting system—and hailed a 102-year-old North Miami woman named Desilene Victor, who endured hours of waiting to vote in the last election.

On the foreign policy front, Obama also took a liberal line. He announced that he would be pulling 34,000 troops out of Afghanistan this year and that the war there would indeed be over by the end of next year. (Or at least the current version of the war.) And he addressed the criticisms of his administration’s drone program with a direct promise:

We must enlist our values in the counterterrorism fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

These are just merely words and will not on their own satisfy civil libertarians and others troubled by the drone strikes. But this is certainly not a sentiment that the Bush-Cheney crowd held. And it is a marker that Obama can be called on in the months ahead.

More MoJo coverage on guns:


More Guns, More Mass Shootingsâ&#128;&#148;Coincidence?


The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions


A Guide to Mass Shootings in America


How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide


Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.


Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF


Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy

The emotional highlight of the speech came when the president turned to an issue American politicians have long ducked: gun violence. Obama ended the speech with a demand that the Congress take action on proposals he has put forward:

It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans—Americans who believe in the Second Amendment—have come together around commonsense reform—like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.

No recent president has focused on gun violence with such passion in a state of the union speech. Obama cited the tragic case of Hadiya Pendleton:

She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.

Her parents were in the House chambers. “They deserve a vote,” he said. And he went on: “Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.”

It was a powerful moment in a speech that offered a muscular progressivism, one centered firmly on values.

A speech, of course, won’t win the tough political and policy fights that Obama will confront in the coming months and years. But with this address, he didn’t hold back. And if he only succeeds in placing this nation on the road to universal preschool, that in itself would be a historic accomplishment of fundamental consequence. With this address—which seemed to bore House Speaker John Boehner—the president was not trying to win over recalcitrant Republicans and nudge them toward the compromises they have by and large eschewed. He was trying to lead.

Continue at source – 

In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

Washington Has No Learning Curve

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

You could, of course, sit there, slack-jawed, thinking about how mindlessly repetitive American foreign and military policy is these days. Or you could wield all sorts of fancy analytic words to explain it. Or you could just settle for a few simple, all-American ones. Like dumb. Stupid. Dimwitted. Thick-headed. Or you could speak about the second administration in a row that wanted to leave no child behind, but was itself incapable of learning, or reasonably assessing its situation in the world.

Or you could simply wonder what’s in Washington’s water supply. Last week, after all, there was a perfect drone storm of a story, only a year or so late—and no, it wasn’t that leaked “white paper” justifying the White House-directed assassination of an American citizen; and no, it wasn’t the two secret Justice Department “legal” memos on the same subject that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were allowed to “view,” but in such secrecy that they couldn’t even ask John O. Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism tsar and choice for CIA director, questions about them at his public nomination hearings; and no, it wasn’t anything that Brennan, the man who oversaw the White House “kill list” and those presidentially chosen drone strikes, said at the hearings. And here’s the most striking thing: it should have set everyone’s teeth on edge, yet next to nobody even noticed.

Last Tuesday, the Washington Post published a piece by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung about a reportorial discovery which that paper, along with other news outlets (including the New York Times), had by “an informal arrangement” agreed to suppress (and not even very well) at the request of the Obama administration. More than a year later, and only because the Times was breaking the story on the same day (buried in a long investigative piece on drone strikes), the Post finally put the news on record. It was half-buried in a piece about the then-upcoming Brennan hearings. Until that moment, its editors had done their patriotic duty, urged on by the CIA and the White House, and kept the news from the public. Never mind, that the project was so outright loony, given our history, that they should have felt the obligation to publish it instantly with screaming front-page headlines and a lead editorial demanding an explanation.

Continue Reading »

Link to original:

Washington Has No Learning Curve

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Washington Has No Learning Curve

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

City government meetings are boring and tedious and deal with boring, tedious things — zoning, ceremonial items, paying a city’s bills. Most also allow time for the public to comment, which almost always entices the local gadflies and cranks to show up and share whatever’s on their minds. And it’s often the most interesting part of the meetings.

Nonetheless, the town board of Sanford, N.Y., got tired of one particular topic coming up in public comments: fracking. Speaker after speaker would rail against the practice, which is currently banned in the state. The town board reached its limit last fall, voting to ban any further comment from the public on the topic.

In spirit, we can appreciate the frustration. In practice, however, we would strongly encourage elected officials to remember that public meetings don’t exist for their convenience. To help remind the Sanford board of that fact, local residents (with the support of the Natural Resources Defense Council) are suing. From the Associated Press:

“If people are silenced by their own elected representatives, how can they trust them to act in their best interests?” said Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Kate Sinding as her group announced the U.S. District Court lawsuit. NRDC and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy filed the lawsuit on behalf of town residents who are members of their groups.
Robert Freeman, director of the state’s Committee on Open Government, said a public body isn’t required to allow the public to speak at meetings. If the town board chooses to permit public participation, it can adopt “reasonable rules” to ensure fairness.

“The fact is that the Open Meetings Law gives the public the right to be there, but says nothing about the right to speak,” Freeman said.

Sinding disagreed, saying boards can adopt rules such as time limits or equal time provisions. “It does not mean completely banning speech on a particular topic, especially one of the most important and timely topics in the state,” she said.

credopolicysummit

Protestors target New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Towns in upstate New York fall into three categories, as you’d expect: pro-fracking, anti-fracking, and undecided. Sanford’s leadership certainly falls into the first category. Many other towns fall into the second, several of them recently pledging to maintain local fracking bans even if the state’s is lifted. Others, like Penn Yan in the Finger Lakes region, are divided.

Sanford would very likely be a hub of fracking activity if the state’s ban is overturned, particularly if the revocation is done by region. From The New York Times’ Green blog:

According to the lawsuit, the town leased land to XTO Energy [in] 2008 and later issued a permit allowing the company to use a road to enable it to withdraw water for use in natural gas extraction. Sanford’s town board also approved a resolution calling on the New York Legislature to “stand aside” in the fracking debate and allow state officials to issue permits allowing fracking, the suit noted. …

Around two-thirds of the land in the town has been leased to the gas industry, according to Melissa Bishop, a resident who opposes fracking and the town’s vote to stop discussion on the subject. She accused the board of failing to allow the democratic process to unfold on matters of public interest.

If the lawsuit and common sense both fail, there is another option for Bishop and other Sanford residents. In 2014, some of those town board members will be up for reelection.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from: 

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings