Tag Archives: democrat

Another State Agency Just Banned the Words "Climate Change"

Mother Jones

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

The climate change language police just struck again.

Last month it was in Florida, where former staffers with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection alleged that senior officials, under the direction of Gov. Rick Scott (R), had instituted an unwritten ban on using the phrases “climate change” and “global warming.” Scott denied the claim.

This week’s incident is much less ambiguous. Yesterday, the three-person commission that oversees a public land trust in Wisconsin voted 2-1 to block the trust’s dozen public employees “from engaging in global warming or climate change work while on BCPL time.”

In proposing and voting on the ban, the commission “spent 19 minutes and 29 seconds talking about talking about climate change,” according to Bloomberg:

The move to ban an issue leaves staff at the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands in the unusual position of not being able to speak about how climate change might affect lands it oversees…

The Midwest warmed about 1.5F on average from 1895 to 2012. Pine, maple, birch, spruce, fir, aspen, and beech forests, which are common in the region, are likely to decline as the century progresses, according to the latest US National Climate Assessment.

The ban was proposed by newly elected State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk, a Republican who ran on the unusual campaign promise to swiftly eliminate his own job. At a public meeting on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg, Adamczyk said he was disturbed to learn that the agency’s director, Tia Nelson, had spent some time co-chairing a global warming task force in 2007-08 at the request of former governor Jim Doyle (D). Dealing with climate issues—even responding to emails on the subject—isn’t in the agency’s wheelhouse, he said. Adamczyk didn’t immediately return our request for comment.

Adamczyk was joined in voting for the ban by State Attorney General Brad Schimel (R), also newly-elected. Schimel is handling Gov. Scott Walker’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency over President Barack Obama’s new climate regulations. The ban was opposed by the commission’s third member, Secretary of State Bob La Follette, a Democrat.

See original:

Another State Agency Just Banned the Words "Climate Change"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another State Agency Just Banned the Words "Climate Change"

Rand Paul Just Announced That He’s Running for President. Here’s His Speech.

Mother Jones

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

Rand Paul just announced that he is running for president. He said some weird things, and some stupid things, and some okay things, and some smart things, and a lot of meaningless things.

Politics!

Here’s the transcript, courtesy of TIME.

I have a message, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We have come to take our country back.

We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare.

The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped.

Less than five years ago I stood just down the road in home town in Bowling Green and said those same words. I wasn’t supposed to win, no one thought I would.

Some people asked me, then why are you running? The answer is the same now as it was then. I have a vision for America. I want to be part of a return to prosperity, a true economic boom that lists all Americans, a return to a government restrained by the Constitution.

A return to privacy, opportunity, liberty. Too often when Republicans have won we have squandered our victory by becoming part of the Washington machine. That’s not who I am.

That’s not why I ran for office the first time just a few years ago. The truth is, I love my life as a small-town doctor. Every day I woke up, I felt lucky to be able to do the things I loved. More importantly, I was blessed to be able to do things that made a difference in people’s lives.

I never could have done any of this, though, without the help of my parents who are here today. I’d like you to join me and thank my mother and dad.

With my parents’ help, I was able to make it through long years of medical training to become an eye surgeon. For me there is nothing that compares with helping someone see better. Last August I was privileged to travel to Guatemala on a medical mission trip together with a team of surgeons from across the U.S.

We operated on more than 200 people who were blind or nearly blind from cataracts. I was grateful to be able to put my scrubs back on, peer into the oculars of the microscope, and focus on the task at hand, to take a surgical approach to fix a problem.

One day in Guatemala, a man arrived and told me that I’d operated on his wife the day before. His wife could see clearly for the first time in years, and she had begged him to get on the bus, travel the winding roads and come back to our surgery center. He too was nearly blind from hardened cataracts.

After his surgery, the next day, his wife sat next to me. As I unveiled the patch from his eyes, it was a powerful emotional moment for me to see them looking at each other clearly for the first time years to see the face they loved again.

As I saw the joy in their eyes, I thought, “This is why I became a doctor.”

In that moment, I also remembered my grandmother, who inspired me to become an eye surgeon. She spent hours with me as a kid. We would sort through her old coin collection, looking for wheat pennies and Indian heads. But as her vision began to fail, I became her eyes to inspect the faintness of the mint marks on the old weather-worn coins.

I went with my grandmother to the ophthalmologist as she had her corneas replaced. I was also with her when she received the sad news that macular generation had done irreparable harm to her eyes.

My hope… my hope that my grandmother would see again made me want to become an eye surgeon, to make a difference in people’s lives.

I’ve been fortunate. I’ve been able to enjoy the American Dream.

I worry, though, that the opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters. As I watch our once-great economy collapse under mounting spending and debt, I think, “What kind of America will our grandchildren see”?

It seems to me that both parties and the entire political system are to blame.

Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration.

And it’s now tripling under Barack Obama’s watch. President Obama is on course to add more debt than all of the previous presidents combined.

We borrow a million dollars a minute. This vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy, but our security.

We can wake up now and do the right thing. Quit spending money we don’t have.

This message of liberty is for all Americans, Americans from all walks of life. The message of liberty, opportunity and justice is for all Americans, whether you wear a suit, a uniform or overalls, whether you’re white or black, rich or poor.

In order to restore America, one thing is for certain, though: We cannot, we must not dilute our message or give up on our principles.

If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat Light, what’s the point?

Why bother?

We need to boldly proclaim our vision for America. We need to go boldly forth under the banner of liberty that clutches the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other.

Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can’t be fixed from within. We the people must rise up and demand action.

Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.

I have been to Washington, and let me tell you, there is no monopoly on knowledge there.

I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever.

We limit the President to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress!

I want to reform Washington. I want common sense rules that will break the log-jam in Congress.

That’s why I introduced a Read the Bills Act.

The bills are thousands of pages long. And no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desks only a few hours before a vote.

I’ve proposed something truly extraordinary — Let’s read the bills, every page!

———
Many Americans, though, are being left behind. The reward of work seems beyond their grasp. Under the watch of both parties – the poor seem to get poorer and the rich get richer.

Trillion dollar government stimulus packages have only widened the income gap.

Politically connected cronies get taxpayer dollars by the hundreds of millions, and poor families across America continue to suffer.

I have a different vision, an ambitious vision, a vision that will offer opportunity to all Americans, especially those who have been left behind.

———
Liberal policies have failed our inner cities. Let’s just get the facts straight. They have failed our inner cities. Our schools are not equal and the poverty gap continues to widen.

Martin Luther King spoke of two Americas. He described them as “two starkly different American experiences that exist side by side.”

In one America, people experience the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the other America, people experience a daily ugliness. …

My trips to Detroit, Appalachia, and Chicago have revealed what I call an ‘undercurrent of unease.’

I want all our children to have the same opportunities that I had. We need to stop limiting kids in poor neighborhoods to failing public schools and offer school choice, not just for the privileged, but for everyone!

It won’t happen, though, unless we realize that we can’t borrow our way to prosperity.

———

In my vision for America, freedom and prosperity at home can only be achieved if we defend against enemies who are dead-set on attacking America.

The enemy is radical Islam and not only will I name the enemy, I will do what ever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind!

We need a national defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.

But we also need a foreign policy that protects American interests and encourages stability, not chaos!

I envision an America with a national defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered by overseas nation building!

I envision a national defense that promotes, as Reagan put it, “Peace through Strength.”

I believe in applying Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue.

Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength.

We brought Iran to the table from strength, through sanctions I voted for.

Now we must stay strong. That’s why I co-sponsored legislation that insures that any deal between the U.S. and Iran must be approved by Congress.

Not only is that good policy, it is the law.

I will oppose any deal that does not end Iran’s nuclear ambitions and have strong verification measures. I will insist that any final version be brought before Congress.

The difference between President Obama and myself-he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness.

———
We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.

Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home!

It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting death to America in countries that receive millions of dollars of our foreign aid.

I say it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America!

———

Today begins the journey to take back America, to rescue a great country, now adrift.

If you love liberty, stand with me!

If you want to defeat the Washington machine, stand with me!

God bless you. God bless America.

View the original here: 

Rand Paul Just Announced That He’s Running for President. Here’s His Speech.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Just Announced That He’s Running for President. Here’s His Speech.

Rand Paul Is No Moderate on Global Warming

Mother Jones

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

This story originally appeared on Grist and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Journalists love a counterintuitive story, like when a Democrat criticizes unions or a Republican endorses gay marriage. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), with his idiosyncratic libertarianism, provides them with a lot of good stories, like his opposition to mass incarceration. In that vein, a couple of recent media reports assert, on the thinnest reeds of evidence, that Paul has accepted climate science or endorsed regulating carbon pollution. He hasn’t. Sorry, reporters: There is no counterintuitive story about Paul and climate change.

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


Rand Paul Is No Moderate on Global Warming


Scientists: Ted Cruz’s Climate Theories Are a “Load of Claptrap”


Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment


Jeb Bush on Climate Change: “I’m a Skeptic”


How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World


Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.


Attention GOP Candidates: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Paul, who is announcing a presidential run on Tuesday, is an anti-government extremist and a climate change denier. Just last April, he said he is “not sure anybody exactly knows why” the climate is changing. He went on to call the science “not conclusive” and complain about “alarmist stuff.” If you’re wondering what he means by “alarmist stuff,” in 2011, while arguing for a bill that would prevent the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, Paul said, “If you listen to the hysterics,…you would think that the Statue of Liberty will shortly be under water and the polar bears are all drowning, and that we’re dying from pollution. It’s absolutely and utterly untrue.” Paul went on to assert that children are being misled into believing that “pollution” has gotten “a lot worse,” when “It’s actually much better now.” Paul, of course, was conflating conventional air pollution—like sulfur dioxide, which has declined in the US—and climate pollution, which is cumulative and global, and therefore gets worse every year, even if America’s annual emissions drop.

Indeed, Paul is prone to making ignorant, conspiracist statements about science in general. In October, he suggested to Breitbart News that Ebola may be more easily spread than scientists say and that the White House had been misleading the country on the issue. And in February, Paul told CNBC, “I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” This despite the fact that the supposed connection between autism and vaccination has been thoroughly debunked.

Continue Reading »

See the original post: 

Rand Paul Is No Moderate on Global Warming

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Is No Moderate on Global Warming

How Elizabeth Warren Made Expanding Social Security Cool

Mother Jones

For years, Washington politicians and policymakers been talking about cutting Social Security benefits. The Beltway consensus, unduly shaped by deficit hawks and Wall Streeters, has been that the system is broken and must be pared back, and progressives who support Social Security have often had to play defense.

Continue Reading »

Original source – 

How Elizabeth Warren Made Expanding Social Security Cool

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Elizabeth Warren Made Expanding Social Security Cool

This Democratic Congresswoman Wants the FBI to Take on Gamergate

Mother Jones

Congress’ next target: the often-vitriolic online movement known as Gamergate. On Tuesday Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), backed by the National Organization for Women and the Human Rights Campaign, asked her House colleagues to join her in demanding tighter enforcement of cyber-stalking and online harassment laws.

The Violence Against Women Act gives the federal government the authority to prosecute individuals who send violent threats over the internet, but actual convictions are hard to come by—the Department of Justice has prosecuted just 10 people for cyberstalking between 2010 and 2013. (In a long reported piece for Pacific Standard last year, the writer Amanda Hess detailed the near-impossibility of getting any level of law enforcement to investigate online threats.) “If we step up prosecuting these cases and enforce the federal laws that are already on the books, cyber-stalking—and the severity and quantity of threats that are made— we hope will be reduced,” Clark tells Mother Jones.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who replaced now-Sen. Ed Markey in a 2013 special election, began looking for ways to take on internet harassment after discovering last fall that Brianna Wu, a video game developer who has become a target of so-called “GamerGate” trolls, lived in her district. Wu has received more than three dozen death threats over the last five months—including one, posted to YouTube, in which a knife-wielding man bragged about getting in a car crash on the way to Wu’s house to kill her. Clark got in touch with Wu, and then with the FBI. (Wu had committed the grave sin of suggesting that tech could be a more hospitable place for women.)

In many cases, Clark found that social media networks and private sites were ambivalent about addressing the threats delivered via their platforms too. “When Brianna Wu had to pull out of a gaming conference called PAX East just last month, the folks who were running the site for that said that a bomb threat did not violate their user policy,” Clark says. Her proposal wouldn’t have any effect on how private companies police their users, although she hopes companies—and trolls— will take harassment more seriously once law enforcement does. “What we’re hoping to do is change the culture around accepting these threats of death, of dismemberment, of great physical harm, as mere hoaxes, and really start to think of them in the violence they’re perpetrating and the economic harm that they’re doing,” she adds.

As Clark sees it, cracking down on harassment isn’t just about public safety and peace-of-mind—it’s about dollars and cents. “We are hearing from women that they are losing wages, they are losing opportunities, speaking engagements, they are incurring legal fees, and having to hire online protective services at their own cost,” she says. “Now that so much of our commerce is done online and a presence on social media is required for many professions, we really see this as an economic toll for women as well as a personal one.”

Right on cue, Clark herself became a magnet for abuse after publishing an op-ed on the subject on Wednesday. (Angry Twitter users told the congresswoman to drink bleach and expressed their desire to attack her, among other things.) But as a member of Congress, she knows she can get an audience with law enforcement if she ever feels truly threatened. “We’re really hoping that that is going to be available for anybody who is using the internet,” she says.

Link to original: 

This Democratic Congresswoman Wants the FBI to Take on Gamergate

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, Cyber, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Democratic Congresswoman Wants the FBI to Take on Gamergate

Could the moral angle get Christian conservatives to care about climate change?

Could the moral angle get Christian conservatives to care about climate change?

By on 27 Feb 2015commentsShare

A majority of Americans think that fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a “moral responsibility,” according to a new poll from Reuters. The news agency conducted the poll following a number of recent statements from Pope Francis casting climate change as a moral issue, since it will hit the world’s poor hardest. Reuters found:

Two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said that world leaders are morally obligated to take action to reduce CO2 emissions. And 72 percent said they were “personally morally obligated” to do what they can in their daily lives to reduce emissions.

For comparison, that tracks with a recent report from the Yale Center for Climate Change Communication, which found that 64 percent of registered voters support imposing “strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health.”

And, OK, “sure,” you might be saying. “This poll, like so many others, measures people’s willingness to talk the talk without walking the walk,” you might be saying. For, as Grist’s David Roberts reminds us, polls repeatedly find that Americans like stuff that sounds good. They may think that leaders are morally obligated to do stuff that sounds good too.

But here’s how this poll is useful: That Yale Center report found that even though 64 percent of voters support strict carbon regulations, only 40 percent of conservative Republicans and 23 percent of Tea Party Republicans do. Those folks also tend to be highly religious. If action on climate change can rise above knee-jerk politics to a religious — or moral — imperative, then there may be some chance of making progress. That seems to be what the Pope hopes, at least.

Of course, the Pope isn’t the only moral authority capable of making inroads with conservatives. Less than a quarter of Americans are Catholic (and half of American Catholics vote Democrat). But Evangelicals are gradually getting on board too. “The moral imperative is the way to reach out to conservatives,” Rev. Mitch Hescox of the Evangelical Environmental Network told Reuters. The issue may resonate in particular with young, religious conservatives, who, of course, will gradually replace the old ones.

“These are issues we’ve always grown up with and issues we’re used to hearing about,” 30-year-old evangelical leader Ben Lowe recently told Grist, saying his “creation care” movement, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, is growing faster than the group can handle. “There’s been a great amount of growth within the last 10 years or so that cares a lot about understanding our biblical role to be caretakers of this planet. And a lot of Christians have questions about climate change and where they fit in on all of that.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Originally from: 

Could the moral angle get Christian conservatives to care about climate change?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Could the moral angle get Christian conservatives to care about climate change?

Scott Walker Blows It Again: Asked About ISIS, All He Has Is Bluster

Mother Jones

Over at National Review, conservative blogger Jim Geraghty joins the crowd of pundits who are unimpressed with Scott Walker’s recent answers to fairly easy questions:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received a lot of completely undeserved grief from the national news media in the past weeks. But he may have made a genuine unforced error in one of his remarks today. Asked about ISIS, Walker responded, “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”

That is a terrible response. First, taking on a bunch of protesters is not comparably difficult to taking on a Caliphate with sympathizers and terrorists around the globe, and saying so suggests Walker doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the challenge from ISIS and its allied groups.

Let’s put aside the question of whether Walker deserves any grief for his weasely comments about evolution and President Obama’s love of country. Fair or not, those actually seem like the kinds of questions presidential candidates get asked all the time. If Walker wants to be taken seriously, he should have better responses then he did.

But hey—maybe those really were gotcha questions and Walker should get a pass for answering them badly. ISIS, by contrast, certainly isn’t. It’s one of the preeminent policy challenges we face, and if you’re aiming for the Oval Office you’d better have something substantive to say about it. As Geraghty suggests, generic tough-guy posturing does nothing except show that you’re out of your depth.

At a broader level, the problem is that although Walker’s anti-union victories are a legitimate part of his appeal and a legitimate part of his campaign story, he’s become something of a one-note Johnny about it. His supposed bravery in standing up to union leaders and peaceful middle-class protestors has become his answer to everything. This is going to get old pretty quickly for everyone but a small band of die-hard fans.

Needless to say, it’s early days, and Walker’s stumbles over the past couple of weeks are unlikely to hurt him much. In fact, it’s better to get this stuff out of the way now. It will give Walker an improved sense of what to expect when the campaign really heats up and his answers matter a lot more than they do now.

That said, every candidate for president—Democrat and Republican—should be expected to have a pretty good answer to the ISIS question. No empty posturing. No generic bashing of Obama’s policies. No cute evasions. That stuff is all fine as red meat for the campaign trail, but it’s not a substitute for explaining what you’d actually do if you were president. Ground troops? More drones? Getting our allies to contribute more? Whatever it is, let’s hear it.

Continued here:

Scott Walker Blows It Again: Asked About ISIS, All He Has Is Bluster

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Blows It Again: Asked About ISIS, All He Has Is Bluster

Jungle Primaries in California: It Looks Like a Big Fat "Meh"

Mother Jones

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

A few years ago California adopted what’s mockingly called a “jungle primary.” Instead of Democrats and Republicans each running their own primary, there’s just one big primary and the top two vote-getters move on. That might be two Democrats, two Republicans, or one of each.

The idea behind the top-two primary was simple: it would produce more moderate candidates. Instead of appealing to the most extreme segments of the electorate, candidates would jostle to get votes from the center. Democrats could benefit from appealing to right-leaning centrists and vice versa for Republicans.

So did it work? So far, the answer appears to be no, though the evidence is a little hazy because of another change California made at around the same time: moving all initiatives to general elections. Because of this, turnout at primaries plummeted. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that Californians were eager to go to the polls to vote for initiatives, but not so eager when there was nothing more interesting at stake than a primary battle for the state legislature. This changed the composition of the primary electorate, so it’s hard to make solid comparisons with previous years.

That said, it still doesn’t look like much changed. In 2012, for example, researchers polled voters using both a traditional ballot and a top-two ballot. There was no difference in the results. One reason is that most voters knew virtually nothing about any of the candidates. Were they moderate? Liberal? Wild-eyed lefties? Meh. Voters weren’t paying enough attention to know. Mark Barabak of the LA Times summarizes a pile of studies published recently in the California Journal of Politics and Policy:

Voters were just as apt to support candidates representing the same partisan poles as they were before the election rules changed — that is, if they even bothered voting….”To summarize, our articles find very limited support for the moderating effects associated with the top-two primary,” Washington University’s Betsy Sinclair wrote, summarizing half a dozen research papers.

For starters, voters will have to pay far closer attention to their choices. Some candidates may have hugged the middle in a bid to entice more pragmatic-minded voters, but the research suggests relatively few voters noticed. There was little discernment between, say, a flaming liberal and a more accommodating Democrat; in most voters’ minds they fell under the same party umbrella.

In addition, voters will have to be less partisan themselves, showing a far greater willingness to support a moderate of the other party over a more extreme member of their own. Research into 2012’s state Assembly races found an exceedingly small percentage of so-called cross-over voters: just 5.5% of Democrats and 7.6% of Republicans sided with a candidate from the other party.

Now, it does turn out that moderate Republicans were more willing to cross over than any other group: 16.4 percent of them crossed over to vote for Democrats. However, this is most likely due to the simple fact that California has a lot more Democratic districts than Republican ones. This means there are a lot more districts where voting for a Republican is useless—and always has been.

The full set of studies is here. Bottom line: early evidence doesn’t suggest that a top-two primary makes much difference. Perhaps it will in the future as voters get more accustomed to it, but for now they’re voting the same way they always have, and for the same kinds of candidates.

Originally posted here:

Jungle Primaries in California: It Looks Like a Big Fat "Meh"

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jungle Primaries in California: It Looks Like a Big Fat "Meh"

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Mother Jones

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

With measles cases in the United States at a 20-year high, some Republican presidential hopefuls have gotten heat for pandering to conservative voters who doubt extensive scientific evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism. With Chris Christie and Rand Paul making controversial comments on the issue, Hillary Clinton came out strongly Monday night on the side of science:

But in 2008—when a widespread theory linking vaccines to autism had already been debunked—Clinton wasn’t so definitive on this point. In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote, “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out.”

Clinton has a long history of supporting efforts to get children vaccinated. In 1993, she spearheaded the Childhood Immunization Initiative and the Vaccines for Children program, which aimed to make vaccines affordable. Yet, she also has been a strong voice for families dealing with autism, calling in 2007 for $700 million per year to fund research and education. Her comments in 2008 reflected a certain tension to advocating on both fronts.

More stories on vaccines and outbreaks:


Vaccines Work. These 8 Charts Prove It.


Map: The High Cost of Vaccine Hysteria


How Many People Arenâ&#128;&#153;t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?


Measles Cases in the US Are at a 20-Year High. Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers.


This PBS Special Makes the Most Powerful Argument for Vaccines Yet


Mickey Mouse Still Stricken With Measles, Thanks to the Anti-Vaxxers


If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings

She also wasn’t the only prominent Democrat hedging about autism and vaccines during the 2008 election cycle: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania that April, Barack Obama was asked about a link. “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate,” he replied. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

It used to be more politically difficult for Democrats to come out swinging against anti-vaxxers, a problem that now appears to be growing for Republicans. In 2009, 26 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats believed parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Now, according to a new Pew survey, 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats hold that view.

Obama’s position has evolved too: On Sunday, he urged parents to get their kids vaccinated. “There aren’t reasons not to,” he said.

Originally posted here: 

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

And another one will oversee NOAA. Gage Skidmore/Flickr So, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was just named to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness as Republicans take over the Senate. This subcommittee (which used to be just Space and Science but was recently renamed) is in charge of oversight of, among other things, NASA. This is not a good thing. Just how bad it is will be determined. Before I rip into this, I want to be as fair as possible here: Poking around the Web, I don’t see any statements from Cruz that I’d consider directly antithetical to NASA’s efforts specifically to explore space. For example, in 2013 he wanted to reduce NASA’s budget, but that was more so that it would comply with the caps set by the Budget Control Act. In fact, he made a statement saying, “Proceeding with an authorization while pretending that the existing law is something other than what it is, is not the most effective way to protect the priority that space exploration and manned exploration should have.” That’s at least superficially heartening. But that’s not to say he doesn’t pose a clear danger: Cruz is a staunch denier of global warming. In 2014, he said this in an CNN interview: The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened. Read the rest at Slate. See original: Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? ; ; ;

Link:

Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Pines, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?