Tag Archives: democrats

Inside the $7 Million Fight to Tax Soda in San Francisco

Mother Jones

After a high-profile battle in New York, the front line in the War on Soda has moved to Northern California: next month, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley will consider whether to levy major taxes on sugary beverages.

Measure D and Proposition E sound like ordinary, small-time municipal ballot items, but in the past few months, they’ve become subjects of national attention. For Big Soda, defeating the tax in the liberal, health-conscious Bay Area would be their ultimate triumph—and kill hopes for similar taxes in other places. The American Beverage Association—lobbying arm for Pepsi and Coca-Cola—has poured Super Big Gulp–sized streams of cash into these contests: they’ve spent $7.7 million thus far fighting San Francisco’s Proposition E alone. It’s already the second most expensive ballot measure campaign in the city, and could easily break the record.

Proposition E was proposed by San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener and it’d place a two-cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages. (Berkeley’s Measure D proposes a one-cent tax.) It’s specific about what constitutes a taxable sugary beverage: soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and juices will be subject to the tax, while milk, syrups, and alcohol will be exempt. Distributors of the drinks are meant to cover the hikes, but they’re likely to pass that cost onto retailers, so consumers will end up paying the price. So, if you’re buying a 21-ounce Coke in the city, you can expect to pay 42 cents more. If Prop E passes, San Francisco would become the first city in the country to tax soda.

Supporters say all those Cokes will generate over $30 million in revenue per year, which would be used to fund nutrition, fitness, and other public health programs in public schools and elsewhere. Beyond that, it’s projected to reduce consumption of sugary drinks by 30 percent, according to San Francisco city economist Ted Egan. All in all, Prop E seems to have addressed some of the issues that made past soda taxes hard to swallow: In nearby Richmond, a measure was sunk because it didn’t specify what drinks could be taxed, and in El Monte, Calif., their bill didn’t specify how revenue would be allocated.

Though it’s arguably one of the best-crafted soda taxes to be put to vote, the Prop E campaign has been competitive, to put it lightly. Thus far, it’s been rife with deception and nasty attacks on both sides. Buoyed by its multi-million-dollar warchest, the No on E camp has blanketed the city with ads that evoke typical anti-nanny-state rallying cries. Big Soda has funded a group called Californians for Beverage Choice, which has put up signs and sent spokesmen on TV to argue that “consumers should be able to make the choice for themselves without taxes or regulation trying to influence their behavior.”

The No on E campaign also focuses on the high cost of living in San Francisco, calling the soda tax a “regressive tax” that would disproportionately hurt low-income people. The soda lobby has been leaning on another front group, the appealingly-named Coalition for an Affordable City, to make that case. It’s put up billboards across the city featuring local shopkeepers who oppose the measure, and sponsored TV ads like this one:

The San Francisco Bay Guardian investigated, however, and found that many of the 700-plus retailers who are listed as opponents of Prop E actually favor it. The Guardian claims that the beverage lobby allegedly dispatched canvassers to get local shopkeepers to oppose the tax, without mentioning exactly what it was, or that their businesses would be included on a public list. The Guardian also alleged that the groups endorsing a no vote—they appear during the ad—were paid off in exchange. “The Young Democrats, who endorsed No on the Sugary Beverage Tax, got a whopping $20,000 for their troubles,” it said.

The Yes on E coalition, led by a group called Choose Health San Francisco, has also accused the measure’s opponents of being deliberately dishonest. In a formal complaint to the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Choose Health said the No on E committee didn’t disclose how much money it has received, and has failed to add a disclaimer that the American Beverage Association has been funding their campaign. Michelle Parker, a PTA member and supporter of E, called the soda lobby’s tactics “personally offensive.” The opposition has denied wrongdoing, and spokesman Roger Salazar countered by accusing E’s supporters of “going around, harassing our supporters and bullying them.”

For some, it might be enough to look at the millions that Big Soda has (and will) spend, and conclude that Proposition E is doomed. While it’s true the lobby has a lot of money—and some of the best consultants in the business—the measure’s supporters are hardly a ragtag bunch. Backers have raised nearly $300,000—including $50,000 from billionaire donors Lisa and John Pritzker—which is enough to mount a competitive campaign. And the political consultancy firm Erwin & Muir—which boasts a 90% success rate, according to Politico—is working for the yes camp, pro bono.*

Proposition E will need to be approved by at least two-thirds of voters to become law. Polling has found support hovering around 50%, but it could receive a bump after the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed the measure last weekend. Things could easily get nastier as Election Day nears.

Even if it fails, many are betting that its cross-bay counterpart, Measure D, will succeed in Berkeley. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote that “If a soda tax can’t pass in the most progressive city in America, it can’t pass anywhere. Big Soda knows that, which is why it’s determined to kill it here.”

The measure’s passage might not spark a nationwide movement—the ABA’s Salazar was quick to say Berkeley is “not a precedent-setter”—but it’s dangerous enough that his bosses have spent over $2 million to stop the tax there. And it’s dangerous enough to have merited national attention. If both Prop E and Measure D fail, the idea of the soda tax may go flat for years. But if one of them passes, it could very well be coming to a ballot box near you.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the name of the political consultancy firm.

Source – 

Inside the $7 Million Fight to Tax Soda in San Francisco

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside the $7 Million Fight to Tax Soda in San Francisco

How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.

Mother Jones

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

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals—all Republican appointees—paved the way for Wisconsin’s controversial voter ID law to take effect in time for this year’s midterm elections. Civil rights groups had sued the state to block the law, saying that it would likely disenfranchise more than 300,000 voters who didn’t possess the proper ID to vote—a disproportionate number of whom were likely to be minority and low-income people. But in justifying the decision, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that essentially, critics were overhyping the potential for the ID requirement to keep people from voting. After all, he said, the idea has been endorsed by none other than former democratic president Jimmy Carter, a man who has made election integrity the centerpiece of his post-presidential life.

But does Jimmy Carter really support voter ID laws?

The ex-president and former peanut farmer has become a familiar reference point for Republicans looking to shore up support for voter ID laws. Conservative outlets such as Breitbart News frequently invoke Carter as the cheerleader-in-chief for voter ID laws by insisting that even Jimmy Carter supports them.

The Carter riff dates back to 2005, when he co-chaired a bipartisan commission on election reform. One of the many measures proposed by the commission was a requirement for a voter ID. That tidbit from the commission report has wended its way into conservative talking points—and on up to the Supreme Court, which approvingly cited Carter in the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 6-to-3 decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, thereby freeing other states to create their own such laws: “The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters,” the majority opinion stated. Yesterday, Judge Easterbrook—appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan—referenced Carter and that 2008 Supreme Court decision in upholding Wisconsin’s ID law.

But what Carter’s commission proposed, and what GOP-controlled states have actually passed, diverge greatly. That’s one reason why Carter no longer seems to supports voter ID—a fact that Judge Easterbrook missed.

In 2008, while the Supreme Court was considering Crawford, Carter co-wrote a New York Times op-ed with the election commission’s co-chair, former Reagan chief of staff, James A. Baker III. The pair recognized the arguments on both sides of the debate, saying that Republicans’ concerns about fair elections were valid and that Democrats’ fears that ID requirements would disenfranchise voters also had basis in fact. But they reiterated that the 2005 commission had recommended a special voter ID card based on the REAL ID Act of 2005, one that would be issued free by the states and distributed through mobile units that would ensure everyone would get one, even if they didn’t drive. Carter and Baker’s op-ed also emphasized that any voter ID requirement needed to be phased in slowly. “The Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue,” they concluded. “It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat.”

Virtually none of that’s happened. For one thing, the REAL ID Act, which would have created something like a national ID card, became hugely controversial and was aggressively opposed by virtually everyone: states, libertarians, evangelical Christians, and even the ACLU. From that point on, however, voter ID became something pushed almost exclusively by Republicans who weren’t interested in implementing any of the other recommendations of the bipartisan commission that would have also expanded access to voting. Carter lamented back in 2008, before a flurry of new ID laws took effect, that “the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase—not reduce—voter participation.” That’s one reason why he seems to have changed his tune on voter ID.

Last year, on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Carter spoke on the National Mall and addressed the reality of the voter ID laws that have materialized since he first suggested that they might be a good idea. “I believe we all know how Dr. King would have reacted to the new ID requirements to exclude certain voters, especially African Americans,” Carter said. Today, there isn’t much doubt about how Carter feels about voter ID laws like the one in Wisconsin, but that doesn’t seem to keep conservative judges from continuing to claim his endorsement for their opinions upholding them.

Originally from: 

How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.

Meet the Former Bike Executive Who Could Crush Scott Walker’s White House Dreams

Mother Jones

This March, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker launched what, in the post-Citizens United era, amounts to a de facto presidential exploratory campaign. He jetted to Las Vegas for a private audience with Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul and Republican Party kingmaker who is said to have spent nearly $150 million during the 2012 elections and may dump as much as $100 million more into this year’s midterms. It was a pinch-me moment for Walker, who in four short years had ascended from county executive to conservative hero. Inspired by his boyhood idol, Ronald Reagan, Walker took on Wisconsin’s public-employee unions and refused to buckle in the face of massive protests and a weeks-long occupation of the state Capitol. When the unions subsequently tried to oust him via a recall election, he barnstormed the state, raised a record $37 million, and won with 53 percent of the vote. Soon the preacher’s son and college dropout began appearing alongside Chris Christie and Jeb Bush on 2016 short lists.

But these days, Walker’s presidential dreams are hanging by a thread as he battles for reelection against a political neophyte whose only previous electoral campaign was a self-financed 2012 run for the local school board. Why is he vulnerable? Walker devoted his first term to ramming through a chunk of the modern conservative agenda: He limited collective-bargaining rights, slashed taxes on the wealthy, enacted new voter ID requirements, boosted funding for vouchers at the expense of public schools, curtailed abortion access, and weakened environmental protections. These policies have sharply polarized Wisconsin—splitting families, church groups, golf foursomes—with only a sliver of the electorate not firmly pro- or anti-Walker.

Mary Burke, Walker’s opponent, is running as a McKinsey moderate, the anti-politician with business savvy who will jump-start the state’s economy and heal a divided Wisconsin. She believes her pro-business message can win over those key undecided voters. In a nonpresidential year when turnout could decide the election, Burke’s strategy is a gamble—and it just might work.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from:  

Meet the Former Bike Executive Who Could Crush Scott Walker’s White House Dreams

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Former Bike Executive Who Could Crush Scott Walker’s White House Dreams

Here’s How Fact Checking Exits the Real World and Enters Wonderland

Mother Jones

So here’s the big controversy of the day out in our nation’s heartland. Joni Ernst, running for a Senate seat in Iowa, is one of 21 Republicans who voted in favor of a “personhood” amendment to the state constitution. It says that “the inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected.”

That seems clear enough. It means life begins at conception, and that embryos will have the same legal protections as you and me. Ernst’s opponent, Bruce Braley, concludes, logically enough, that this would ban certain forms of contraception, prevent people from getting in vitro fertilization, and lead to the prosecution of doctors who perform those procedures.

Ernst says this is nonsense. “That amendment is simply a statement that I support life,” she says. Why, it’s just a nothingburger! Sort of like a resolution endorsing apple pie or Mother’s Day.

Today, Glenn Kessler wades into this dispute. He dings Ernst for “straining credulity” about the intent of the amendment, but he also has harsh words for Braley:

Braley goes too far with his scary scenarios, especially because he repeatedly said the amendment “would” have the impact he described. Ernst is on record of not opposing contraception—though she also favors punishing doctors who perform abortions. We concede that the legal terrain in murky, and the impact uncertain. But that’s all the more reason not to speak with such certainty. Braley thus earns Two Pinocchios.

Ed Kilgore is dumbfounded by this kind of treatment, and so am I. I just don’t get it. Kessler is not some babe in the woulds. He knows perfectly well exactly what the goal of this amendment is. It’s possible, of course, that Democrats in Iowa will prevent Republicans from enacting enabling legislation. Or that the US Supreme Court will stand in the way. But why does that matter when the intent is so clear? Likewise, Ernst may say that “I will always stand with our women on affordable access to contraception,” but that’s plain and simple weaseling. And it doesn’t even matter. Republicans in the legislature can keep their hands completely clean and simply let activists take things to court. With an amendment like that in place, no judge could turn away a suit that asked for a ban on abortions or in-vitro fertilization or certain forms of contraception.

As Kilgore says, “Encouraging this lack of accountability, and engaging in the worst form of false equivalency, is just a sin.” All Braley is doing is calling out Ernst for the obvious implications of an amendment she supports. It’s not merely a “statement” and she knows it. But in our topsy-turvy world of fact checking, Braley’s plain description of the obvious real-world impact of Ernst’s amendment is somehow deemed more of a lie than Ernst’s slippery prevarications in the first place.

I don’t understand this. This isn’t a debating society. It’s not la-la land. It’s the real world, and it’s not partisan sniping to say that we all know what this stuff means in the real world. Shouldn’t that be the domain of a fact checker?

See original article here – 

Here’s How Fact Checking Exits the Real World and Enters Wonderland

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Fact Checking Exits the Real World and Enters Wonderland

Gov. Susana Martinez’s Emails Have Mysteriously Disappeared

Mother Jones

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

One of the central themes in my April cover story about New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, a rising star in the Republican Party touted as a potential vice presidential candidate, was the paranoia displayed by Martinez’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Here’s one of the juiciest nuggets illustrating this behavior:

Martinez’s 2010 crew saw enemies everywhere. A former staffer recalls the campaign on multiple occasions sending the license plate numbers of cars believed to be used by opposition trackers to an investigator in Martinez’s DA office who had access to law enforcement databases. In one instance, a campaign aide took a photo of a license plate on a car with an anti-Martinez bumper sticker and emailed it to the investigator. “Cool I will see who it belongs to!!” the investigator replied.

After my story went live and the Santa Fe Reporter published its own report on the license plate controversy, the Democratic Party of New Mexico filed an open-records request with the state’s Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which Martinez ran as DA before becoming governor in 2011. The Democrats asked for emails spanning August to December 2010 written by Martinez; Amy Orlando, a close friend who was Martinez’s chief deputy DA and then briefly succeeded her as DA; and a senior investigator in the DA’s office. The Democrats also asked for all correspondence to and from employees of Martinez’s DA office relating to her 2010 gubernatorial campaign, and any correspondence from August to December 2010 mentioning the words “Diane Denish,” “Denish,” and “license plate.” (Diane Denish was Martinez’s 2010 Democratic opponent.)

On Tuesday, Mark D’Antonio, the current DA in New Mexico’s Third Judicial District, released the findings of an internal investigation that concluded that large amounts of emails—potentially including those sought by the Democrats—had been “deleted and/or removed” during the period when the office was briefly run by Orlando, Martinez’s onetime deputy. Two of the four hard drives used by Orlando’s administration—hard drives that might have contained the requested emails—were missing. And investigators noted that all emails in the DA’s office were supposed to be backed up by a “special tape drive” in the office, but the back-up tapes were “blank and appear to have been erased.”

The report also noted that, under Orlando, the DA’s office misled a reporter who’d made his own request for similar records. The DA’s office told the reporter that the records he wanted didn’t exist because the office’s server “is routinely cleaned.” But after interviewing IT staffers, investigators concluded this statement “was inaccurate because IT personnel stated that servers were not routinely ‘cleaned’ and that the data should exist on a server.”

Orlando, who is now general counsel at the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, did not respond to a request for comment. She told the Albuquerque Journal that the report was an “amateurish political stunt on the eve of an election” filled with “baseless innuendos.” Martinez’s office did not respond to a request for comment. The investigative report was not a criminal investigation, and none of its claims constitute criminal wrongdoing.

The report also turned up evidence of troubling behavior by Orlando. Of the few emails dug up by investigators, one exchange showed Orlando trying to thwart D’Antonio, who replaced her as DA starting in 2013, from applying for and receiving several hundred thousand dollars in grant funding for DA operations. “Don’t leave ANY notes about how to do it!! Please,” Orlando wrote to a colleague in the DA’s office. Investigators call this “a conspiracy to actively deny Dona Ana County and related law enforcement agencies with much needed grant money.”

In a September 2010 email, Orlando asked the tech staff in the DA’s office to change the access level to her calendar and to obfuscate the reason why. “I need the people that have access to my calendar changed. But I need it done quietly. Please get with senior investigator Kip Scarborough and he will explain. And we will need to say that a virus or something happened.”

In an August 2010 email addressed to Orlando, a staffer in the DA’s office appears to admit to forging then-DA Martinez’s name on an affidavit relating to a hotel bill. “I had to fill out an affidavit that SM had to sign (forgery), and fax to the Hyatt to get her hotel bill.”

And in a November 2010 email, Orlando makes a snide remark about the planning for Martinez’s upcoming inaugural ball (she was then the governor-elect). Apparently relaying Martinez’s wishes about the theme of the ball, Orlando wrote to a party planner (whose name is redacted): “She wants it blk and white w a hint of Susan Komen color pink!”

Orlando added: “No mexican affair!!”

Read the full report:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1304761-investigative-report-on-missing-records-3rd.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1304761-investigative-report-on-missing-records-3rd”
);

This article:  

Gov. Susana Martinez’s Emails Have Mysteriously Disappeared

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gov. Susana Martinez’s Emails Have Mysteriously Disappeared

Quote of the Day: Nathan Deal Is Tired of Barack Obama’s Treachery

Mother Jones

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

From Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, apparently upset that his tax-fighting economic policies aren’t yet producing a paradise on earth:

It’s ironic that in a year in which Republican governors are leading some of the states that are making the most progress, that they almost, without exception, are classified as having a bump in their unemployment rates. Whereas states that are under Democrat governors’ control, they are all showing that their unemployment rate has dropped. And I don’t know how you account for that. Maybe there is some influence here that we don’t know about.

Maybe! It might be that the Obama administration is cooking the books to make Republicans looks bad. Or maybe Democrats in Georgia are deliberately refusing work in order to spike the unemployment numbers. Or—and this is my suspicion—maybe computers have finally acquired human-level intelligence and they don’t like Nathan Deal! If I were a computer, I sure wouldn’t.

View original article:

Quote of the Day: Nathan Deal Is Tired of Barack Obama’s Treachery

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Paradise, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Nathan Deal Is Tired of Barack Obama’s Treachery

Stop Claiming Vaccine Denial Is a Liberal Disease

Mother Jones

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

So who’s worse when it comes to ignoring and denying science, the political left or the political right?

For a long time, those wishing to claim that both sides are equally bad—we’re all biased, just in different directions—have relied upon two key issues in making their case: Vaccines and genetically modified foods, or GMOs. The suggestion is that these are basically the liberal equivalent of evolution denial or global warming denial. Skeptic magazine founding publisher Michael Shermer, for instance, prominently cited resistance to GMOs in a Scientific American article last year entitled “The Liberals’ War on Science.” As for vaccines? In a recent segment entitled “An Outbreak of Liberal Idiocy,” no less than The Daily Show suggested that vaccine denial is a left-wing scourge:

There’s just one problem: Commentators seem to just assume, without evidence, that anti-science beliefs on these two issues are predominantly a liberal phenomenon. But that assumption hasn’t been subjected to nearly enough scrutiny, especially in light of high profile vaccine-skeptic conservatives like Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann. The GMO issue is also politically suspicious: It is inherently conservative, in the purest sense of the word, to resist technological changes to the nature of food production (or anything else, for that matter).

And sure enough, the evidence just doesn’t support the idea that vaccine denial is some special left-wing fixation—and it’s barely any kinder to received wisdom on the issue of GMOs. I will demonstrate as much below, but first, let’s remember why this matters.

It is very clear that there are certain major issues where there is only one correct scientific answer, and political conservatives are much more likely to deny that answer than are liberals or moderates. Conservatives have also been shown to trust scientists less than liberals or moderates do. So no wonder they also reject their most important (if sometimes inconvenient) conclusions more often.

Here are the top two hits (but by no means the only examples) of conservative science denial, followed by some hard data on public attitudes about vaccines and GMOs:

Climate change. Here, the undeniable reality is that humans are causing global warming, and polls have repeatedly shown that it is political conservatives and Republicans who deny this fact about the world. According to recent data from the Yale and George Mason projects on climate change communication, for instance, 75 percent of liberal Democrats, but only 22 percent of conservative Republicans, accept the reality that humans are causing climate change—an over 50-point difference! Myriad other polls and studies have found something similar.

Pew Research Center.

Evolution. Here, the undeniable reality is that humans share a common ancestry with the rest of life on Earth, and that the diversity of life that we witness all around us is the result of an evolutionary process. And here again, those on the right deny this reality much more than do those on the left (although notably, the gap is not as wide as it is on the climate issue). According to a late 2013 Pew study, 67 percent of Democrats, but only 43 percent of Republicans, agree that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” That’s a 24-point difference. Indeed, based on these data, 48 percent of Republicans (compared to just 27 percent of Democrats) think “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” meaning that the GOP today is very nearly a majority creationist party.

That’s a seriously big deal, given that Young Earth Creationism embraces many other kinds of science denial besides the mere rejection of evolution. Rejection of the age of the Earth, for instance, and accordingly, of large swaths of physics and geology. It is a deeply anti-science ideology that extends far beyond one’s views about any particular scientific issue.

So it is very natural to ask whether there is really anything parallel to this rejectionism on the modern American left, and to try to adduce examples. However, the vaccine and GMO examples don’t cut it. To show as much, let’s examine them in turn.

Vaccines. Here, the undeniable reality is that childhood vaccines are safe and do not cause autism. So do liberals deny this fact more frequently than conservatives?

Recent research suggests the answer to that question is “no.” In a 2013 paper published in PLOS One, for instance, Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues surveyed a representative sample of 1001 Americans about their ideological beliefs and their views on contentious science topics. That included vaccines, where they used a five item questionnaire to assess people’s views, including items like “I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases” and “I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children.”

The study did not find that people on the left were more likely to oppose or distrust vaccines. Rather, it found a highly nuanced result. The researchers examined two related but distinct contributors to right-wing ideology: self-identification as a political conservative and support for the free market. It found that while the former was related to somewhat more vaccine support, the latter was related to somewhat more vaccine opposition. According to Lewandowsky, the two opposing forces “virtually cancel overall.”

Other studies have found similar results. In a 2009 paper, Yale’s Dan Kahan and his colleagues found that the conservative ideological values of “hierarchy” and “individualism” were both linked to greater opposition to the HPV vaccine in particular. In a paper from earlier this year, meanwhile, Kahan found that the idea of a link between the political left and the belief that vaccines in general are dangerous “lacks any factual basis.” In fact, if anything, he found a small increase in belief in vaccine risks as one moved to the right of the political spectrum.

If you’d prefer to examine the patterns of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, meanwhile, those also seem politically diverse. We are having a horrible year for measles, for instance, with 18 outbreaks and 592 cases, more than double the total in any previous year since 2001. And the 21 states that have seen cases and outbreaks run the political gamut; they include California and Massachusetts, but also Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Ohio (home to a large outbreak in the Amish community, a group of people that can hardly be called “liberal”). Last year, meanwhile, there was a measles outbreak clustered around a Texas megachurch.

Mennonite girls at a health clinic offering vaccinations following a large measles outbreak this year in the Amish community in Ohio. Tom E. Puskar/AP

When it comes to the right and vaccines, there’s also evidence like this:

So in sum, the evidence that vaccine opposition is somehow specially tied to left-wing beliefs is just lacking. Rather, the largest factor here, according to Lewandowsky’s research, is conspiratorial beliefs, which are hard to categorize as either left wing or right wing in nature.

Genetically modified foods. Now let’s move on to the GMO issue. Here, it is less obvious what a clear-cut anti-science belief would actually be, but perhaps the most obvious case is the belief that genetically modified foods are harmful if consumed by humans. This position has been rejected by the board of American Association for the Advancement of Science, which assures us that “crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” So do liberals disproportionately believe wrong things about genetically modified foods?

Lewandowsky’s paper also examined GM beliefs, once again using a five point scale that included items like “I believe that genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment” and “Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology.” And the researchers found that “opposition to GM foods was not associated with worldview constructs.”

“This result is striking,” the researchers went on to say, “in light of reports in the media that have linked opposition to GM foods with the political Left.”

Is this dude a left winger? justasc/Shutterstock

Lewandowsky et al aren’t the only ones. For instance, an independent analysis of data from the General Social Survey by the Discover magazine blogger Razib Khan also found no real left-right difference in views about GMOs.

Still, given just how striking these results are, and how contrary to what people assume, I sought to verify them by examining yet another poll. So with much help from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut, which supplied an abundance of data, I looked into the details behind a January 2013 CBS News poll that asked a variety of questions about GMOs using a representative national sample of 1,052 Americans.

For the most part, the results support Lewandowsky and Khan. GMO concern appears largely spread across the spectrum in this poll, and while it is somewhat stronger among Democrats (and, as we’ll see, especially strong on the far left), it is also very strong among Republicans and independents. For instance, the poll found that all three groups overwhelmingly support the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients (an idea the American Association for the Advancement of Science rejects): 90 percent of Republicans, 94 percent of Democrats, and 95 percent of independents were in favor.

Getting closer to a purely scientific issue, respondents were asked, “How concerned are you about genetically modified or genetically engineered food—Very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned?” Seventy-one percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents said they were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned.

What’s more, those who did profess this level of concern then went on to answer a second question, in which they were asked more precisely what they were worried about. Twenty-five percent of concerned Republicans, 29 percent of concerned Democrats, and 25 percent of concerned independents answered “not safe to eat.” Meanwhile, 33 percent of concerned Republicans, 39 percent of concerned Democrats, and 37 percent of concerned independents answered “cause health problems.” (These are the clear-cut science deniers.)

So while there might be slightly more concern about GM foods among Democrats, overall concern is broad and appears substantially non-ideological in nature—which makes sense if you think about the concerns as being motivated by people’s fears of consuming something that is supposedly icky or unnatural. Indeed, when asked in another survey question whether they would eat “genetically modified or genetically engineered fish,” 74 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats, and 71 percent of independents said “no.”

However, there is one important qualification. Although Democrats, Republicans, and independents do not look all that different on GMOs, it turns out that if you split Democrats and Republicans up into different ideological groups, you can discern more left-right differentiation on the issue (even as worries remain spread across the spectrum). The CBS News poll did just that. In addition to their party affiliation, people were also asked whether they self-identified as “very liberal,” “somewhat liberal,” “moderate,” “somewhat conservative,” and “very conservative.” When you break it down this way, 92 percent of “very liberal” respondents were either “somewhat” or “very” concerned about GMOs, compared with only 71 percent of “very conservative” respondents. (Those who were “somewhat liberal,” “moderate,” and “somewhat conservative” look pretty similar; their percentages are 79, 75, and 74, respectively.)

However, it is important to note that people who are “very liberal” are also the smallest ideological group in the survey by far (6 percent). There were more than twice as many “very conservative” respondents (13 percent), and since the survey was nationally representative, we should expect something similar for the United States as a whole.

Such, then, are the data. They do not support for the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial. And as for other issues that are sometimes cited as examples of left-wing science denial, such as fracking and nuclear power? Those examples are problematic, too (see here for my thinking on these subjects).

In the end, maybe the best way to think about the politics of science denial is this: There are two major, separate types of science denial out there. One is clearly right wing and is driven by conservative activists, think tanks, media outlets like Fox News, and politicians. It is widely adhered to in the conservative movement, and it is highly politically relevant because conservatives (and Republicans) take their views on these issues as motivation to try to affect policy. This describes the situation on climate change, and on the teaching of evolution (and numerous other topics, like contraception the relationship between abortion and health).

This type of science denial, institutionalized within a major party and its activist base, has little parallel on the modern American left or within the Democratic Party. However, there’s another kind of science denial, which may have many important consequences but is not driven by any one party. Its various fixations may at times appear more left wing, but are found across the political spectrum. Denialism about vaccines and GMOs fits more neatly into this latter category.

That’s not to exonerate any kind of science denial. Nor is it to deny that there are liberals or leftists out there who hold unscientific beliefs—the polls above clearly capture such people. Nonetheless, it is to say that modern conservative science denial remains a unique phenomenon.

So why, then, do people so readily assume that vaccine and GMO denial are fundamentally left-wing causes? I suspect because those of us who live in liberal, largely bi-coastal cities meet vastly more liberals than conservatives; and thus, we are far more likely to actually encounter liberal or left-wing people who hold these beliefs.

However, unlike pollsters, we aren’t sampling the whole country in a statistically reliable way through our experiences. Science, though, is all about putting aside beliefs and anecdotes in the face of data.

See the article here:

Stop Claiming Vaccine Denial Is a Liberal Disease

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stop Claiming Vaccine Denial Is a Liberal Disease

These 3 Gay Republicans Are Running for Congress

Mother Jones

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

In late March, Richard Tisei, a Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts, took an unusual step for a politician in a close race: He boycotted his own party’s convention.

The state GOP had added language to its platform opposing same-sex marriage, which has been legal in Massachusetts for a decade. The party’s decision put Tisei in a tricky spot: He’s a married, openly gay man. “I thought it was important for somebody to stand up and say the party is heading in the wrong direction,” Tisei told Mother Jones. “At a time when progress is being made, it wasn’t a good idea for Massachusetts to take a step backwards.”

Tisei, a former state senator, is one of three openly gay Republicans challenging incumbent US House members this year. He’s running unopposed in Tuesday’s GOP primary in Massachusetts’ 6th District. Dan Innis, a former dean of the business school at the University of New Hampshire, is running in New Hampshire’s 1st District; his primary is also Tuesday. And Carl DeMaio, a former member of the San Diego city council, won the Republican primary in California’s 52nd District in June.

Each of the three challengers has a decent chance of becoming the first openly gay Republican to be elected to Congress. The nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report ranks DeMaio’s race against freshman Democrat Scott Peters as a “pure toss-up.” Innis’ race, against Dem Carol Shea Porter, is listed as “toss-up/tilt Democrat.” So is Tisei’s race—although Tisei’s chances could fall Tuesday if his presumptive opponent, scandal-plagued incumbent John Tierney, loses in the Democratic primary.

There are currently just six LGBT members of the House—all Democrats. Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who was elected in 2012, is the first and, so far, only openly gay senator. Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe—who came out after he’d initially been elected—was the last out GOP member of Congress, but decided not to seek reelection in 2006. “Opinions do evolve,” Tisei says. “What I could do is be a catalyst to help bring about a change within the Republican caucus. Sure, it isn’t going to happen over night, but when you’re working with somebody closely on tax reform or economic issues and you get to know people as colleagues, it changes the dynamic in a lot of ways. Having a gay member of the caucus will open people’s eyes and change their perceptions, and hopefully change their minds on a lot of the issues.”

The three men are the first federal candidates—Democrat or Republican—to feature their same-sex spouses in campaign ads and literature. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a nonpartisan group that boosts openly gay candidates for office, has endorsed Innis and Tisei. Two endorsements for Republicans seeking federal office marks a new record in the organization’s 23-year history, says Jason Burns, the Victory Fund’s political director. (DeMaio hasn’t applied for the group’s endorsement this cycle, but they turned him down when he ran for mayor in 2012 and he has a shaky history with other LGBT groups.)

Continue Reading »

More: 

These 3 Gay Republicans Are Running for Congress

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These 3 Gay Republicans Are Running for Congress

Yes, Republicans Really Are Unprecedented in Their Obstructionism

Mother Jones

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

When we talk about Republican obstruction of judicial nominees in the Senate, the usual way is to look at filibusters and cloture votes. But that can sometimes be misleading, since cloture votes can happen for a variety of reasons. Or we can look at the raw number of seats filled. But that can be misleading too, since this can depend on how aggressive the president is about nominating new judges in the first place. A better way may be to simply look at how long nominees are delayed. That’s easier to measure, and long delays mostly happen for only one reason: because the minority party is blocking floor votes.

Via Jonathan Bernstein, the chart on the right comes from @Mansfield2016. It shows pretty clearly what’s happened to judicial nominees over the past couple of decades. Under George HW Bush, nominees that made it to the Senate floor were voted on almost immediately. The majority Democrats waited only a few days to schedule a vote.

That jumped suddenly when Bill Clinton became president and Republicans started delaying his nominees. Things settled down and delays plateaued during George W Bush’s administration.

And then came Barack Obama. Once more delays spiked. Even after the rules were changed, delays have stayed high, averaging about 80 days. This is far higher than it was under Bush or Clinton. Bernstein comments:

I believe that Senate rules requiring super-majority cloture for judicial nominations are an excellent idea, provided the minority observes the Senate norm of using filibusters rarely. Unfortunately, Republicans simply haven’t abided by longstanding Senate norms. After Obama’s election, they suddenly insisted that every nomination required 60 votes — an unprecedented hurdle. They blockaded multiple nominations to the DC Circuit Court. They have, before and after filibuster reform, used Senate rules to delay even nominations that they have intended ultimately to support. Since reform, they have imposed the maximum delay on every single judicial nominee.

Ideally, I’d like to see a compromise that restores the minority’s ability to block selected judicial nominees. But right now, the more pressing concern is that if Republicans win a Senate majority in November, they may simply shut down all nominations for two full years. That would be absolutely outrageous. Yet it seems entirely plausible.

That final comment is what makes these numbers even more outrageous. It’s fairly normal for a minority party to start delaying nominees in the final year or two of an administration. Obviously they’re hoping to win the presidency soon and they want to leave as many seats open as possible for their guy to fill. This tends to inflate the average numbers for an administration.

But that hasn’t happened yet for Obama. His numbers for his first five years are far, far higher than Bush’s even though Bush’s are inflated by delays during his final year in office. It’s just another example of the fact that, no, both parties aren’t equally at fault for the current level of government dysfunction. Republicans greeted Obama’s inauguration with an active plan of maximal obstruction of everything he did, regardless of what it was or how necessary it might be in the face of an epic economic collapse. No other party in recent history has done that. It’s a new thing under the sun.

Link:  

Yes, Republicans Really Are Unprecedented in Their Obstructionism

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Republicans Really Are Unprecedented in Their Obstructionism

It Looks Like Obamacare Is Here to Stay

Mother Jones

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

Republicans may say that Obamacare is still the white-hot issue it’s always been, and among their tea party base that might still be true. But if money talks, it turns out that Republicans no longer really believe Obamacare is a winning issue anywhere else. Bloomberg ran the numbers in a few battleground Senate races and discovered that GOP candidates are starting to turn to other issues:

Republicans seeking to unseat the U.S. Senate incumbent in North Carolina have cut in half the portion of their top issue ads citing Obamacare, a sign that the party’s favorite attack against Democrats is losing its punch.

The shift — also taking place in competitive states such as Arkansas and Louisiana — shows Republicans are easing off their strategy of criticizing Democrats over the Affordable Care Act now that many Americans are benefiting from the law and the measure is unlikely to be repealed.

….In April, anti-Obamacare advertising dwarfed all other spots in North Carolina. It accounted for 3,061, or 54 percent, of the 5,704 top five issue ads in North Carolina, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. By July, the numbers had reversed, with anti-Obamacare ads accounting for 971, or 27 percent, of the top issue ads, and the budget, government spending, jobs and unemployment accounting for 2,608, or 72 percent, of such ads, CMAG data show.

As Greg Sargent points out, this doesn’t mean Democrats are any more likely to hold the Senate this year. But it does suggest that as time goes by and Obamacare appears to be working fairly well without causing the collapse of the Republic, even the GOP faithful are starting to accept it. More and more, it looks like Obamacare is here to stay.

Continue reading here:

It Looks Like Obamacare Is Here to Stay

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It Looks Like Obamacare Is Here to Stay