Tag Archives: former

My Day in Prison with Nelson Mandela

Mother Jones

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

“Would you like to go to prison with Nelson Mandela?”

The question from a press aide left me momentarily speechless. It was October 1996, and I was in South Africa reporting on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and working on a book about the country’s tumultuous transformation from apartheid. I had covered a number of Mandela’s public appearances, but this one was different. The president had decided on short notice to pay a visit to the last of the three prisons where he had been incarcerated for 27 years.

This trip was personal. For Mandela, that was the best kind of politics.

The narrative about Mandela as a peacemaker often obscures how shrewd and hard-nosed he was as political operator. A trip to an apartheid prison promised to show how Mandela could weave images of division and reconciliation into a seamless cloth.

Yes, I replied, I would be glad to go to jail with the president.

“VICTOR VERSTER PRISON BIDS YOU WELCOME PRESIDENT MANDELA!” The banner hanging over the heavily guarded entrance to the sprawling maximum-security prison represented just another head-spinning contradiction of the new South Africa. This was, after all, a prison, and Nelson Mandela its most famous prisoner. Mandela spent the last two years of his confinement at this facility near Paarl, a bucolic town in South Africa’s wine country.

From the moment Mandela walked out the gates of Victor Verster Prison on February 11, 1990, he took every opportunity to engage in political aikido, harnessing the visceral power of apartheid symbols to his advantage.

White leaders used apartheid to try to break Mandela. In the end, Mandela used apartheid to break white rule.

Unlike President Barack Obama, who often sidesteps the racism of his adversaries, Mandela relished engaging South Africa’s tortured past. He had tea with Betsy Verwoerd, the widow of former prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd, the reviled “architect of apartheid.” For the occasion, Mandela donned the jersey of the captain of the Springboks, the South African national rugby team beloved by whites.

Inside Victor Verster Prison, I found Mandela’s “cell”—actually a pretty cottage tucked among trees. A rose bush gave the place a sweet scent. A prison official explained that this house was built for Mandela as his release neared, “as part of reintroducing him to civilized society.”

Mandela stepped through the archway and flashed a broad smile of recognition. He had hearing aids in both ears, and his gait was more a shuffle than a stride. His pace was slowed due to chronic knee pain. Yet he seemed upbeat and happy.

“Some of the best years of my life were spent here,” he declared. It was a curious claim for an ex-prisoner to make, but, as he explained, “the negotiations with the government intensified here, and this was where I met many of the top ANC leaders for the first time.”

I asked if he’d ever considered escaping.

“No,” he said. “That would not have been consistent with what we were trying to accomplish.” He had repeatedly refused the government’s conditional offers of release during his 27 years in jail.

Mandela was a prisoner, but he held his jailers hostage. As long as he was in jail, the apartheid government was a pariah on the world stage.

A poignant moment came when Mandela asked what had become of Warrant Officer James Swart, the guard who lived with and cooked for him. “He’s outside,” replied one of his aides.

The next moment, a tall, thin mustachioed man in a jacket and tie walked in. Mandela smiled and greeted him warmly. As he often did with guests, Mandela held Swart’s hand as he spoke. “I’ll never forget the kindness you and your wife showed me while I was here,” he said, looking directly into his eyes.

“Thank you very much,” Swart mumbled nervously.

As Mandela finished, his press aide motioned for me to come over. She introduced me to the president and explained that I was an American journalist. Mandela instinctively reached for my hand, but not for a perfunctory handshake. He began walking with me, hand in hand, chatting as if we were old friends going for a stroll. “Mr. Goodman, thank you for coming to South Africa,” he said in his gravelly voice. “What do you think of it here?”

I fumbled for words at first—Mandela was an icon to me, a man whose name I’d chanted as a protester in college, and here he was holding my hand and wanted to know what I thought. South Africa was the most exciting country in the world, I said, a place where remarkable change was happening. I said it was an honor to meet him. He smiled warmly, his eyes twinkling. “It is an honor to meet you too,” he replied. He released my hand, and shuffled to his waiting car.

Mandela finished his visit by attending a function for the prison staff, who packed a small auditorium. He told his former guards how people often asked him how he had avoided growing bitter about his time in prison.

“This place contributed to my own approach in this country,” he went on. He said that most of the staff had treated him with dignity, though “some Afrikaner guards were very crude and cruel. But when an Afrikaner changes, he changes 100 percent and becomes a real friend.”

Then, beaming with delight, he posed with the euphoric guards and their families, holding babies and draping his arms around some of the men in uniform.

This was the essence of Mandela. He challenged his country while embracing his countrymen. In doing so, he liberated himself, his former tormentors, and his nation.

See more here: 

My Day in Prison with Nelson Mandela

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Day in Prison with Nelson Mandela

Nancy Sutley plans her White House exit

Nancy Sutley plans her White House exit

Sam Beebe

Another member of Obama’s environmental team is headed for the door. The administrator of the EPA and the secretaries of energy and interior departed soon after the president’s second term began, and White House climate adviser Heather Zichal left last month.

Now Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, plans to step down in February.

From National Journal:

Sutley, appointed at the outset of Obama’s presidency, has kept a lower political profile than some other top officials. But she played a crucial role in several major administration policies, the White House said. …

Obama, in a statement, thanked Sutley for her five years with the White House, calling her a vital part of such policies as the second-term climate agenda he rolled out in June.

“As one of my top advisers, Nancy has played a central role in overseeing many of our biggest environmental accomplishments, including establishing historic new fuel-economy standards that will save consumers money, new national monuments that permanently protect sites unique to our country’s rich history and natural heritage, our first comprehensive National Ocean Policy, and our Climate Action Plan that will help leave our children a safer, healthier planet,” he said.

If she did all that, how come so many people have never heard of her? Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar explains: “Nancy’s personality is that she is a workhorse, not a show horse, and she labored in the detail of things to get things done,” he said. “When historians look back at her time at CEQ, they will be able to say she was very effective in informing and advancing the president’s conservation agenda.”

Sutley’s departure means the White House is not just losing talent, but diversity. Her exit “end[s] the tenure of one the longest-serving openly LGBT members of the Obama administration,” the Washington Blade reports.

When Grist interviewed Sutley in 2009, she admitted that she wasn’t a big fan of Washington, D.C.: “the weather really stinks, so sometimes I get up in the morning and I think, why did I leave California?” No surprise, then, that she plans to head back to Los Angeles.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Read More:

Nancy Sutley plans her White House exit

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nancy Sutley plans her White House exit

You Own Your DNA, But Who Gets to Interpret It?

Mother Jones

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

Yesterday the FDA ordered 23andMe to immediately stop selling its DNA testing service until and unless it gets agency approval. This is the end game of a very long cycle: regulatory reviews of genetic testing have been going on, in one form or another, for more than 15 years, and along the way there have been repeated bipartisan calls for more rigorous rules to ensure that consumers get accurate and judicious information. In 2010, for example, the GAO conducted an undercover investigation of four genetic testing companies and concluded that “GAO’s fictitious consumers received test results that are misleading and of little or no practical use.”

Nonetheless, the FDA’s action yesterday produced a flurry of criticism, especially from the libertarian right. Alex Tabarrok is typical:

The FDA wants to judge not the analytic validity of the tests … but the clinical validity, whether particular identified alleles are causal for conditions or disease. The latter requirement is the death-knell for the products because of the expense and time it takes to prove specific genes are causal for diseases….Here is why I think the FDA’s actions are unconstitutional. Reading an individual’s code is safe and effective. Interpreting the code and communicating opinions about it may or may not be safe—just like all communication—but it falls squarely under the First Amendment.

I’m pretty sure this is nowhere near so cut and dried. The relevant distinction here is between medical information and medical advice: the former is protected speech while the latter isn’t. And while your genome may be medical information, interpreting your genome and explaining whether it puts you at risk for different diseases is very close to medical advice. And not just general medical advice, of the kind that Dr. Oz purveys on television. It’s specific, personal medical advice, of the kind that only licensed physicians are allowed to provide.

That’s the argument, anyway. If 23andMe is going to perform a lab test and then send you a personal letter suggesting that you, personally, are or aren’t at high risk for some disease, it’s acting an awful lot like a doctor. But for better or worse, only doctors are allowed to act like doctors, and the FDA thinks that complex and sometimes ambiguous test results should be communicated to patients by licensed MDs who know what they mean.

It turns out there’s more to this particular case, of course: the FDA’s letter makes it pretty clear that they’re fed up with 23andMe, which has apparently been almost arrogantly unresponsive to standard requests for documentation:

As part of our interactions with you, including more than 14 face-to-face and teleconference meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of written communications, we provided you with specific feedback on study protocols and clinical and analytical validation requirements, discussed potential classifications and regulatory pathways (including reasonable submission timelines), provided statistical advice, and discussed potential risk mitigation strategies.

….However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses….Months after you submitted your 510(k)s and more than 5 years after you began marketing, you still had not completed some of the studies and had not even started other studies….FDA has not received any communication from 23andMe since May. Instead, we have become aware that you have initiated new marketing campaigns, including television commercials that, together with an increasing list of indications, show that you plan to expand the PGS’s uses and consumer base without obtaining marketing authorization from FDA.

Ouch. By happenstance, this brought to mind a Felix Salmon post from yesterday. It was about GoldieBlox, another high-flying Silicon Valley startup that apparently believes federal laws apply only to ordinary mortals—not to rebelliously innovative and disruptive companies that are going to change the very way we interact with the world. Salmon describes the “Silicon Valley way” like this: “First you make your own rules — and then, if anybody tries to slap you down, you don’t apologize, you fight.”

This sure sounds an awful lot like 23andMe. I’m actually sort of agnostic about the issue of whether personal genome services should fall into the category of highly regulated diagnostic tests. The line between information and advice is genuinely gray here. But regardless of that, this isn’t something that suddenly popped up out of nowhere. It’s been on the FDA’s radar for a long time, and 23andMe was well aware of the FDA’s requirements. They sure look an awful lot like a Silicon Valley company that figured they could stall them forever and never pay a price.

Source – 

You Own Your DNA, But Who Gets to Interpret It?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Own Your DNA, But Who Gets to Interpret It?

Chris Christie’s Failure Shows Just How Popular He Is

Mother Jones

Former New Jersey governor Tom Kean is apparently pretty annoyed with Chris Christie, partly for personal reasons and partly because Christie failed to help any other Republicans get elected to the state legislature. Dave Weigel:

The full failure of Christie’s “coattails” campaign is only now being known. Christie had wanted to win the state senate, cutting ads and campaigning for key candidates. None of his challengers unseated any Democrats. The total Republican gain in the Assembly appears to be… one. That’s better than 2011, when Democrats gained a seat, but even if you factor in the gerrymander that protects Democrats, Kean and other Republicans are amazed that Christie could win by 21 points and carry almost nobody along with him.

OK, but isn’t there another way of looking at this? It shows just how popular Christie is personally even in a state that shows no sign whatsoever of warming up to Republicans. That’s fairly remarkable.

I’ll admit this a slatepitchy kind of argument to make, and I don’t know if I really even believe it. Weigel is certainly right that this leaves Christie in the unenviable position of having to scrape and compromise with Democrats for the next few years, something that’s unlikely to help his presidential ambitions much. If his compromises succeed, he’s a sellout. If they fail, he’s a guy who can’t get anything done. That kind of sucks.

Still! His personal brand is obviously pretty sky high. That has to count for something.

Visit site – 

Chris Christie’s Failure Shows Just How Popular He Is

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie’s Failure Shows Just How Popular He Is

People save more energy when they know they’re being watched

People save more energy when they know they’re being watched

Shutterstock

We’re watching you.

How do you prevent someone from wasting electricity? The same way you prevent them from picking their nose — make them think they are being watched.

Carnegie Mellon University researchers wanted to see whether the Hawthorne effect could be used to change energy-use patterns. The Hawthorne effect refers to the way people tend to alter their behavior when they sense they are being observed. The effect can be a pain in the ass for scientists trying to study human behavior, but it can also be a powerful tool for influencing that behavior.

The researchers sent postcards to a group of utility customers notifying them that their electricity usage was being tracked for one month as part of an experiment. The series of postcards offered no incentives or instructions to reduce energy use — they just let the customers know that they were being, in effect, watched. A control group of utility customers got no postcards.

Sure enough, the Hawthorne effect arose to work its magic. According to results reported Tuesday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, people who received the postcards reduced their electricity consumption by an average of 2.7 percent.

A follow-up survey of postcard recipients indicated that the experiment had heightened their awareness of their own energy habits. Here’s what they said they did to cut electricity use:

PNAS

That all sounds good. But once the customers thought the month-long experiment had ended, they returned to their former energy-wasting ways.

So all we need now are surveillance cameras installed in everybody’s homes, watching their every appliance. Right? Oh, wait …

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Continued here – 

People save more energy when they know they’re being watched

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on People save more energy when they know they’re being watched

All U.S. nuclear reactors are too dangerous, says former nuke-safety chief

All U.S. nuclear reactors are too dangerous, says former nuke-safety chief

Thomas Anderson

Beware.

Right on the heels of troubling news from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, here comes troubling news about nuke plants in the U.S.

From The New York Times:

All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.

The position of the former chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, is not unusual in that various anti-nuclear groups take the same stance. But it is highly unusual for a former head of the nuclear commission to so bluntly criticize an industry whose safety he was previously in charge of ensuring.

Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.”

“I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems,” which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”

The nuclear power industry, you won’t be surprised to hear, disagrees with Jaczko’s assessment.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here:

All U.S. nuclear reactors are too dangerous, says former nuke-safety chief

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on All U.S. nuclear reactors are too dangerous, says former nuke-safety chief

Former Interior Secretary Babbitt calls for one acre of conservation for every acre of oil exploration

Former Interior Secretary Babbitt calls for one acre of conservation for every acre of oil exploration

Bruce Babbitt looks like this.

Since all anyone is talking about today is the secretary of the interior, let’s check in on Bruce Babbitt, who served in that position under President Clinton. What does he think about the state of the world, etc.? Any thoughts on the use of public land for oil exploration versus conserving it for the future, and perhaps any suggestions on how those uses should be balanced, ratio-wise?

From online internet website Politico.com:

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt pressed President Barack Obama on Tuesday to set aside an acre of public land for conservation for every acre that is leased for oil and gas development. …

Over the past four years, he said, industry has leased more than 6 million acres compared with the 2.6 million acres that have been permanently protected. “In the Obama era, land conservation is again falling behind,” he said. “This lopsided public-land administration in favor of the oil and gas industry shouldn’t continue.”

Alright. Sounds like a plan. A brand new plan, for Obama to look at.

Babbitt made a similar plea to Obama when he spoke at the press club in June 2011 on the 105th anniversary of the [Antiquities Act]. During that speech, he mocked “munchkins” at the White House for backing down from what he dubbed an assault from Republicans over the issue.

Oh. Not new. But at least he dropped the weird Wizard of Oz analogy this time.

Still, the issue does have its wicked witches.

Babbitt centered his verbal venom on an oil and gas industry that “will be insulted by the suggestion that the public’s use of public land should be on equal ground with their profits” and “right-wing Republicans in the House [who] will take up Big Oil’s cause and will again call for a fire sale of public lands for corporate use.”

Republicans have been doing this for decades, he said, and Obama should not try to strike deals with them.

Politico then quoted a Republican member of Congress responding exactly as you would expect.

And now you’re up to speed on Mr. Bruce Babbitt, munchkin-hater. We’ll update you again in 2019.

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

Read More:

Former Interior Secretary Babbitt calls for one acre of conservation for every acre of oil exploration

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former Interior Secretary Babbitt calls for one acre of conservation for every acre of oil exploration

Hagel suggests vague support for continued military use of biofuels

Hagel suggests vague support for continued military use of biofuels

One of America’s great soap operas is being performed live right now on Capitol Hill. It is scripted, predetermined, poorly acted, rarely interesting, predictable. Ladies and gents, the nomination hearings of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense.

Yesterday afternoon, we noted that Hagel, if OK’d by the Senate, will step down from his board position at Chevron. We suggested that this also meant Hagel would forget his years of fossil fuel advocacy, cleaning his slate on energy issues. Because that’s how it works.

Apparently, we were either right — or Hagel read and responded to our snark. Probably the latter. From The Hill:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), President Obama’s nominee for Defense secretary, is backing a controversial ban on military purchase of alternative fuels that have higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil-based fuels. …

Hagel also backs military programs to expand use of biofuels in defense operations, but he argues large-scale use should only occur when the fuels are cost-competitive.

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

We’ll parse this out. The first paragraph above relates to a ban authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), meant to limit Defense Department investment in alternative fuels that — from extraction to refinery to combustion — create more climate pollution than conventional fuels. The targets of this measure are fuels like liquefied coal or tar-sands-based diesel. Hagel opposes using those fuels.

The second part is trickier. There’s been an ongoing debate over the role of biofuels in the military. The Navy in particular has embraced biofuels enthusiastically, recognizing that renewable, domestic sources of fuel provide a long-term tactical advantage. Allies of fossil fuels on the Hill — like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) — suggest that such investment is a bad idea. Their primary argument is that biofuels are more expensive to purchase, allowing opponents of their use to make standard oh-my-gosh-the-federal-debt arguments against them.

In responding to written questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hagel wrote: “It is prudent for the department to engage in tests and demonstrations that confirm defense equipment can operate on a range of fuels.” The Navy is exploring how to use biofuels in part to figure out how to make the costs work over the long term, which means spending more now to have fuels with which to experiment. Hagel’s answer suggests that he supports a continuation of that practice.

As Politico notes, energy and climate may not come up during Hagel’s confirmation hearings.

“Compared with … things like Iran, Israel policy, defense sequester, any number of other things, I would say this is probably further down the totem pole than all of those,” Andrew Holland, a former Hagel energy aide now with the American Security Project, tells [Politico]. “I’d be surprised if there’s a lot of questioning about this.”

So we’ll keep our fingers crossed, hoping that the soon-to-be-former Chevron board member who is dumping his stock due, in part, to the company’s contracts with the government will advocate for a robust exploration of non-fossil-fuel-reliant military options. We’d ask a question about it at the hearings if given the opportunity, but we’re not cast members in this particular show.

Update: During today’s hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked about investment in alternative fuels. Hagel repeated that he thought researching such fuels made sense, but also echoed concerns about cost. In other words: nothing new.

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

See original article:

Hagel suggests vague support for continued military use of biofuels

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hagel suggests vague support for continued military use of biofuels

Hey evil coal boss: Is it also Obama’s fault if you’re hiring workers back?

Hey evil coal boss: Is it also Obama’s fault if you’re hiring workers back?

Reuters / Danny Moloshok

This guy! We haven’t seen Robert Murray since around election time and, to be honest, we missed him. He’s the closest thing we’ve got in the 21st century to an evil 19th-century coal baron, hellbent on profit and laughing heartily at the misfortunes of the poor. He’s retro. That’s always fun.

Last time we heard from Murray was when he sent a prayer to his local West Virginia paper lamenting how the reelection of Barack Obama meant he had to fire a bunch of his staff. (Was it the staff that he docked a day’s pay to appear in a Romney ad? Was it the staff he forced to contribute to his political action fund? We may never know.) So, wiping away big fucking crocodile tears, Murray wrote these powerful words:

The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And, away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance. …

Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build.

Then: boom, pink slips, because Obama is killing coal and hates white people, probably. Boo-fucking-hoo, Robert Murray is so sad.

Anyway, here’s the update. From New Republic reporter Alec MacGillis:

I was surprised when I got reports from Ohio this week suggesting that operations at the Red Bird West mine, the one whose shutdown was announced with such fanfare last summer, are now picking up again. “It’s opened back up…they’re hiring people,” said Gary Parsons, a former superintendent at the mine who worked there for five years before being laid off with the announcement of the shutdown last summer. Parsons himself has not been called back, and is planning simply to retire early, but he said he had talked to several locals who were taking steps to get hired back on. He said he did not understand why, after the big headline-making closure last year, things were perking up at the mine. “I don’t know what’s going on,” he said. “They said they was going to close the mine down.”

Another former Murray employee confirmed that operations were picking back up at Red Bird West. “They’ve called back some hourly folks. They’re definitely starting it back up,” the former employee said. What explained the reversal? This former employee conjectured that presidential campaign politics may have played a role. After all, announcing the shutdown of the mine a few months before Election Day was not helpful to Obama, who dearly needed to win Ohio. “In my opinion, it was all for politics,” the former Murray employee said. “It was just a show of politics to try to scare people, to get votes for [Murray’s] candidate…I felt they were playing politics from day one, and they certainly didn’t waste any time starting back up again.”

If this is true — and it would take as much for me to believe it is as it would take to convince me that I exist on this planet Earth — it’s almost admirable in its sheer, egregious shittiness. For all of the handwringing and wailing and moaning done by Obama opponents about how horrible he was making the economy and how doomed we would be if he won reelection (all while unemployment dropped and the Dow soared), it takes a special kind of scumbag to actually lay people off to prove your point. Much less to invoke the name of Jesus in doing so. Lord, please forgive Robert Murray for possibly closing a mine and firing people just so his massive investment in Mitt Romney might be substantiated.

When speaking to MacGillis, the company denied it was reopening the facility. However:

The only work going on at the mine, they said, was “reclamation” required as part of any shutdown. “We’re required to put things back together. We’re picking up some remnants of coal, some coal that was left over, as we clean up the place,” said Gary Broadbent, a senior attorney for the company. He said that there were 42 or 43 people at the mine doing this work, and while the work could go on for a few years, there would be no expansion at the mine, which at its peak employed more than 200 people. …

[T]he company’s current account would appear to be at variance with the announcement last summer, when Broadbent said that the mine would “gradually be closed through late September or early October,” with no mention of a possibly years-long reclamation project. After all, if the head count was really dropping from only 56 to 43, odds are the move would not have made the headlines it did.

Oh, and an addendum:

A former Murray employee in Utah informs me that people are being hired back at the Murray operations there, too, just a couple months after the big post-election layoffs. The former employee said about 25 had recently been hired back on. Murray officials demurred when asked about any uptick in activity at the Utah or Illinois mines where the post-election layoffs occurred. “I’m not intimately involved with the hiring or firing of employees,” said Broadbent.

Lord, when Robert Murray appears before you for his final judgment, feel free to use any and all information from Grist’s archive to make your decision. If you need me to appear as a witness, I will do so happily.

Sorry. Not when he appears before you. If.

Source

Is Obama’s Coal-Country Nemesis Hiring Again?, The New Republic

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

Visit site:  

Hey evil coal boss: Is it also Obama’s fault if you’re hiring workers back?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey evil coal boss: Is it also Obama’s fault if you’re hiring workers back?