Tag Archives: major

Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?

by MerriPaling0 Posted on May 14, 2015

Mother Jones

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

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

The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


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


Marco Rubio Used to Believe in Climate Science


Rand Paul Is No Moderate on Global Warming


What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming


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


Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment


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.


Martin O’Malley Is A Longshot Presidential Candidate, and a Real Climate Hawk


Is Elizabeth Warren Really a Leader on Global Warming?


Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?

Climate Hawks Vote measures leadership, not just voting records, tabulating actions like bills introduced, speeches given, and so forth. In the 112th Congress, Sanders ranked third behind Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). In the last Congress, he edged out Whitehouse by one point.

“Sanders is very much among the top leaders,” says R.L. Miller, founder of Climate Hawks Vote. “He has a record of really strong advocacy for solar in particular.” Miller notes that distributed solar, which enables everyone with a solar panel to create their own energy instead of relying on a monopolistic utility company, fits especially well with Sanders’ democratic socialist philosophy. It’s bad for corporations and good for regular folks who get to own the means of production.

Here are some of the highlights from Sanders’ climate and clean energy record:

In 2013, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sanders introduced the Climate Protection Act, a fee-and-dividend bill. It would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens, then invest the remainder in energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency. The bill, of course, went nowhere (even if it had advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been DOA in the Republican-controlled House), but it shows that Sanders supports serious solutions and wants to keep the conversation going.
Also in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. This bill didn’t become law either.
In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he wrote in Grist at the time, “It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America.” The bill didn’t pass.
In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the country, the very literally named “10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act.” As Grist’s David Roberts explained, it would “provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey.” The bill didn’t pass.
In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.
Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus package.

So we know Sanders is dedicated to climate action and clean energy. Looking forward, though, it’s unclear how Sanders will differentiate his climate and energy proposals from Clinton’s. Clinton, like President Obama, firmly supports regulating carbon emissions domestically and getting strong international agreements to reduce emissions globally. While it is certainly true that Sanders has made more of an issue of his support for the same, it is not necessarily an issue on which Clinton needs to be pushed leftward. Many climate hawks love the fee-and-dividend approach that Sanders supports, but the truth is that no big climate-pricing bill will pass in the next few years, no matter who’s president, because the Republicans will continue to control the House. And Clinton already supports the kind of strong executive action that Obama is taking to curb CO2 emissions from power plants.

One way Sanders could set himself apart as the greenest candidate would be to propose clamping down on domestic fossil fuel extraction, especially on federal lands and waters—something a president could move on without congressional approval. Sanders has not spoken up about the extraction issue in general, but he could call for a moratorium on fossil fuel leasing offshore or on federal land. That would please climate activists, who are already expressing concern that Clinton isn’t committed to keeping dirty fuel sources in the ground. “What we really need,” says Miller, “is someone to advocate for closing down the Powder River Basin”—an area in Montana and Wyoming that’s a huge source of coal mined from federal land—”but no one is really willing to come out and say that, so instead they come out for higher prices on coal leases. Sanders has not.”

In an interview with the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent, Sanders called for a progressive climate agenda that includes a carbon tax and investments in renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative transportation—but he made no mention of restricting fossil fuel development. Here is what he offered:

A tax on carbon; a massive investment in solar, wind, geothermal; it would be making sure that every home and building in this country is properly winterized; it would be putting substantial money into rail, both passenger and cargo, so we can move towards breaking our dependency on automobiles. And it would be leading other countries around the world.

Bill McKibben, who founded 350.org and has led the fight to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, says he is confident Sanders understands the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Sanders has opposed Keystone, while Clinton has avoided taking a position on it. “He’s been the most consistent and proactive voice in the entire Keystone fight,” writes McKibben in an email. “Everything that’s been needed—from speeches on the floor to legislation to demands that the State Department change its absurd review process—he and his staff have done immediately and with a high degree of professionalism…On climate stuff he’s been the most aggressive voice in the Senate, rivaled only by Sheldon Whitehouse. He understands it for the deep, simple problem it is: that we can’t keep burning this stuff.” (Full disclosure: McKibben is a member of Grist’s board of directors.)

One area where Sanders indisputably differs from Clinton is trade. Clinton, like her husband and Obama, has been an ardent supporter of free trade agreements. Some environmentalists worry that these agreements—like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that is currently under consideration—give polluting companies too much power to undermine environmental regulations in signatory nations. As secretary of state, Clinton supported the TPP, although as a candidate her campaign advisors say she hasn’t made up her mind on it. Sanders is one of the most skeptical members of the Senate on trade agreements and he is currently helping to lead the charge against the TPP.

To describe Sanders’ challenge against Clinton as uphill would be too generous. It’s more like climbing Mt. Everest—without oxygen or a guide. But by bringing attention to some of these issues, he may raise awareness and draw Clinton out. Sanders’ office declined to comment for this story, citing an overwhelming number of interview requests following announcement of his candidacy. That speaks to the megaphone a presidential campaign can grant a candidate, especially in a nearly empty field. Sanders is sure to use it for worthy causes. Will keeping fossil fuels in the ground be one of them?

View article: 

Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?

It’s time to panic. Olives are in big trouble

by ukiczp43 Posted on May 13, 2015

It’s time to panic. Olives are in big trouble

By on 13 May 2015commentsShare

It’s a hard time to be an olive. After a rash of terrible weather in 2014 and an actual plague of fruit flies, the latest blight to hit the iconic, enigmatic fruit is an actual blight. From the New York Times:

“It is devastating,” said Enzo Manni, the director of ACLI-Racale, an olive cooperative in the heart of the outbreak area. “It is apocalyptic. I compare it to an earthquake.”

Today, scientists estimate that one million olive trees in the peninsula, known as the Salento, are infected with the bacterium, Xylella fastidiosa, a figure that could rise rapidly.

The bacterium is an invasive species that has already taken down citrus trees in Brazil and vineyards in California. The omnivorous pest is now eating its way through the olive-rich “heel” of Italy, which means the rest of us will have a harder time doing so. Olives, like California’s much maligned almond trees, are slow-growing, which means they are an expensive investment up front.

In southern Salento, growers are alarmed but determined to learn how to adapt to the presence of the bacterium. It takes seven years or longer for a new tree to begin producing olives, and farmers were initially furious at reports that the European Commission wanted to cut down a million or more trees, and possibly even healthy plants in proximity.

Growers note that about 10 percent of all olive trees in the southern part of the province are infected — meaning that about 10 million trees are still thought to be healthy.

This is a major threat to the way of life of many families that have been farming olives for generations, but it’s also bad news for anyone who likes to eat well, without putting an undue burden on the planet.

Olive oil is delicious, drinkable, liquid gold — it is also vegan. I firmly believe it is one of the major reasons that Italians get away with eating so many plants (yes, pasta counts) and relatively little meat. When you can eat bread sopped in the ambrosial, green nectar of the gods, as far as I’m concerned, dinner is served.

Source:
Fear of Ruin as Disease Takes Hold of Italy’s Olive Trees

, New York Times.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

sponsored post

Small-scale farmers fight back against the climate monster

“Small Scale Farmers Cool the Planet” shows how organic farmers just might hold the key to slaying the biggest beast of our age.

Get Grist in your inbox

See original: 

It’s time to panic. Olives are in big trouble

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s time to panic. Olives are in big trouble

Marco Rubio’s Cold War Approach to Cuba Is Losing Him Voters

by MarianPoston Posted on May 13, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) probably thought that his hawkish, Cold War foreign policy would endear him to Cuban Americans—but he may be in for an unwelcome surprise. Cuba policy is close to Rubio’s heart—his parents fled the country in 1956—and he has denounced the Obama administration’s détente with the Castro regime as “disgraceful” and “willfully ignorant.” Historically, this kind of rhetoric has earned Republicans support among Cuban Americans. But polls suggest that things have changed, and that Rubio’s strident Cuba outlook could damage his standing among a constituency that has buoyed his political career.

Every year since 1991, Florida International University has surveyed Cuban Americans’ attitudes on US-Cuba policy. The most recent poll, taken in 2014, reveals that those who took to Miami’s streets in December 2014 to protest the US restoring relations with Cuba are in the minority: 52 percent of poll respondents oppose continuing the embargo, and 68 percent favor the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. More than 70 percent say the embargo has worked poorly. How Cuban Americans of different ages responded reveals a stark generational split: A majority of those aged 65 and older still favor the embargo, but two-thirds of those aged 18 to 29 oppose it. Nearly 90 percent of millennial Cuban Americans favor reestablishing ties too.

For the 43-year-old Rubio, who is trying to brand himself as a new generation of Republican, this could be a problem. According to Guillermo Grenier, a Cuban studies expert at FIU, Rubio’s Cuba policy “doesn’t have legs” for the future. “People are changing. Rubio’s position will resonate among a certain percentage of the population—a shrinking percentage.” The younger generation, Grenier says, “say things like, ‘How can Rubio be against the embargo—doesn’t he know it hurts Cubans on the island?'”

Not long ago, candidates of both parties had to reassure Cuban Americans of their anti-Castro bona fides. Obama, as a candidate in 2008, addressed an audience of Cuban Americans and promised to maintain the embargo unless several conditions were met. Now, Grenier says, those days are drawing to a close. Politicians such as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who built a decades-long career out of antagonizing the regime, did not challenge Obama’s decision to take Cuba off the official list of state sponsors of terror earlier this year. And even though Cuba remains far from being a free democracy, most Cuban Americans believe that US policy has made things worse.

As Cuba continues to play a larger role in foreign policy debates, Rubio may have to tread lightly—strategically “not emphasizing his views” in some situations, Grenier says. But it will be hard to downplay a career of fiery anti-communist Cuba rhetoric. On Fox News, Rubio called the December 2014 prisoner swap that began the recent diplomatic warming “absurd.” He went on to describe it as “part of a long record of coddling dictators and tyrants that this administration has established.” And Rubio is likely to mention recent Cuba developments during his major policy address today at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

But Rubio is unlikely to moderate his position. In December, he said defiantly: “I don’t care if the polls show that 99 percent of people believe we should normalize relations in Cuba.”

Source article: 

Marco Rubio’s Cold War Approach to Cuba Is Losing Him Voters

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio’s Cold War Approach to Cuba Is Losing Him Voters

The Pentagon Gave How Much Taxpayer Cash to the NFL?

by JonelleLaffer Posted on May 12, 2015

Mother Jones

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

For the last three years, the Department of Defense has forked over $5.4 million to 14 NFL teams to pay respect to service members during games. And while that’s a small line in the behemoth Pentagon budget, at least one GOP senator isn’t thrilled about it.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) criticized the “egregious and unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars” on Monday after a weekend report by NJ.com found the Defense Department and the New Jersey National Guard paid the New York Jets $377,000 for in-game salutes and promotional activities at professional football games. The Atlanta Falcons received more than $1 million during that time, while the Baltimore Ravens raked in $885,000.

“While it may be appropriate for the National Guard or other service branches to spend taxpayer funds on activities directly related to recruiting,” Flake said, “giving taxpayer funds to professional sports teams for activities that are portrayed to the public as paying homage to US military personnel would seem inappropriate.”

What did the National Guard get in return? From NJ.com‘s Christopher Baxter and Jonathan Salant:

The agreement includes the Hometown Hero segment, in which the Jets feature a soldier or two on the big screen, announce their names and ask the crowd to thank them for their service. The soldiers and three friends also get seats in the Coaches Club for the game.

…

Aside from the Hometown Heroes segment, the agreements also included advertising and marketing services, including a kickoff video message from the Guard, digital advertising on stadium screens, online advertising and meeting space for a meeting or events.

Also, soldiers attended the annual kickoff lunch in New York City to meet and take pictures with the players for promotional use, and the Jets allowed soldiers to participate in a charity event in which coaches and players build or rebuild a playground or park.

The Jets also provided game access passes.

Flake, who first highlighted the National Guard’s spending as part of his #PorkChops campaign on wasteful spending, said his office had found “a number of advertising and promotion contracts between the Pentagon and professional sports teams in the MLB, NBA, NASCAR, Major League Soccer and the NCAA,” according to the Hill.

Here’s the full list of NFL teams that received DOD money, via NJ.com:

Taken from: 

The Pentagon Gave How Much Taxpayer Cash to the NFL?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Pentagon Gave How Much Taxpayer Cash to the NFL?

Where You Grow Up Has a Big Effect on How Much You Earn As An Adult

by ShelaChoaiv Posted on May 6, 2015

Mother Jones

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

It’s pretty obvious that where you live as an adult has a major impact on your financial situation. It’s way more expensive to live in San Francisco, for example, than in Iowa. But a recent study suggests that where you grow up has a significant impact on your chances of financial success later in life.

The Equality of Opportunity Project, run by Harvard economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, looked at tax records on 5 million families who moved between counties from 1996 to 2012. Analyzing those records, the researchers were able to measure the relative annual income differentials before and after moving. The researchers found several local factors seem to impact a child’s future earning capabilities: race and income segregation, exacerbated income inequality, quality of schools, crime, and the prevalence of two-parent households.

The full list of counties shows that DuPage County, Illinois, just west of Chicago, could be the best of the country’s top 100 counties in terms of children’s upward mobility. Simply by living there, a child could add about $200 to his or her annual income at age 26, a 15 percent premium over the county average nationwide. The worst county for future mobility, Baltimore City, puts children in a position to make more than 17 percent less than the county average.

To see how your county fares, check out the New York Times‘ interactive presentation of the study’s findings.

Chetty and Hendren write that their study “suggests that policy makers seeking to improve mobility should focus on improving childhood environments (e.g., by improving local schools) and not just on the strength of the local labor market availability of jobs.” In other words, trying to provide more economic opportunity for adults starts with leveling the playing field for kids, regardless of where they grow up.

View the original here – 

Where You Grow Up Has a Big Effect on How Much You Earn As An Adult

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Where You Grow Up Has a Big Effect on How Much You Earn As An Adult

This Supercut of Candidates Singing "Let’s Get It On" Is Why We Love Britain During Elections

by NicholHeavener Posted on May 6, 2015

Mother Jones

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

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)0; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Who could get it on after #GE2015? Watch our #GeneralAffection song to find out.Full election coverage on Sky News, May 7th from 9pm.

Posted by

Sky News on Thursday, April 30, 2015

British voters head to the polls tomorrow for what promises to be a very tight election. Latest polling suggests the two major parties, Labour and the Conservatives, are tied near the finish line. The result is likely to be what’s known as a “hung parliament”. Both Labour and the Conservatives will need support from smaller parties across the spectrum to form government—among them the Scottish National Party (SNP) on the left, the Liberal Democrats somewhere around the center, and UKIP, on the right. Whomever can stitch together enough seats in parliament to win a majority will ultimately form government. If no group of parties can get to the magic number of 326 seats, Britain might well be heading back to the polls again soon to sort this whole mess out.

Even if you’re unfamiliar with British politics, the video above from Sky News gives a nice introduction to the main players—David Cameron (the current Conservative PM), Ed Miliband (the current opposition leader, from the Labour party), and Nicola Sturgeon, from the resurgent SNP among them. All set to Marvin Gaye’s classic, “Let’s Get It On”. Enjoy. (And happy voting, friends across the pond.)

Originally posted here: 

This Supercut of Candidates Singing "Let’s Get It On" Is Why We Love Britain During Elections

Posted in Anchor, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Supercut of Candidates Singing "Let’s Get It On" Is Why We Love Britain During Elections

Boston’s airport is going green(ish)

by MercedeCoburn Posted on May 4, 2015

Boston’s airport is going green(ish)

By on 4 May 2015commentsShare

Boston’s Logan International Airport has decided to go green, an ambitious task given that the airport generated about 1.3 billion pounds of climate-changing carbon dioxide in 2013 alone. Here’s the scoop from the The Boston Globe:

The airport plans to cut its carbon emissions 40 percent and energy consumption by 25 percent below 2012 levels by 2020. Officials also plan to curb the amount of waste produced by passengers by 2 percent every year by 2030, reduce water use by 1 percent every year over the next 10 years, and increase the recycling rate by 60 percent by the end of the decade.

Well great! But there’s just one problem: The airplanes. A round-trip ticket from Boston to Seattle, for example, comes with a 1.68-metric-ton CO2 price tag. So an airport saying it’s going to clean up its act is kind of like an elementary school bully saying he’s going to keep stealing your money but won’t shove you into lockers anymore. It’s like, thanks, man, but you’re still kind of a dick.

Logan released a 40-page report that, according to The Globe, lacks specifics on how it plans to meet its goals but does point out some low-hanging fruit. It can, for example, ask that planes use just one engine while taxiing around aimlessly, as planes are wont to do. This sounds good, but it also begs the question: if planes only need one engine to torture their victims — er, passengers — this way, why don’t they already do this all the time?! 

Airport officials also touted their new “environmentally friendly” rental car center, which has cut shuttle bus trips down from 100 per hour to 30 per hour. But let’s be honest: There’s nothing green about a place that hands out cars to loads of people, who will undoubtedly drive around the city in the most inefficient and infuriating way possible.

Nonetheless, one of the report’s authors, Brenda Enos, assistant director of capital and environmental programs at Massport, had this to say: “For the first time, we have actual goals and measurements against those metrics. I think it holds our feet to the fire.”

Psst! Climate change was already holding your feet to the fire. Case in point: In addition to cutting emissions, airport officials are also planning for sea level rise. From the Globe:

With sea levels expected to rise 2 feet to 6 feet by the end of the century — and as much as an additional 5 feet during the heaviest storms — airport officials plan to spend $9 million over the next five years on flood doors and barriers, coastal management, and portable pumps to keep the airport running in the event of a major storm surge. Within 10 years, they plan to spend millions more to move all critical equipment and upgrade systems to be able to withstand the worst storms.

Well, that sounds like a very sensible thing to do. Come to think of it, all of this sounds pretty sensible, which is why I’m not going to pat Logan on the back for this. Airports are where we go to participate in one of humankind’s greatest achievements — flight — but they’re also shameless hubs of pollution, waste, consumerism, and all around misery. So this non-specific, 40-page report is important — but also way overdue.

Source:
Logan Airport drafts climate change plan

, The Boston Globe.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

sponsored post

Think you could hack it as a farmer? Read this first

Before you go buying a farm, there are a few things you need to consider.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site:

Boston’s airport is going green(ish)

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boston’s airport is going green(ish)

White People Could Learn a Thing or Two About Talking About Race From the Orioles’ Manager

by BessieHatley Posted on April 30, 2015

Mother Jones

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

On Wednesday, after the Baltimore Orioles trounced the Chicago White Sox in front of over 48,000 empty seats at Camden Yards, Orioles’ manager Buck Showalter offered a blunt assessment of the ongoing protests happening just beyond the stadium gates.

More coverage of the protests in Baltimore.


Eyewitnesses: The Baltimore Riots Didn’t Start the Way You Think


Obama: It’s About Decades of Inequality


Rand Paul: Blame Absentee Fathers


What MLK Really Thought About Riots


Photos: Residents Help Clean Up


Orioles Exec: It’s Inequality, Stupid


These Teens Aren’t Waiting Around for Someone Else to Fix Their City


Ray Lewis: “Violence Is Not the Answer”


Bloods and Crips Want “Nobody to Get Hurt”

When a Baltimore resident asked what advice Showalter would give to young black residents in the community, the manager explains emphasis added:

You hear people try to weigh in on things that they really don’t know anything about. … I’ve never been black, OK? So I don’t know, I can’t put myself there. I’ve never faced the challenges that they face, so I understand the emotion, but I can’t. … It’s a pet peeve of mine when somebody says, ‘Well, I know what they’re feeling. Why don’t they do this? Why doesn’t somebody do that?’ You have never been black, OK, so just slow down a little bit.

I try not to get involved in something that I don’t know about, but I do know that it’s something that’s very passionate, something that I am, with my upbringing, that it bothers me, and it bothers everybody else. We’ve made quite a statement as a city, some good and some bad. Now, let’s get on with taking the statements we’ve made and create a positive. We talk to players, and I want to be a rallying force for our city. It doesn’t mean necessarily playing good baseball. It just means doing everything we can do. There are some things I don’t want to be normal in Baltimore again. You know what I mean? I don’t. I want us to learn from some stuff that’s gone on on both sides of it. I could talk about it for hours, but that’s how I feel about it.

Fans watched from outside the stadium gates after demonstrations in response to the death of Freddie Gray forced the team to play the first game behind closed doors in Major League Baseball history. At Wednesday’s press conference, outfielder Adam Jones, who related to the struggles of Baltimore’s youth as a kid growing up in San Diego, called on the city to heal after the unrest.

Jones goes on to say:

The last 72 hours have been tumultuous to say the least. We’ve seen good, we’ve seen bad, we’ve seen ugly…It’s a city that’s hurting, a city that needs its heads of the city to stand up, step up and help the ones that are hurting. It’s not an easy time right now for anybody. It doesn’t matter what race you are. It’s a tough time for the city of Baltimore. My prayers have been out for all the families, all the kids out there.

They’re hurting. The big message is: Stay strong, Baltimore. Stay safe. Continue to be the great city that I’ve come to know and love over the eight years I’ve been here. Continue to be who you are. I know there’s been a lot of damage in the city. There’s also been a lot of good protesting, there’s been a lot of people standing up for the rights that they have in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, and I’m just trying to make sure everybody’s on the same page.

…

It’s not easy. This whole process is not easy. We need this game to be played, but we need this city to be healed first. That’s important to me, that the city is healed. Because this is an ongoing issue. I just hope that the community of Baltimore stays strong, the children of Baltimore stay strong and gets some guidance and heed the message of the city leaders.

Like team exec John Angelos, Showalter, Jones and the rest of the Orioles organization get it.

Credit:

White People Could Learn a Thing or Two About Talking About Race From the Orioles’ Manager

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on White People Could Learn a Thing or Two About Talking About Race From the Orioles’ Manager

Are the Clintons More Transparent Than the Bushes?

by TaniaRizzo Posted on April 30, 2015

Mother Jones

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

When the recent controversy about the Clinton family foundation first emerged—thanks to Clinton Cash, the book by conservative author Peter Schweizer—all-but-announced Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush declared that Hillary Clinton is “going to be held accountable like all of us…That’s part of the process.” But Bush declined to slam Clinton or comment on Schweizer’s admittedly unproven allegations that she took official action as secretary of state to benefit foreign donors to the foundation. He said, “I don’t ‘go off’ on Hillary Clinton.” And he explained that there would be time later to get into partisan sniping. But there was perhaps another reason for his reticence: The Bush family foundations are less transparent about their donors than the Clinton Foundation.

Nonprofits are not compelled to reveal their funders, and most treat their financial sources as top-secret information. But the Clinton Foundation does release the names of all its donors and the general amount of each donation (though it has acknowledged screwing up on occasion). It first made public its contributors in late 2008 after then president-elect Barack Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. The need for openness was obvious: A foreign government, a corporation, or wealthy individuals donating to the foundation could have an interest in a decision or action made by a secretary of state. And the public had a right to know if any potential conflicts of interest were at hand. (The overlap between the foundation’s funding, the Clintons’ personal finances, Bill’s global hobnobbing with foreign leaders and CEOs, and Hillary’s official actions as secretary of state certainly deserved scrutiny.) But the foundation’s nearly 3,000-page list of contributors was not searchable, and the foundation only supplied the names of the donors, not addresses or any other identifying information. The specific amounts of contributions were not provided, only the range (say, $5 to $10 million, or more than $25 million). Still, this was much more transparency than what is practiced by most foundations. As Tom Watson recently wrote at Forbes.com, “In truth, the Clinton Foundation is among the most forthcoming of major charities and nonprofit foundations—especially those headed by public figures.”

Continue Reading »

Continued here: 

Are the Clintons More Transparent Than the Bushes?

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are the Clintons More Transparent Than the Bushes?

The NFL Is About to Pay Taxes for the First Time in More Than 70 Years

by Charity1825 Posted on April 28, 2015

Mother Jones

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

The National Football League paid its commissioner, Roger Goodell, a staggering $44.1 million in 2012. The year before, he took home $29 million. The year before that, $11 million. That’s corner-office-at-Goldman-Sachs-level money—to run what for decades has been a tax-exempt organization.

Soon, however, the public won’t have a clue what Goodell or anyone else in the NFL league office earns. On Tuesday, Goodell announced that the NFL will give up its tax-exempt status, claiming that it has turned into a “distraction” that “has been mischaracterized repeatedly.” Here’s what that means: For the first time in more than 70 years, pro football’s league headquarters will pony up its share of federal taxes. But it also means the NFL won’t have to file the tax forms that require it to be transparent about salaries, revenue, spending, and more.

Congress granted the NFL tax-exempt status way back in 1942, long before it was the global juggernaut that it is today, with estimated revenues of $9.5 billion a year. (Goodell wants to grow that to $25 billion by 2027.) For years, budget hawks in Congress and good-government groups have called for stripping the league of its nonprofit status and forcing it to join Major League Baseball’s front office in operating like a normal taxable business. Former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who never saw a piece of pork he didn’t want to trim, waged a lonely war to revoke the NFL’s 501(c)(6) status with a piece of legislation called the Properly Reducing Overexemptions for Sports Act (PRO Sports Act). (The bill specifically targeted the NFL, even though the National Hockey League and Professional Golf Association are also nonprofits.) And in December 2013, I wrote about an anti-corruption group’s campaign to gin up public support for eliminating the NFL’s tax break.

Goodell’s announcement will no doubt be cheered as a victory by the league’s critics. So what I’m about to say will make me few friends, but here goes: The commish has a point. And the NFL giving up its tax-exempt status is bad news.

Goodell frames this decision not as a financial one but as a way to move past what he sees as the misguided controversy and anger over the league’s tax status. As he’s quick to point out, the league’s 32 teams pay taxes on all that revenue. The Pats, the Colts, my beloved Detroit Lions: None is tax-exempt. It’s the NFL front office—which reported $326,882,787 in 2013 revenue—that doesn’t pay taxes. Sure, $327 million is a lot of money, but it’s a pittance compared to $9.5 billion. How much do we lose in tax revenue from this? The Joint Committee on Taxation crunched the numbers and found that the 10-year cost for giving the NFL and NHL tax-exempt status is roughly $109 million—a relatively paltry sum.

Nonetheless, critics like Coburn and government watchdog groups argue that eliminating the NFL’s subsidy is the right thing to do. Any waste, they say, is bad waste. Okay, sure. But at what cost?

There’s a wealth of information in each of the NFL’s annual tax forms—detailed breakdowns of where the league’s money comes from, front-office compensation packages, which law firms the league retains, the amounts and recipients of league grants. Goodell doesn’t mention this in his announcement, but it’s hard to imagine the league not relishing the opportunity to pull some of that information out of the spotlight.

Perhaps the silver lining is this: By taking the tax-exempt issue off the table, activists can instead focus their work on more-meaningful reforms. Take, for example, the grand scam of taxpayer financing for stadiums. A 2012 Bloomberg analysis calculated that federal taxpayers lost $4 billion in the last 25 years’ worth of stadium construction deals. It’s one of the great boondoggles in sports today, an issue where the fleecing is very real.

See original article – 

The NFL Is About to Pay Taxes for the First Time in More Than 70 Years

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The NFL Is About to Pay Taxes for the First Time in More Than 70 Years