Tag Archives: obama

This Republican plans to spend $175 million trying to get his party to care about climate change

by OmerSWLPnimnq Posted on June 9, 2015

A Tom Steyer for the right?

This Republican plans to spend $175 million trying to get his party to care about climate change

By on 9 Jun 2015commentsShare

A North Carolina businessman is wading into the 2016 big-money slugfest, planning to spend $175 million to back action on climate change. But unlike Tom Steyer and the other big donors focused on the issue, this guy is a Republican. And though he hopes to influence the candidates, he also hopes, more generally, to change the conversation Republican voters are having.

“There’s a lot of good solutions, but we are not going to get there if we keep arguing about the problem,” the donor, Jay Faison, told Reuters.

With the exception of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is a long-shot candidate, and former New York Gov. George Pataki, who is a really long-shot candidate, the Republican presidential contenders all either dodge questions about or outright deny climate science. “Here’s a question you need to ask everybody running as a Republican: What is the environmental policy of the Republican party?” Graham said on CNN’s State of the Union this Sunday. “When I ask that question, I get a blank stare.”

Faison has contributed $25,000 to Graham’s campaign, and $50,000 to a PAC supporting Jeb Bush. Bush has at least said he’s “concerned” about climate change, though he continues to waffle. Faison told Politico that he has not yet decided which candidate to endorse.

Faison thinks a good chunk of Republican voters do care about global warming. He, for instance, came to his views because his love of hunting and fishing begat concerns about the environment. He’s launched a new organization, the ClearPath Foundation, that has a list of recommendations for what environmentally conscious conservatives can do to fight climate change — including rooftop solar installation and environmentally conscious investing. (True, they aren’t the kind of drastic measures we need to actually deal with climate change, but plenty of Democrats aren’t endorsing drastic measures either.)

And the polling — at least some of it — supports his position. According to a poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 56 percent of all Republicans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant:

Click chart to embiggen.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

A separate poll by The New York Times, Stanford University, and research group Resources for the Future arrived at similar results, and a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that younger Republicans are particularly supportive of climate action.

Even if Republican politicians almost universally decry Obama’s executive actions on climate change, some policy-minded people on the right are trying to figure out an answer to Graham’s question: What should Republicans do instead? There’s some support among conservative wonks for a market-based solution — like a carbon tax — as an alternative to EPA regulation. And some Republicans on the front lines of climate change, like in Florida, are also increasingly admitting that a discussion needs to happen.

But as of now, these aren’t loud voices in the party. Most Republicans — unlike a certain segment of Democrats and independents — just don’t care that much about climate change, regardless of whether they accept the science, and regardless of whether they are for action or against it. It may take more than $175 million to change that.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read the article:

This Republican plans to spend $175 million trying to get his party to care about climate change

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Republican plans to spend $175 million trying to get his party to care about climate change

A Federal Appeals Court Just Denied Birthright Citizenship to American Samoans Using Racist Caselaw

by Janie22Bmqhb Posted on June 5, 2015

Mother Jones

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

American Samoans are the only people born on United States soil but denied birthright citizenship. And so it will remain—at least for now.

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship does not apply to island territories including American Samoa. Agreeing with the Obama administration’s lawyers, the DC Circuit relied on and even expanded the scope of a set of racially-charged, Colonial-era cases that refer to “savages” and “alien races” to reach their decision.

(Mother Jones covered this case back in February; on his HBO show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver subsequently included the issue in a segment on rights in US territories.)

Opposing a group of American Samoans seeking birthright citizenship, the US government based its argument on a set of cases legal scholars have denounced as racist and imperialist. Known as the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court in the early years of the 20th century created a distinction between the rights of newly acquired island territories such as American Samoa and Puerto Rico and territories such as Arizona that they assumed would one day become states—and which were increasingly populated by white people. As Mother Jones reported back in February:

Justice Henry Brown—famous as the author of Plessy v. Ferguson, which gave the court’s blessing to segregation—refers to the inhabitants of the new territories as “savage” and “alien races” in the Insular Cases. Brown contended that Congress would treat the territories well because it was guided by “certain principles of natural justice inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character.” His colleague, Justice Edward White, hypothesized in one case that granting citizenship to an “uncivilized race” in a new territory would “inflict grave detriment on the United States” from “the immediate bestowal of citizenship on those absolutely unfit to receive it.”

The DC Circuit’s unanimous opinion attempts to distance itself from this controversial history before ultimately relying on the Insular Cases to rule against the American Samoans. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court—comprised of the three most conservative justices on the DC Circuit—Judge Janice Rogers Brown first denounced the Insular Cases as “without parallel in our judicial history” for the “manner in which the results were reached, the incongruity of the results, and the variety of inconsistent views expressed by the different members of the court.” Brown also acknowledged, in the politest way possible, that “some aspects of the Insular Cases’ analysis may now be deemed politically incorrect.”

Nevertheless, the DC Circuit found them “both applicable and of pragmatic use in assessing the applicability of rights to unincorporated territories.” In fact, the court expanded the scope of the Insular Cases, becoming the first court to explicitly apply the Insular Cases to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That wasn’t the only way the DC Circuit’s opinion broke ground in this case. As Neil Weare, the civil rights lawyer who argued the case in February on behalf of a group of American Samoans, noted in a statement Friday, “Today marks the first time a federal court of appeals has ruled that citizenship by birth on US soil is not a fundamental right.”

Though the group of American Samoans lost on Friday, their chances of winning an appeal to the entire DC Circuit—which is more liberal than the three conservative judges randomly selected to hear this case—could be higher.

More – 

A Federal Appeals Court Just Denied Birthright Citizenship to American Samoans Using Racist Caselaw

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Federal Appeals Court Just Denied Birthright Citizenship to American Samoans Using Racist Caselaw

George Pataki Leads 2016 GOP Crowd…

by AlyceYorke Posted on May 28, 2015

Mother Jones

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

The good news: The GOP 2016 field has a contender who believes human-induced climate change is real and extensive action must be taken to reduce emissions. The bad news: It’s George Pataki.

The former New York governor announced his entry into the race on Thursday—and, predictably, the political earth did not move. Few members of the politerati view Pataki as a top-tier candidate. His name recognition is low. And after he left New York state’s top job in 2006, Pataki, who had unexpectedly defeated then-Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1994, has been largely absent from politics. But he did—of course—join a law firm. And he formed a consulting group to provide guidance to firms in the energy, infrastructure, clean-tech, and environmental fields. Clean tech? Yes, he was a fan of green-friendly enterprise. But—for a Republican contender—it’s even worse: Pataki became an advocate for climate change action.

In 2007, he was named co-chair of the Independent Task Force on Climate Change organized by the Council on Foreign Relations. The other co-chair was Tom Vilsack, the former Democratic governor of Iowa who is now President Barack Obama’s agriculture secretary. Other members of this very blue-ribbon commission included Lawrence Summers, Theodore Roosevelt IV, and Timothy Wirth. And after a year of study and deliberations, the panel put out a 142-page report that would horrify the Republican Party of today, for it noted that human-caused climate change posed a crisis and that comprehensive action was required immediately. It proposed a cap-and-trade system to dramatically reduce US emissions.

Here’s the first page:

In a chapter entitled “Leadership,” the report noted that redressing climate change would “demand much of U.S. leaders” and “require strong cooperation between the executive branch and Congress.” It called for bipartisan action. The report concluded, “Addressing climate change will be no easy task. But with careful and creative strategy, tempered by modesty in its knowledge of how to address to sic the challenge but driven by an equally clear recognition of its gravity, the United States can ultimately help lead the world to a safer place.”

That’s certainly not the Republican line these days. Earlier this year, the GOP-controlled Senate voted that climate change is not caused by human activity. And it’s become a GOP article of faith that climate change is a phony issue and cap-and-trade (or any other response) is a left-wing plot to impose more taxes on Americans for the sake of imposing more taxes on Americans.

So it will be interesting to see how Pataki handles—or dodges—this issue as he campaigns for Republican votes. Here’s one clue: His bio on his campaign website doesn’t mention his climate change work. And he neglected to mention climate change during his announcement speech. Perhaps he needs to re-read his own report.

Excerpt from:  

George Pataki Leads 2016 GOP Crowd…

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on George Pataki Leads 2016 GOP Crowd…

Judges Are Just Extensions of Political Parties These Days

by OliviaMonahan Posted on May 26, 2015

Mother Jones

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

From a post by Dara Lind about a court ruling on President Obama’s immigration plan:

The two Republican-appointed judges hearing the case sided against the administration, while the Democratic-appointed judge on the panel sided with the White House.

How many times have we read sentences exactly like this? It’s a wonder that anyone in the country still believes that federal judges are honest brokers these days.

Link: 

Judges Are Just Extensions of Political Parties These Days

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Judges Are Just Extensions of Political Parties These Days

Does Mike Huckabee Know Where the Ark of the Covenant Is Buried?

by KeenanAltman50 Posted on May 22, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Harry Moskoff wouldn’t immediately strike you as the guy to discover the true location of the Ark of the Covenant, the chest that supposedly once held the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written. He was born in Canada, studied jazz at Berklee College of Music, worked in IT, and started a company that specialized in copyright infringement claims when he moved to Tel Aviv 10 years ago. But in his free time, the ordained rabbi has dabbled in biblical archeology, poring over ancient texts and contemporary works, in search of any unturned stone that might help him track down the ark.

“I came up with a theory via Maimonides as to where the ark is located, which I later discussed with rabbis and archeologists in Israel,” he told the Times of Israel in 2013. “It was a Jewish Da Vinci Code type project.” His grand theory? It’s been in Jerusalem all this time, buried underneath the courtyard of the Temple of Solomon. To promote his discovery, in 2013 he made a sci-fi movie called The A.R.K. Report.

Last year, Moskoff, who describes himself as a “Jewish Indiana Jones,” published a non-fiction book, also called The A.R.K. Report, chronicling his search for this legendary artifact, and he got a boost from a higher power of a different sort—former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is now a Republican presidential candidate.

“From the days of ancient history to the modern interest created by movies like ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ there has been a dogged curiosity about the biblical ‘Ark of the Covenant,'” Huckabee wrote in a blurb. “Rabbi Harry Moskoff’s spellbinding book, ‘The Ark Report,’ takes curiosity to clarity and gives the reader an understanding of why the authenticity of the real Ark could be a game changer for the world.”

Huckabee had one good reason to endorse the Moskoff’s book—he was in it. Moskoff snagged a sit-down interview with the former governor and featured it prominently in the middle of the book. In this lengthy Q&A, Huckabee discussed a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he was against it) and claimed the Obama administration was too cowardly to confront Iran. Huckabee, a onetime Baptist minister, also weighed in on Markoff’s theory regarding the ark, noting that modern-day archeology has consistently proven that the stories of the Bible are true:

Moskoff’s’s theories go beyond the ark’s location. He claims that the CIA is “interested” in his “findings” and that the spy agency has interfered with archeological digs to prevent the discovery of biblical artifacts. Why would the spy service do this? Because the unearthing of such items, including the ark, would strengthen Israel’s claim to disputed territory.

So is a top-secret US agency conspiring to hide the Ark of the Covenant and other biblical evidence from the rest of the world for covert geopolitical motives? If elected president, will Huckabee undo this CIA cover-up and also reveal the ark and its godly power to all? In any event, we’ve seen this movie before:

Link – 

Does Mike Huckabee Know Where the Ark of the Covenant Is Buried?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does Mike Huckabee Know Where the Ark of the Covenant Is Buried?

Obama: Climate Deniers in Congress Are Undermining Our Troops

by AutumnSidwell69 Posted on May 20, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Speaking to graduating cadets at the US Coast Guard Academy Wednesday, President Obama once again outlined his administration’s case for ambitious climate action. At the heart of today’s speech: the president’s contention that global warming constitutes an immediate threat to America’s national security and will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars if left unchecked.

Watch the highlights from the speech above.

Obama took direct aim at climate change deniers in Congress. “Denying it—or refusing to deal with it—endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” he said. “Politicians who care about military readiness ought to care about this, too.”

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” Obama added. Refusing to act, he said, is “a dereliction of duty.”

Casting climate change as major threat at home and abroad, Obama detailed how warming could accelerate political instability and civil strife, prompt expensive and complex rescue missions in the wake of natural disasters, and hit US military assets along the coast. In the Arctic, he said, “we’re witnessing the birth of a new ocean.”

Obama also focused on the economic costs of rising seas: “A further increase in sea level of 1 foot…by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion,” he said.

“We need the coast guard more than ever,” Obama said. “Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service.”

Today’s remarks are the latest in a string of climate-focused speeches by Obama in the run-up to global climate talks in Paris later this year. The commencement address contained very similar language to the president’s State of the Union speech in January. “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe,” he said then. “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.”

In the Florida Everglades last month, Obama also took a shot at Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) for bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor in a bizarre effort to dispute climate science. “If you have a coming storm, you don’t stick your head in the sand,” he said. “You prepare for the storm.”

View original:  

Obama: Climate Deniers in Congress Are Undermining Our Troops

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: Climate Deniers in Congress Are Undermining Our Troops

Obamacare Is Making It Easier to Be a Young Working Parent

by WeldonGalloway Posted on May 19, 2015

Mother Jones

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

With Kevin Drum continuing to focus on getting better, we’ve invited some of the remarkable writers and thinkers who have traded links and ideas with him from Blogosphere 1.0 to this day to contribute posts and keep the conversation going. Today we’re honored to present a post from economist Dean Baker.

The main point of the Affordable Care Act was to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured. While this is a tremendously important goal, a benefit that is almost equally important was to provide a guarantee of coverage to those already insured if they lose or leave their job. This matters hugely because roughly 2 million people lose their job every month due to firing or layoffs. As a result of the ACA most of these workers can now count on being able to get affordable coverage even after losing their job.

The ACA also means that people who may previously have felt trapped at a job because of their need for insurance now can leave their job without the risk that they or their family would go uninsured. This could give many pre-Medicare age workers the option to retire early. It could give workers with young children or other care-giving responsibilities the opportunity to work part-time. It could give workers the opportunity to start a business. Or, it could just give workers the opportunity to leave a job they hate.

While it is still too early to reach conclusive assessments of the labor market impact of the ACA, the evidence to date looks promising. Republican opponents of Obamacare have often complained that the program would turn the country into a “part-time nation.” It turns out that there is something to their story, but probably not what they intended. The number of people who are working part-time for economic reasons, meaning they would work full-time if a full-time position was available, has fallen by almost 16 percent from the start of 2013 to the start of 2015. This is part of the general improvement in the labor market over this period.

The number of people working part-time involuntarily is still well above pre-recession levels, but it has been going in the right direction.

It is true that the employer sanction part of the ACA has not taken effect (which required that employers with more than 50 workers provide insurance or pay a penalty, but it is not clear this would make a difference. Under the original wording of the law (Obama subsequently suspended this provision), employers would have expected that the sanctions would apply for the first six months of 2013. We found no evidence of shifting to more part-time work during this period compared to the first six months of 2012.

But there is a story on increased voluntary part-time employment. This is up by 5.7 percent in the first four months of 2015 compared to 2013. This corresponds to more than 1 million people who have chosen to work part-time. We did some analysis of who these people were and found that it was overwhelmingly a story of young parents working part-time.

There was little change or an actual decline in the percentage of workers over the age of 35 who were working part-time voluntarily. There was a modest increase in the percentage of workers under age 35, without children, working part-time voluntarily. There was a 10.2 percent increase in the share of workers under the age of 35, with one to two kids, working part-time. For young workers with three of more kids the increase was 15.4 percent.

Based on these findings it appears that Obamacare has allowed many young parents the opportunity to work at part-time jobs so that they could spend more time with their kids. Back in the old days we might have thought this was an outcome that family-values conservatives would have welcomed.

As far as other labor market effects of Obamacare, there has been a modest uptick in self-employment, but it would require more analysis to give the ACA credit. Similarly, older workers are accounting for a smaller share of employment growth, perhaps due to the fact that they no longer to need to get health care through their jobs. These areas will require further study to make any conclusive judgments, but based on the data we have seen to date, it seems pretty clear that Obamacare is allowing many young parents to have more time with their kids. And that is a good story that needs to be told.

Original post:  

Obamacare Is Making It Easier to Be a Young Working Parent

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Is Making It Easier to Be a Young Working Parent

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?

Obama Just Called Out Fox News For Making the Poor Out to Be "Leeches"

by JerrellWestwood 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”>

Via Politico, oh snap:

President Barack Obama criticized Fox News on Tuesday, accusing the network of portraying poor people as “leeches.”

In a discussion at Georgetown University, Obama said the media made an effort to “suggest the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving,” and he then singled out Fox News for special rebuke.

From the White House transcript:

There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leaches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.
I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu—they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, “I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone”—or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress—which is much more typical—who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.
And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

Amen.

Here’s the video, courtesy of Media Matters:

(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’));

BOOM. President Obama just called out Fox News by name for their awful coverage of poverty in America and for regularly pushing false stereotypes about poor people. Watch:

Posted by

Media Matters for America on Tuesday, May 12, 2015

View post:

Obama Just Called Out Fox News For Making the Poor Out to Be "Leeches"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Called Out Fox News For Making the Poor Out to Be "Leeches"

West Virginia Democrats’ Best Hope Might Be This Billionaire Coal Magnate

by SuzetteVGB Posted on May 11, 2015

Mother Jones

Over the last six years, West Virginia Democrats have seen their grip on state politics slip away in no small part due to their alleged collaboration with President Barack Obama’s “War on Coal.” The solution: put a coal kingpin on the ballot.

On Monday, Jim Justice, owner of Southern Coal Corp., announced he would run for governor as a Democrat in 2016, to replace the retiring incumbent Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. Justice, the state’s richest citizen with an estimated net worth of $1.6 billion, is a political novice but a state icon. In 2009, he purchased the Greenbrier, a historic mountain resort that had fallen on hard times, and restored it into a first-class resort. During his gubernatorial campaign kickoff event, Justice drew a parallel between his state’s lackluster reputation, and the derelict condition of the White Sulphur Springs retreat. “Times were tough at the Greenbrier, too,” he said.

In Justice, Democrats have found a walking counterpoint to the war-on-coal attacks. (The attacks are also largely unfounded—under Tomblin the state has rolled back mine safety regulations.) In contrast to, say, frequent Greenbrier guest Don Blankenship, who as CEO of Massey Energy famously re-designed his property so he wouldn’t have to use his town’s polluted drinking water and is currently awaiting trial on conspiracy to violate mine-safety laws, Justice has always styled himself as a man of the people. A 2011 Washington Post profile began with a surprise sighting of Justice at an Applebee’s near his hometown. The richest man in the state, it turned out, was grabbing a late snack after coaching his hometown’s high school girls basketball team.

But Southern Coal Corp. isn’t without its issues. An NPR investigation last fall found that the company owed nearly $2 million in delinquent fines for federal mine safety violations. (After the report was published, Justice agreed to work out a payment plan.) And he may not have the Democratic field to himself, either; senate minority leader Jeff Kessler (D) filed his pre-candidacy papers in March. No Republicans have thrown their hats into the ring yet.

Source article: 

West Virginia Democrats’ Best Hope Might Be This Billionaire Coal Magnate

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on West Virginia Democrats’ Best Hope Might Be This Billionaire Coal Magnate