Tag Archives: the right

The Time Jeb Bush Hired a Spanking Proponent to Run His Troubled Child Welfare Agency

Mother Jones

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

It was 2002, Gov. Jeb Bush was up for reelection, and the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) was in chaos. News had recently broken that a five-year-old Miami girl in state care had disappeared—and no one had noticed her absence for more than a year. Police had recently found a child welfare worker passed out drunk in her car with a kid in the back seat. A two-year-old boy was beaten to death on the same day a caseworker claimed to have visited him. The department head had quit amid a series of controversies. Bush needed a replacement, one that signaled that he had a plan to restore order to the scandal-plagued agency. But his choice to fill the job, Jerry Regier, a Christian conservative culture warrior who had served in Bush’s father’s presidential administration, soon landed in a controversy of his own involving spanking.

Regier held a range of hardline religious views and supported the use of corporal punishment against children. He was the founding president of Family Research Council, the social conservative group that has denounced homosexuality and defended the rights of parents to physically discipline their children. (FRC was co-founded by James Dobson, an influential psychologist who, starting in the 1970s, wrote numerous parenting books touting the value of using a switch or belt on defiant children.)

Continue Reading »

Source:  

The Time Jeb Bush Hired a Spanking Proponent to Run His Troubled Child Welfare Agency

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Time Jeb Bush Hired a Spanking Proponent to Run His Troubled Child Welfare Agency

Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

Mother Jones

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

In late 2011, then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson had committed to backing Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign in the run-up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses. But Sorenson was getting irritated with Bachmann and felt he owed the Ron Paul campaign something. After all, he testified in an Iowa courtroom Thursday, many of Paul’s campaign staffers had previously worked for the National Right to Work Committee, an anti-union group with close ties to the Paul family, and they had supported Sorenson’s political aspirations with money and manpower.

In the days after Christmas 2011, Sorenson said, the Paul campaign pressured him to switch sides, and after he asked for money to change his endorsement, a Paul operative stuffed a $25,000 check into the hands of Sorenson’s wife.

Read our April feature on the Paul family scandal here.

Sorenson’s testimony came during the trial of two Paul family political operatives: Jesse Benton, who is married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter, was chairman of the 2012 presidential campaign and operated a super-PAC backing Rand Paul in the 2016 race. Dimitri Kesari, who gave Sorenson’s wife the $25,000 check, is a longtime National Right to Work Committee and Paul family associate.

While paying for Sorenson’s endorsement violated Iowa Senate rules, it is not illegal under federal law for a presidential campaign to do so. Prosecutors say Kesari and Benton crossed the line when they allegedly tried to cover up the payments to Sorenson. Benton faces one count of making false statements to federal investigators. His attorneys argue that he didn’t know much about the deal with Sorenson and did not lie when he told investigators he knew nothing about the scheme. Kesari, on the other hand, faces a slew of charges, including conspiracy, campaign finance charges, and obstruction of justice.

In court, Sorenson recalled making the decision to switch his endorsement.

“I’m sorry for what I’m about to do,” Sorenson testified that he told a friend on the Bachmann campaign after revealing to him and others on Bachmann’s campaign that the Paul camp had offered him money to switch sides. Then, he said, he drove to a Paul event, where he was eagerly greeted by Kesari, who ushered him inside, where Benton and others on the campaign were waiting. Sorenson testified he was led over to meet Benton.

“I remember specifically asking Jesse if they would take care of me,” Sorenson testified, when asked whether he arrived at the Paul event with the expectation of being paid to change his endorsement. The response from Benton, according to Sorenson, was “You’re bleeding for us—we’ll take care of you.”

Later that night, Sorenson said that Kesari took his cellphone away to prevent him from talking to the media or anyone else about his reasons for switching sides. “I was a wreck,” Sorenson recalled.

Bachmann publicly accused Sorenson of taking money to switch sides—it was later revealed that Sorenson was paid by Bachmann’s campaign first—and the morning after his decision, Sorenson said Kesari, Benton, and others counseled him on how to handle the situation and prepped him on how to address the media.

Sorenson pleaded guilty last fall in federal court to charges that he helped the campaign hide the payments. On Wednesday, Ron Paul testified, stating that he didn’t approve of endorsements and certainly wouldn’t have wanted his campaign to pay for one.

Besides Sorenson’s and Paul’s testimony, prosecutors have introduced dozens of emails and financial records showing that the Paul campaign funneled money to Sorenson via a third party—a company in Maryland that did no work for the campaign but was paid for “audio-visual” work and then turned around and paid Sorenson. The payments are not in dispute, but defense attorneys for Kesari and Benton have argued that they are a normal part of politics and that there was no crime in the way they were reported.

Sorenson will return to the witness stand tomorrow.

Link:  

Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

We May Have Bill Clinton to Thank for Donald Trump’s Presidential Run

Mother Jones

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

As Americans eagerly await the circus that will be tomorrow’s first Republican presidential debate—almost entirely generated by the presence of front-runner Donald Trump—a new report offers a surprising connection that led the real estate mogul to throw his hat in the ring: Bill Clinton.

The Washington Post reports Clinton and Trump had a private phone call shortly before the GOP’s newest star officially announced his candidacy. During the call, the former president—and spouse of the likely democratic nominee—stopped short of outright pushing him to run for president. Instead, Clinton reportedly prodded Trump to seek a “larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.”

Clearly flattered by the words of his favorite president ever, Trump got the hint, entered the race. The rest is viral history. Clinton’s office confirmed the phone call.

Despite the recent exchange over Trump’s controversial “rapist” characterization of Mexican immigrants—Hillary said she was “very disappointed” by the comments; Trump fired back, calling her the “worst Secretary of State” in history—the new report highlights the unusual friendship shared between the Clintons and Trump.

Back in 2012, Clinton noted that Trump has been “uncommonly nice” to him and Hillary. “We’re all New Yorkers,” Clinton said. “I like him. And I love playing golf with him.”

With that kind of praise, Clinton has clearly been playing the long game.

Originally from – 

We May Have Bill Clinton to Thank for Donald Trump’s Presidential Run

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We May Have Bill Clinton to Thank for Donald Trump’s Presidential Run

Texas Poised to Let An Unfairly Prosecuted Person Walk, For Once

Mother Jones

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

The number of criminal charges against Rick Perry has been cut in half, thanks to a Texas court. On Friday, reports the Houston Chronicle, the 3rd Court of Appeals tossed out the charge that the former Texas governor and GOP hopeful had coerced a public official. In effect, the court said Perry was free to trash-talk Texas officials as much as he pleased, even if it meant encouraging one of those officials—the Travis County District Attorney—to leave office.

Perry’s legal troubles date back to a line-item veto he signed in 2013, erasing $7.5 million that had been designated for the Public Integrity Unit in the Travis County District Attorney’s office—a small group tasked with investigating corruption in the state’s political class. At the time, Perry claimed the Integrity Unit could no longer be trusted to fulfill those duties after the district attorney had remained in office following her arrest for drunk driving. (She had also been caught on camera trying to exploit her office to get out of the arrest.) Perry has been accused of overstepping his authority as governor by explicitly tying that veto to his desire to see the district attorney—a locally elected official—removed from office.

His use of the line-item veto is still under review. While the court sided with Perry on one count, it wasn’t ready to dismiss the entire case. Perry still faces one felony indictment for abusing his powers as governor by zeroing out the budget for the state’s corruption watchdog.

Read more about the history of the charges against Perry here.

Continue reading:

Texas Poised to Let An Unfairly Prosecuted Person Walk, For Once

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Texas Poised to Let An Unfairly Prosecuted Person Walk, For Once

These GOP Candidates Are Standing Behind Donald Trump

Mother Jones

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

Following Donald Trump’s controversial comments suggesting that Mexican immigrants are “rapists” who bring drugs and crime to America, his fellow 2016 contenders have largely condemned his inflammatory remarks. But a handful of Republican hopefuls have either defended the real estate mogul or, in one case, fled a question on the subject to avoid going on the record.

Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson are standing behind Trump. They have defended (even applauded) the billionaire, in what might be attempts to appeal to conservatives opposed to immigration reform.

Continue Reading »

Original source – 

These GOP Candidates Are Standing Behind Donald Trump

Posted in Anchor, Aroma, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These GOP Candidates Are Standing Behind Donald Trump

Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

Mother Jones

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

A month before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, then-Texas governor Rick Perry tried to save his flailing presidential campaign by tacking hard to the religious right. At the center of his effort was an ad he released in December 2011 titled “Strong,” which opens with Perry looking at the camera and stating, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”

The Rick Perry of the 2016 campaign is sporting a new look, between the Buddy Holly frames, the speeches demanding that his party reconcile itself with its history and appeal to African Americans, and the denouncements of Donald Trump’s comments about immigrants. And on gay rights, while he’s still far from marching in a pride parade—last month he criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide—Perry is singing a different tune on President Obama’s repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As flagged by Bloomberg Politics, Perry appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week, and when George Stephanopoulos asked if he stood by that ad, Perry sounded as though he still disliked the policy but was resigned to the fact that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell wouldn’t be restored. “I have no reason to think that is going to be able to be done,” Perry said. “I think—you know, that clearly has already—you know, the horse is out of the barn.”

Watch Perry on This Week:

ABC US News | World News

Excerpt from:

Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

NRA Leader Blames Slain Charleston Pastor for Slaughter of His Congregants

Mother Jones

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

Gun rights activists have been out in force since the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, once again blaming the slaughter on so-called gun-free zones, and claiming that an armed citizen could have otherwise stopped the attack. It’s an argument that the gun lobby has used for many years, but on Thursday afternoon it was marked by a brazen new low with comments from Charles Cotton, a longtime board member of the National Rifle Association. Cotton wrote on a Texas gun-rights forum that slain pastor and South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney was responsible for the murders of his congregants because of his opposition to looser concealed-carry laws.

“Eight of his church members, who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church, are dead,” Cotton said. “Innocent people died because of his political position on the issue.”

Screen shot: TexasCHLforum.com

It’s unsurprising that debate over gun laws flared up in the aftermath of Charleston, on both sides of the issue. Speaking from the White House on Thursday, President Obama said, “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries…with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.”

Yet, Obama also spoke of the “dark part of our history” evoked by an attack on a historic black church in the South. No one who has watched the horror unfold in Charleston doubts that the killer’s motivation was infused with racial hatred. And to suggest that gun restrictions were the root cause of the bloodbath isn’t just callous—it’s also plain wrong.

As Mother Jones has previously reported, there has never been any evidence that mass shooters picked their targets based on gun regulations; to the contrary, data from scores of cases shows perpetrators had other specific motivations for where they attacked, including racial hatred. The idea that armed citizens stop crimes in the United States has also been wildly exaggerated by the gun lobby, as a new study based on federal data reaffirms.

Cotton has long led pro-gun lobbying efforts in Texas: He was at Gov. Greg Abbott’s side last weekend when Abbott signed a new open-carry bill at a Texas gun range.

Cotton’s comments have since been deleted from TexasCHLforum.com, where he is listed as a site administrator. He did not reply to a request for further comment. In a statement on Friday to Politico, the NRA distanced itself from Cotton’s rhetoric, saying individual board members “do not have the authority to speak for the NRA.”

Taken from: 

NRA Leader Blames Slain Charleston Pastor for Slaughter of His Congregants

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, FF, GE, Holmes, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NRA Leader Blames Slain Charleston Pastor for Slaughter of His Congregants

The Legal Trouble That Could Haunt Rick Perry’s Presidential Campaign

Mother Jones

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

Rick Perry’s recently launched presidential campaign is off to a relatively smooth start. Sure, unlike his 2012 bid, he’s entering the field far, far behind in the polls—he’s trailing Donald Trump!—but he’s been getting good press. “Rick Perry’s still got it,” proclaimed Politico‘s Katie Glueck over the weekend, noting that “when it comes to glad-handing and working a crowd, Perry still sets the gold standard even if he trails in the polls.”

But as he launches his second run for the White House, Perry faces ongoing legal trouble back home in Texas stemming from his time as governor. Last August, a grand jury indicted Perry for abusing his power as governor. Perry has repeatedly requested that judges dismiss the case, only to be rebuked as the allegations progress toward a trial—one that could play out during the heat of the GOP primaries.

The case is a bit convoluted, but it stems from Perry’s 2013 effort to oust a county district attorney who investigates public corruption.

Texas has an unusual system of keeping politicians in check. There’s no a state-level commission that scrutinizes political malfeasance. Instead, the Travis County DA—based in Austin—is responsible for conducting these investigations.

Texas Republicans had never been huge fans of a system that entrusts this liberal county with that power (especially after the Travis DA charged former US House majority leader Tom DeLay with violating election law in 2005). Nevertheless, the status quo had hummed along until April 2013, when police arrested Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg for drunk driving. Lehmberg, a Democrat, was caught on videotape the night of her arrest threatening police officers.

Republicans, including Perry, immediately called on Lehmberg to resign. But she refused, managing to hold onto her job despite various legal maneuvers to remove her from office. So Perry attempted a more creative method to get rid of Lehmberg. In 2013, he used the governor’s line item veto power to cross out $7.5 million in funds allocated to the Public Integrity Unit, the subsection of the Travis County DA’s office that investigates political corruption. Perry directly linked the veto to Lehmberg’s arrest, saying he couldn’t allow the funds to go to this outfit “when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence.”

That raised the ire of Texans for Public Justice, a left-leaning good government outfit. It filed a complaint alleging Perry had abused his office’s powers. “The governor overstepped his authority by sticking his nose in Travis County’s business,” the group’s executive director said in a statement at the time. This led to a judge tasking a special prosecutor to look into the case, and that led to a grand jury and felony indictment for Perry on one count of abusing his official capacity and another count of coercing a public servant.

Perry has been dismissive of the case, turning his mugshot into a fundraising t-shirt. And a number of legal commentators, even liberal ones, have agreed, questioning the seriousness of the charges leveled against Perry. University of California, Irvine law professor Rick Hasen termed it “the criminalization of ordinary politics.”

Yet judges in Texas aren’t ready to shelve the charges. San Antonio Judge Bert Richardson has repeatedly turned down motions from Perry’s lawyers to dismiss the case. In April, the case was assigned to a three-judge panel in Texas’ 3rd Court of Appeals. No date has been set for initial hearings, so the case might not get fully aired until the peak of presidential primary season later this fall. If Perry he ends up getting convicted on both counts, he would face a maximum sentence of over 100 years of jail time.

No matter the outcome of the case, Perry soon might get his wish to see Lehmberg off the public corruption beat: The state house and senate both recently passed bills to reassign corruption cases to the Texas Rangers—a law enforcement agency that is overseen by the governor’s appointees.

View the original here:  

The Legal Trouble That Could Haunt Rick Perry’s Presidential Campaign

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Legal Trouble That Could Haunt Rick Perry’s Presidential Campaign

Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

Mother Jones

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. Photos and reporting by Eduardo García

Something is rotten in the state of Michigan.

One city neglected to inform its residents that its water supply was laced with cancerous chemicals. Another dissolved its public school district and replaced it with a charter school system, only to witness the for-profit management company it hired flee the scene after determining it couldn’t turn a profit. Numerous cities and school districts in the state are now run by single, state-appointed technocrats, as permitted under an emergency financial manager law pushed through by Rick Snyder, Michigan’s austerity-promoting governor. This legislation not only strips residents of their local voting rights, but gives Snyder’s appointee the power to do just about anything, including dissolving the city itself—all (no matter how disastrous) in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”

If you’re thinking, “Who cares?” since what happens in Michigan stays in Michigan, think again. The state’s aggressive balance-the-books style of governance has already spread beyond its borders. In January, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed bankruptcy lawyer and former Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr to be a “legal adviser” to Atlantic City. The Detroit Free Press described the move as “a state takeover similar to Gov. Rick Snyder’s state intervention in the Motor City.”

And this spring, amid the hullabaloo of Republicans entering the 2016 presidential race, Governor Snyder launched his own national tour to sell “the Michigan story to the rest of the country.” His trip was funded by a nonprofit (fed, naturally, by undisclosed donations) named “Making Government Accountable: The Michigan Story.”

To many Michiganders, this sounded as ridiculous as Jeb Bush launching a super PAC dubbed “Making Iraq Free: The Bush Family Story.” Except Snyder wasn’t planning to enter the presidential rat race. Instead, he was attempting to mainstream Michigan’s form of austerity politics and its signature emergency management legislation, which stripped more than half of the state’s African American residents of their local voting rights in 2013 and 2014.

As the governor jaunted around the country, Ann Arbor-based photographer Eduardo García and I decided to set out on what we thought of as our own two-week Magical Michigan Tour. And while we weren’t driving a specially outfitted psychedelic tour bus—we spent most of the trip in my grandmother’s 2005 Prius—our journey was nevertheless remarkably surreal. From the southwest banks of Lake Michigan to the eastern tips of the peninsula, we crisscrossed the state visiting more than half a dozen cities to see if there was another side to the governor’s story and whether Michigan really was, as one Detroit resident put it, “a massive experiment in unraveling US democracy.”

Stop One: Water Wars in Flint

Just as we arrive, the march spills off the sidewalk in front of the city council building.

“Stop poisoning our children!” chants a little girl as the crowd tumbles down South Saginaw Street, the city’s main drag. We’re in Flint, Michigan, a place that hit the headlines last year for its brown, chemical-laced, possibly toxic water. A wispy white-haired woman waves a gallon jug filled with pee-colored liquid from her home tap. “They don’t care that they’re killing us!” she cries.

A Flint resident at the march demanding clean water. Eduardo García

We catch up with Claire McClinton, the formidable if grandmotherly organizer of the Flint Democracy Defense League, as we approach the roiling Flint River. It’s been a longtime dumping ground for the Ford Motor Company’s riverfront factories and, as of one year ago today, the only source of the city’s drinking water. On April 25, 2014, on the instruction of the city’s emergency manager, Flint stopped buying its supplies from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and started drawing water directly from the river, which meant a budgetary savings of $12 million a year. The downside: people started getting sick.

Since then, tests have detected E. coli and fecal bacteria in the water, as well as high levels of trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic chemical cocktail known as THMs. For months, the city concealed the presence of THMs, which over years can lead to increased rates of cancer, kidney failure, and birth defects. Still, it was obvious to local residents that something was up. Some of them were breaking out in mysterious rashes or experiencing bouts of severe diarrhea, while others watched as their eyelashes and hair began to fall out.

As we cross a small footbridge, McClinton recounts how the city council recently voted to “do all things necessary” to get Detroit’s water back. The emergency manager, however, immediately overrode their decision, terming it “incomprehensible.”

“This is a whole different model of control,” she comments dryly and explains that she’s now working with other residents to file an injunction compelling the city to return to the use of Detroit’s water. One problem, though: it has to be filed in Ingham County, home to Lansing, the state capital, rather than in Flint’s Genesee County, because the decision of a state-appointed emergency manager is being challenged. “Under state rule, that’s where you go to redress grievances,” she says. “Just another undermining of our local authority.”

In the meantime, many city residents remain frustrated and confused. A few weeks before the march, the city sent out two notices on the same day, packaged in the same envelope. One, printed in black-and-white, stated bluntly: “Our water system recently violated a drinking water standard.” The second, in flashy color, had this cheery message: “We are pleased to report that City of Flint water is safe and meets US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines… You can be confident that the water provided to you today meets all safety standards.” As one recipient of the notices commented, “I can only surmise that the point was to confuse us all.”

McClinton marches in silence for a few minutes as the crowd doubles back across the bridge and begins the ascent up Saginaw Street. Suddenly, a man jumps onto a life-size statue of a runner at the Riverfront Plaza and begins to cloak him in one of the group’s T-shirts.

“Honey, I don’t want you getting in any trouble!” his wife calls out to him.

He’s struggling to pull a sleeve over one of the cast-iron arms when the droning weeoo-weeooo-weeoo of a police siren blares, causing a brief frenzy until the man’s son realizes he’s mistakenly hit the siren feature on the megaphone he’s carrying.

After a few more tense moments, the crowd surges forward, leaving behind the statue, legs stretched in mid-stride, arms raised triumphantly, and on his chest a new cotton T-shirt with the slogan: “Water You Fighting For?”

Stop Two: The Tri-Cities of Cancer

The next afternoon, we barrel down Interstate 75 into an industrial hellscape of smoke stacks, flare offs, and 18-wheelers, en route to another toxicity and accountability crisis. This one was caused by a massive tar sands refinery and dozens of other industrial polluters in southwest Detroit and neighboring River Rouge and Ecorse, cities which lie along the banks of the Detroit River.

Already with a slight headache from a haze of emissions, we meet photographer and community leader Emma Lockridge and her neighbor Anthony Parker in front of their homes, which sit right in the backyard of that tar sands refinery.

In 2006, the toxicity levels in their neighborhood, known simply by its zip code as “48217,” were 45 times higher than the state average. And that was before Detroit gave $175 million in tax breaks to the billion-dollar Marathon Petroleum Corporation to help it expand its refinery complex to process a surge of high-sulfur tar sands from Alberta, Canada.

The Marathon tar sands refinery in southwest Detroit. Eduardo García

“We’re a donor zip,” explains Lockridge as she settles into the driver’s seat of our car. “We have all the industry and a tax base, but we get nothing back.”

We set off on a whirlwind tour of their neighborhood, where schools have been torn down and parks closed due to the toxicity of the soil, while so many residents have died of cancer that it’s hard for their neighbors to keep track. “We used to play on the swings here,” says Lockridge, pointing to a rusted yellow swing set in a fenced-off lot where the soil has tested for high levels of lead, arsenic, and other poisonous chemicals. “Jumping right into the lead.”

As in other regions of Michigan, people have been fleeing 48217 in droves. Here, however, the depopulation results not from deindustrialization, but from toxicity, thanks to an ever-expanding set of factories. These include a wastewater treatment complex, salt mines, asphalt factories, cement plants, a lime and stone foundry, and a handful of steel mills all clustered in the tri-cities region.

Continue Reading »

Originally posted here: 

Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

Posted in alo, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

The Conservative Case for Taxing Carbon Pollution

Mother Jones

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

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

Conservative climate champions are often laughed off or ignored. But what’s happening within the American political right could change everything, and fast.

Each year since 1989, the JFK Library bestows its Profile in Courage award to a public servant who takes a principled but unpopular position. This year, the award went to Bob Inglis, a former congressman from South Carolina who’s turned into America’s best hope for near-term climate action. Oh, he’s also a Republican.

As you might expect, Inglis wasn’t always a climate campaigner. In his acceptance speech last week at the JFK Library in Boston, he described how and why he changed his mind on global warming:

Inglis served in Congress for 12 nonconsecutive years, but once his children reached voting age, they persuaded him to take a closer look at climate science. Inglis traveled to Antarctica—twice—and his conversations with scientists there convinced him climate change was a growing threat that everyone, especially conservatives, needed to take more seriously. Science, plus his deep Christian faith, convinced Inglis that taking action on climate—and saving countless lives in the process—was the right thing to do. Almost immediately, he began advocating for carbon pricing: He argued that it would be good for business and the environment. He even began looking to Canada for inspiration. Since 2008, the government of British Columbia has had in place arguably the most successful climate policy on the planet. During a 2009 speech on the House floor, he called an American plan for a British Columbia–style revenue-neutral carbon tax a “fabulous opportunity.”

But his belief in the science of climate change became a liability for Inglis during the contentious 2010 primary election—an election associated with the rise of the Tea Party brand of ultraconservatism—and Inglis lost his seat in a landslide.

Since then, Republican views on climate change have inched ahead, and Inglis has made it his mission to spread the word: Protecting our planet is the ultimate bipartisan issue. “My grandfather’s legacy is kept alive by Bob’s courageous decision to sacrifice his political career to demand action on the issue that will shape life on Earth for generations to come,” said JFK descendant Jack Schlossberg, who presented the award to Inglis.

This is the point at which progressives and climate hawks might understandably get a bit cynical. But hear me out: For years now, the Republican electorate has been shifting toward accepting the scientific consensus on climate change. A recent survey showed moderate Republicans—which still make up about half of all Republican voters—are now essentially indistinguishable from the general population in terms of their beliefs on climate. More than 70 percent of Republicans now believe that human activities are contributing to global warming.

Most importantly, there’s recent evidence—and a few case studies—that point toward the root of Republican hostility toward climate action as mostly a matter of disliking the solutions on the table. That’s helped the fossil fuel industry fund a load of anti-science rhetoric and propelled climate change into the nation’s most divisive political issue. An optimist might say all that’s needed is a climate-action proposal that conservatives can get excited about.

That’s where Inglis comes in.

Essentially, Inglis is proposing cover for Republicans to vote for a price on carbon by offsetting any revenue it produces with equal or greater cuts in corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Such a proposal might turn the United States—which currently has among the highest business taxes in the world—into a tax haven and help drive economic growth. It could be tricky to pull off, but if done the right way, it would probably be popular with almost everyone and be an efficient way of tackling climate change.

In the meantime, there’s a huge gap between opinion polls and how Republican politicians vote on climate—and maybe between Republican politicians’ private beliefs and public actions. In 2013 Inglis told This American Life that he believes we could pass meaningful legislation today if his former Republican colleagues were “allowed to vote their conscience on climate change.”

Last week, I spoke with Inglis to get a clearer idea of why he’s so hopeful that Republicans could actually pave the way for bold action on climate.

“Too often the environmental left presents only the danger and not the opportunity of climate change,” Inglis told me. “Of course it’s a danger—the science is very clear. But it’s also an incredible free-enterprise opportunity, because why do we have to be dependent on these stinky fuels? Why can’t we have cleaner air? Why can’t we have distributed energy systems that light up the world with more energy, more mobility, and more freedom? Why can’t we?”

Inglis attributes the polarization in American climate politics to the choice of words that climate advocates often use that evoke the danger associated with climate change and the implied judgment for denial and lack of action. “The problem with that is: Denial is a pretty good coping mechanism for threats like death,” he said.

Instead, Inglis thinks it’s time to be optimistic about climate change. He says the most exciting aspect of working for action on climate is the potential to “light up dark places in the world” with clean energy. That, when combined with a shift in rhetoric away from “doom and gloom” of the left, may be enough to persuade Republicans to get on board.

Inglis repeatedly invoked the idea that a bold plan to fight climate change could recapture a sense of the American exceptionalism that Kennedy exemplified in his moonshot speech at Rice University in 1961. In that speech, Kennedy said going to the moon was “an act of faith and vision,” but “we must be bold.” That’s exactly how Inglis feels about the need to tackle climate change: with uncertain technology, and uncertain political support, and uncertain science. “If you can put it in the context of opportunity and calling to light up the world, then you get that moonshot kind of optimism and determination,” Inglis said.

Inglis believes an American price on carbon could quickly motivate other large economies, like China and India. “We need the leading economy in the world to say, ‘We just priced carbon dioxide in our economy. We’re going to collect it if you’re shipping things in here. Now what are you gonna do?’ The rest of the world would then follow suit,” he said.

That’s why Inglis thinks a US carbon tax is more important than the UN Paris summit this December—which has a big profile but pretty unambitious goals.

His “most positive scenario” for near-term action on climate: a Republican president in 2016. That would set up a top-down push for Republican-led climate legislation, as long as the right candidate is elected, of course. He offered three possible names:

Lindsey Graham: According to Inglis, there are “some good things Lindsey has said and is saying about climate change.” I agree.

Jeb Bush: “I know from personal interaction with him that he’s a careful, analytical fella,” Inglis said. Bush recently broke with the pack, saying he was “concerned” about climate change.

Rand Paul: “Libertarians really believe in accountable, transparent marketplaces, and the energy marketplace is not transparent right now. They’re getting away with socializing their soot and passing to future generations the cost of climate change. That’s a market distortion,” Inglis said. With billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry each year, it’s not a stretch to suppose Paul would take the opportunity to reduce the size of government via a libertarian argument for climate action.

Now, Inglis may be a few years ahead of his time here, but it’s increasingly unfathomable that the Republican Party would nominate an out-and-out climate denier. Even though climate change isn’t yet a top-tier issue, voters are now less likely to vote for a candidate who opposes action to reduce global warming. In fact, every major demographic is in favor of regulating greenhouse gases, even if it causes an increase in their energy bills—except for Republicans over 65. As younger voters gain clout, Republican opposition to climate change among the electorate is fading.

Together with evangelical Christian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe and the retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley, Inglis represents the forefront of the American conservative zeitgeist on global warming. It’s interesting to note that they’re also all infectiously optimistic. Hayhoe, who’s in the midst of an indefinite speaking tour, primarily to conservative audiences, recently told me that when it comes to action on climate change among those on the right, “There is a dam effect. Once the dam is breached, there could be rapid change.”

After speaking with Inglis, I have to agree. It’s refreshing to hear anyone—especially a Republican—actually hopeful on climate. My wife and I had an hourslong conversation following the interview. Her main takeaway: “Why can’t more people think like him?”

More:

The Conservative Case for Taxing Carbon Pollution

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Conservative Case for Taxing Carbon Pollution