Tag Archives: top stories

Confidential Memo: Former Koch Group Insider Fears the Tea Party Is Fading

Mother Jones

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

Americans for Prosperity, the dark-money-funded advocacy group founded by Charles and David Koch, rose to prominence in 2009 and 2010 on the back of the white-hot tea party movement. But today, even though Republicans stand a good chance of retaking the Senate and the conservative fringe has hijacked the House’s efforts to pass immigration reform, the tea party grassroots is withering away, according to a confidential AFP memo obtained by Mother Jones.

The internal AFP memo was written in April by Jason Cline, an Arkansas political consultant who left the state’s influential AFP chapter this spring. It’s clear from the memo that Cline clashed with higher-ups in AFP’s national office, including Teresa Oelke, a former AFP-Arkansas director who now is AFP’s vice president of state operations. In the memo, Cline responds to various allegations leveled against him by Oelke and others, including that Cline was “sexist toward women,” “prejudiced against old people,” and mismanaged AFP-Arkansas.

Cline writes in response that he was not biased against elderly activists but rather sought out younger activists for AFP-Arkansas due to a dropoff in support among older tea party followers. He explains:

We have a declining tea party engagement and we need to engage new forms of activists. The comment made by Cline to a fellow activist was specifically, ‘These old people are not gonna get it done. These kids are workers.’ Not in the sense that they can’t accomplish it, but that there are too few of them.

The problem of declining support from older tea partiers, Cline continues, is a national problem:

On my very first phone call with Jen Stefano as my new AFP regional director, I asked her if declining tea party engagement was just an Arkansas problem or if everyone was experiencing that. Her comment was that it’s a problem everywhere.

At the time, Cline and Stefano were prominent figures within AFP. As the director of AFP-Arkansas, Cline led one of AFP’s strongest chapters. Stefano is a national regional director for AFP and a fixture on Fox News and Fox Business News. If they believe tea party support is drying up, the problem is probably real. AFP spokesman Levi Russell declined to comment, and Stefano did not respond to a request for comment.

This year’s primary season has borne out Cline and Stefano’s observations. Unlike 2010 and 2012, when tea party favorites Mike Lee and Ted Cruz ousted establishment Republicans, the 2014 Senate primary season has seen the defeat of every single tea-party-aligned challenger. The major surprise of this election cycle has been economics professor David Brat’s victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Yet neither AFP or FreedomWorks, the two major national tea party groups, spent money to elect Brat.

Of course, establishment Republicans won in 2014 in part because they tacked hard to the right in anticipation of a tea party challenge. Likewise, the Republican Party has become more hardline in the past five years. The tea party, then, has won an ideological victory. But as a source of manpower on the ground, the movement is no longer what it once was.

Read Cline’s 19-page memo below (some personal information has been redacted):

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1273026-jason-cline-concerns.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1273026-jason-cline-concerns”
);

Continue reading – 

Confidential Memo: Former Koch Group Insider Fears the Tea Party Is Fading

Posted in Anchor, Badger, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Confidential Memo: Former Koch Group Insider Fears the Tea Party Is Fading

When Did Republicans Start Hating the Environment?

Mother Jones

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

It’s one of those facts that sweeps you back into an alien, almost unrecognizable era. On July 9, 1970, Republican President Richard Nixon announced to Congress his plans to create the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the end of that year, both agencies were a reality. Nowadays, among their other tasks, they either monitor or seek to mitigate the problem of global warming—actions that make today’s Republicans, Nixon’s heirs, completely livid.

To give one example of how anti-environment the right today is, just consider this ThinkProgress analysis, finding that “over 58 percent” of congressional Republicans refuse to accept the science of climate change.

So what happened to the GOP, from the time of Nixon to the present, to turn an environmental leader into an environmental retrograde? According to a new study in the journal Social Science Research, the key change actually began around the year 1991—when the Soviet Union fell. “The conservative movement replaced the ‘Red Scare’ with a new ‘Green Scare’ and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time,” argues sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University and two colleagues.

So is that causal explanation right? Before getting to that question, let’s examine the study itself.

For starters, it is pretty much undebatable that Americans today are polarized over environmental issues. In a figure in their paper, McCright and his colleagues visualize this polarization by charting the average League of Conservation Voters environmental scores for congressional Democrats and Republicans from 1970 through 2013:

Polarization in environmental voting in Congress McCright et al., “Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012,” Social Science Research, 2014

This figure suggests that the key left-right break point on the environment occurred sometime in the early 1990s. So does the analysis at the center of the new paper: a look at how Americans belonging to different political parties have answered the same General Social Survey question about the environment going back to the year 1974. In that year and at regular intervals ever since, the GSS has asked the following question:

We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I’m going to name some of these problems, and for each one I’d like you to tell me whether you think we’re spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount.

One of the items then listed is “the environment” or “improving and protecting the environment.” Here’s how many Americans responded to that question over time by saying that we’re spending “too little” on environmental protection, separated by political party membership:

Polarization of Americans’ views of environmental spending McCright et al., “Political Polarization on Support for Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012,” Social Science Research, 2014

Once again, the key break appears to happen in the early 1990s. (Note: You might think that this just reflects a distaste on the right for government spending in general. But using more GSS data, the authors looked at support for government spending on other issues—like space exploration and foreign aid—and controlled for this general support for spending in their analysis.)

So what happened in the early 1990s? Well, for one thing, Bill Clinton was elected, flanked by a vice president, Al Gore, who had just published a book called Earth in the Balance. That made environmental issues salient in a very political way.

And then, there was the once super-intense fight over habitat protections for the northern spotted owl. Remember that?

The authors, for their part, cite the “rise of global environmentalism with the 1992 Rio Earth Summit,” which, they say, “generated a heightened level of anti-environmental activity by the conservative movement and Congressional Republicans.” Here, they rely to a significant part on another 2008 paper, noting how the conservative think tank movement mobilized to oppose environmental protections in the early 1990s. The upshot is that as environmentalism became an increasingly global movement, many conservatives tarred it with the label “socialism.” “Rio reflected a heightened sense of urgency for environmental protection that was seen as a threat by conservative elites, stimulating them to replace anti-communism with anti-environmentalism,” that study observed.

But this is not the only possible explanation for the trends noted above. There has been a great deal of research on why American politics have become so polarized (on all issues, not just environmental ones), and theories to explain the trend abound. For instance, one major factor is clearly “party sorting“—the idea that conservatives have moved more into the GOP over time, even as liberals have, at least to some extent, coalesced in the Democratic Party. So, the Republicans answering a General Social Survey question about the environment in 1996 or so simply were not the same bunch of people who were answering it in 1974.

One intriguing related hypothesis posits that the right wing has become more unwilling to compromise in general because it has become more psychologically authoritarian—closed-minded, prone to black-and-white thinking. That’s not a pattern that would uniquely affect environmental issues, though. If anything, it would be felt most strongly on the topics that authoritarians most care about: crime, national defense, religion in public life, and matters of that ilk.

Whatever the cause, the consequence is clear: We can’t get anything done in a bipartisan way on the environment any longer. “The situation,” conclude the authors, “does not bode well for our nation’s ability to deal effectively with the wide range of environmental problems—from local toxics to global climate change—we currently face.”

Read more: 

When Did Republicans Start Hating the Environment?

Posted in Anchor, Badger, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, PublicAffairs, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When Did Republicans Start Hating the Environment?

6 Dumb Things Dan Snyder Has Said About the Name of His Football Team

Mother Jones

A year ago, I explained Mother Jones‘ decision to stop using the name of Washington, DC’s pro football team, both online and in print. We joined Slate and The New Republic in doing so, and since then, a number of other news organizations and journalists have followed suit.

Even as more people have spoken out against the team’s derogatory moniker—everyone from President Obama to Gene Simmons—owner Dan Snyder hasn’t given an inch, repeatedly arguing that it’s simply not offensive. This week he even went on a mini media tour, giving radio and TV interviews as NFL training camps kicked into gear.

In the meantime, Snyder has doubled down on his commitment to keeping the R-word. Here’s a list of some of the dumbest things he’s said about it in the last year (as well as some additional reading, for context):

In an October letter to season ticket holders: “The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor…It is a symbol of everything we stand for: strength, courage, pride, and respect—the same values we know guide Native Americans and which are embedded throughout their rich history as the original Americans.”
(See also: “Often Contemptuous” and “Usually Offensive”: 120 Years of Defining “Redskin”)

In a March letter to season ticket holders, following months of criticism (including this Super Bowl ad): “I’ve been encouraged by the thousands of fans across the country who support keeping the Redskins tradition alive. Most—by overwhelming majorities—find our name to be rooted in pride for our shared heritage and values.”
(See also: “Dan Snyder to Native Americans: We’re Cool, Right? Native Americans to Dan Snyder: Redacted”)

Following an April ceremony at a Virginia high school: “We understand the issues out there, and we’re not an issue. The real issues are real-life issues, real-life needs, and I think it’s time that people focus on reality.”
(See also: “Washington NFL Team’s New Native American Foundation Is Already Off to a Great Start”)

In a Monday interview with former Washington player Chris Cooley on ESPN 980, the radio station Snyder owns: “It’s sort of fun to talk about the name of our football team because it gets some attention for some of the people that write about it, that need clicks. But the reality is no one ever talks about what’s going on on reservations.”
(See also: “Outrage in Indian Country As Redskins Owner Announces Foundation”)

More from the Cooley interview: “It’s honor, it’s respect, it’s pride, and I think that every player here sees it, feels it. Every alumni feels it. It’s a wonderful thing. It’s a historical thing. This is a very historical franchise…I think it would be nice if, and forget the media from that perspective, but really focus on the fact that—the facts, the history, the truth, the tradition.”
(See also: “Former Redskins Player Jason Taylor Says Redskins Name Is Offensive”)

In a Tuesday interview with ESPN’s Outside the Lines: “A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning. And, and, it, it’s a positive. Taken out of context, you can take things out of context all over the place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It’s very obvious…We sing ‘Hail to the Redskins.’ We don’t say hurt anybody. We say, ‘Hail to the Redskins. Braves on the warpath. Fight for old DC.’ We only sing it when we score touchdowns. That’s the problem, because last season we didn’t sing it quite enough as we would’ve liked to.”
(See also: “Timeline: A Century of Racist Sports Team Names”)

Read this article:  

6 Dumb Things Dan Snyder Has Said About the Name of His Football Team

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 6 Dumb Things Dan Snyder Has Said About the Name of His Football Team

Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Mother Jones

Should you automatically go to jail for leaving your kid alone in the car? That question has gained new attention since the arrest of Shanesha Taylor, an unemployed single mom who left her two young children in her vehicle during a 45-minute job interview in Scottsdale, Arizona. After her arrest, Taylor’s tearful mugshot elicited broad sympathy. Yet the temperature inside Taylor’s car that afternoon had risen above 100 degrees and her kids were crying and profusely sweating. (The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the child abuse charges against Taylor.)

While Taylor’s case may have been unusual, what parent hasn’t contemplated the pros and cons of extracting a napping baby from a car seat just to dash into a convenience store? Leaving a kid in a locked, parked vehicle in the shade is usually pretty safe. However, it’s definitely a bad idea to leave your kid unattended in a car for more than a few minutes on a hot day. Last year, at least 39 children died from heatstroke in vehicles; 21 have died so far this year. The interior of a car left in 80-degree heat with the windows rolled up can reach 120 degrees in less than an hour. Cracking the windows doesn’t always cool the car down. Small kids more easily succumb to heatstroke, which can kick in when the body’s internal temperature reaches just 104 degrees.

Whether leaving a child unattended in a car is a crime largely depends on where you live. Twenty states have laws addressing the issue. Only Louisiana, Maryland, and Nebraska outright ban the practice, though they differ on the definition of a child and a suitable guardian to stay in the car. Kids can remain in unattended vehicles for no more than 5 minutes in Texas, Utah, and Hawaii; you get 10 minutes in Illinois and 15 minutes in Florida. Laws in several other states, including California, specify that children can’t be left in a vehicle in dangerous conditions such as hot weather.

Here’s a map of all the current kids-in-cars laws:

Where is It Illegal to Leave Your Kid in the Car?

20 states have laws about leaving children alone in a car. Click any state for details.

item
No existing law
item
Illegal or unlawful under certain conditions; click state for details
Source: San Francisco State University

var super_simple_map = function(options)
var svg_string = ‘ ‘;
var map_svg = jQuery(svg_string);
var state_specific_area = jQuery(‘#’ + options.container);
state_specific_area.before(map_svg);
var remove_previously_selected = function()
var previously_selected = map_svg.find(‘.selected’);
previously_selected.each(function()
var $this = $(this);
var previous_class = $this.attr(‘class’) else
$this.attr(‘class’, previous_class.replace(‘selected’, ”));

});
}

state_specific_area.hide();
map_svg.find(‘path’).bind(‘click’, function() state_specific_area.hide(); remove_previously_selected(); );
/* FANCY FADE
if you’re feeling fancy, you can apply a fade in and out here instead
replace the two lines above with

state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-out’)
map_svg.find(‘path’).bind(‘click’, function() state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-out’).removeClass(‘fade-in’); remove_previously_selected(); );

and search for FANCY FADE below to make a similar change there
If you do this you’ll need to copy our fade-in fade-out css or make your own
*/

var state_specific_headline = jQuery(‘

‘);
state_specific_area.append(state_specific_headline);
var state_specific_body = jQuery(”);
state_specific_area.append(state_specific_body);

var color_map = function(states)
for (var i = 0; i < states.length; i++)
var state = statesi;
var class_to_add = ”;
if (!state’class’)
class_to_add = ‘ blank’;

else
class_to_add = ‘ clickable ‘ + state’class’;

var state_svg = map_svg.find(‘.’ + state.abbr);
var old_class = state_svg.attr(‘class’);
if (typeof old_class !== ‘string’)
//an ancient version of jquery
state_svg.get(0).setAttribute(‘class’,
state_svg.get(0).getAttribute(‘class’) + class_to_add
);
else
var new_class = old_class + class_to_add;
state_svg.attr(‘class’, new_class);

}
}
var place_state_specific_data = function(states)
for (var i = 0; i < states.length; i++)
var state = statesi;
var state_svg = map_svg.find(‘.’ + state.abbr);
state_svg.attr(‘data-state-specific-headline’, state’headline’ );
state_svg.attr(‘data-state-specific-body’, state’body’ );

//this is what happens when you click on a state
state_svg.unbind(‘click’);
state_svg.bind(‘click’, function(event)
//first update the state_specific
var headline = jQuery(event.target).attr(‘data-state-specific-headline’);
var body = jQuery(event.target).attr(‘data-state-specific-body’);
state_specific_headline.html(headline);
state_specific_body.html(body);
state_specific_area.show();
/* FANCY FADE
if you’re feeling fancy, you can apply a fade in and out here instead
replace the line above with

state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-in’).removeClass(‘fade-out’);

and search for FANCY FADE above to make a similar change there
If you do this you’ll need to copy our fade-in fade-out css or make your own
*/

//give class selected
remove_previously_selected();
var state = jQuery(event.target);
previous_class = state.attr(‘class’);
if (typeof previous_class !== ‘string’)
state.get(0).setAttribute(‘class’,
state.get(0).getAttribute(‘class’) + ‘ selected’
);
else
new_class = previous_class + ‘ selected’;
state.attr(‘class’, new_class);

});
}
}

var tabletop_options =
key: options.key,
callback: function(data)
color_map(data);
place_state_specific_data(data);
if (options.initial_state)
map_svg.find(‘.’ + options.initial_state).click();

},
simpleSheet: true
};
if (options.proxy)
tabletop_options.proxy = options.proxy;

Tabletop.init(tabletop_options);
};

super_simple_map(
container: ‘state_specific_area’,
initial_state: ”,
//proxy: proxy here,
key: ‘0AuHOPshyxQGGdHJSRV9pclNIeFVnZ3dmU0FKdW1rOEE’,
)

States without kids-in-cars laws still may prosecute parents under child endangerment statues, which can be interpreted in wildly different ways. A New Jersey appellate court recently found a woman who’d left her 19-month-old in her car for less than 10 minutes (with the windows cracked) guilty of child abuse. “A parent invites substantial peril when leaving a child of such tender years alone in a motor vehicle that is out of the parent’s sight, no matter how briefly,” wrote a three-judge panel. The ruling, which was mocked in a Newark Star-Ledger op-ed as an embodiment of the “Busybody State,” will be reviewed by the state supreme court.

Lenore Skenazy, the author of Free-Range Kids, argues that public concern for the safety of unattended kids has escalated to the point of hysteria. She has heard dozens of stories of parents chastised by onlookers for, say, stepping away from a car full of kids to drop off a letter, return a shopping cart, or grab a cup of coffee. “The assumption is that any time a child is unsupervised, they are going to die,” Skenazy says, “and that goes 20 times for a kid in a car.”

Ideally, police would arrest parents in such situations only if their kids are clearly in serious danger. But that’s not always what happens. It’s not clear how many parents are arrested for leaving their kids unsupervised in cars, but a search for stories published in the past two years turned up dozens of cases like these:

Bastrop, Louisiana/February 2013: A teenager left an infant in a car on a “cool day” for approximately two minutes while shopping at a clothing store, according to the Bastrop Daily Enterprise. He was arrested and charged with child desertion.

Bettendorf, Iowa/June 2013: A mother left an infant in a car during an early-morning exercise class. According to the police report, the woman repeatedly stepped out of the hour-long class to check on the child. She was arrested and charged with child endangerment.

Yorktown, New York/October 2013: A father left a two-year-old boy in a car at a CVS parking lot for “several minutes,” according to the Daily Somers Voice. He was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child.

Columbus, Indiana/June 2014: A father left a one-year-old and seven-year-old in a car with the windows cracked and the sunroof open for about 10 minutes while shopping at Kroger. He told an officer that he’d left the kids behind because the seven-year-old wasn’t wearing shoes. He was arrested and charged with child neglect.

Jacksonville, Florida/July 2014: A father left a seven-year-old boy in a car parked in the shade with the windows down outside a furniture store where he was a janitor. He was arrested and charged with child neglect. (Florida’s kids-in-cars law only applies to children under the age of six).

While some of these news stories might have omitted important details, a pattern clearly emerges of parents arrested for behavior that falls far short of what’s usually considered child abuse. The risk of a child succumbing to heatstroke when left in a car under normal conditions for 10 or 15 minutes is vanishingly small. “I could not find any instance of any person dying in the car in the course of a short errand,” says Skenazy, who has scrutinized kids-in-cars arrests for years. And adults who intentionally leave their kids in their vehicles for longer periods are not even the biggest problem: 80 percent of kids who die in parked cars were forgotten by their parents or entered the car without their parents’ knowledge.

Adults who park their kids in the shade and roll the windows down or leave the air conditioner running with the keys in the ignition may be accused of leaving tempting targets for kidnappers. But arresting a parent for ignoring the hypothetical risk of a child predator, as happened in Charleston, South Carolina in June, makes about as much sense as jailing her for feeding a kid solid food, letting him ride a bicycle, or allowing him to walk down a flight of stairs. In 1999, the last year for which comprehensive statistics are available, 115 of America’s 72 million children were kidnapped by strangers. (That’s all kidnappings, not just from cars.) That puts the risk of a child getting kidnapped in any given year at 0.0002 percent. A child has a much greater chance of getting struck by lightning at some point in his lifetime.

These arrests seem doubly unfair when they involve parents struggling to make ends meet with no better childcare options. Is the seven-year-old son of the janitor in Jacksonville better off now that his dad is in jail? How about the baby left in a car at 8:00 a.m., shielded from the sun, with the windows cracked and sunroof open, while her mom took a final exam for cosmetology school? Or the mother who left her two kids in the car while she donated blood plasma to get gas money? Arguably, these arrests represent the criminalization of the working poor—though more affluent parents aren’t immune to getting cuffed in the course of buying lattes or picking up the dry cleaning.

Skenazy sees many kids-in-cars laws as counterproductive. “The risk is so tiny that to start legislating on the basis of it would mean that you have to start legislating on everything,” she says. “We focus on the danger of the kid in the parked car, and nobody ever goes through the same paroxysms of fear and hand-wringing and anger when the mom or dad puts the child in the car to drive somewhere, even though that is the number one way children die. It’s in moving cars while they are being driven somewhere by the parents who love them. Why don’t we say to parents: ‘Why did you take them with you? Couldn’t you have found a babysitter and then gone to the grocery? Couldn’t you have had your groceries delivered by a neighbor?'”

“We’re not really concerned about the real ways kids die,” she adds. “We’re concerned about being mad at parents who don’t believe they have to be with their kids every single second of the day.”

So what is a reasonable onlooker supposed to do when confronted with an unattended kid inside a parked car? Consider the context, Skenazy says. Is it a grocery store parking lot where the parent will probably soon return, or an office park where everybody goes to work for the day? Is there another option short of calling the cops? “A Good Samaritan is looking out for the child. But they are also looking out for the mom,” Skenazy says. “They are not the KGB.”

More here:

Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Blame Spanking Advocates for Child Migrants’ Lack of Rights

Mother Jones

Since last fall, tens of thousands of migrant kids have streamed across the southern US border fleeing violence in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. When they arrive, many are held in overcrowded, unsanitary, and freezing-cold detention centers, and most are left to fend for themselves in immigration hearings because they lack legal representation. The US treatment of migrant kids might be better if the country had ratified an international treaty called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That document that would have required lawmakers to consider the “best interests of the child” in crafting policy. But despite decades of pressure from human rights activists, the United States has refused to sign on to the treaty, largely because social conservatives believe it would force Americans to give up spanking.


70,000 Kids Will Show Up Alone at Our Border This Year. What Happens to Them?


Map: These Are the Places Central American Child Migrants Are Fleeing


Why Our Immigration Courts Can’t Handle the Child Migrant Crisis


Are the Kids Showing Up at the Border Really Refugees?


Child Migrants Have Been Coming to America Alone Since Ellis Island

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has long been a conservative hobby-horse, an issue seized on by conservatives fired up by home-schooling advocate Michael Farris. Farris believes, among other things, that if the United States signed the treaty, “parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children,” parents wouldn’t be able to keep their kids out of sex education, and that children could choose their own religion. Such issues are red meat for conservatives—so much so that treaty opposition is even a plank in the Iowa GOP platform. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came out against it in 2012.

This kind of conservative opposition is one reason why the United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that haven’t ratified the child-protection treaty. While conservatives’ fears of UN-mandated sex ed and spanking-free childhoods are largely hypothetical, the consequences of not supporting the treaty are now becoming ever more real as the US confronts the humanitarian crisis on its southern border.

Naureen Shah, a legislative counsel at the ACLU, says that if the United States had to conform to the convention’s “best interests” provision, the White House and Congress would be pressured to prioritize reuniting kids with their family members in the US, instead of rushing to deport them. Ratifying the treaty could also spur the US to improve the kids’ detention conditions so “they can get rest and access to education,” she says, as opposed to languishing in “detention conditions that are almost criminal.” Felice Gaer, the vice chair of the UN Committee Against Torture, agrees.

US law does not require undocumented children to be provided with an attorney to help them through immigration proceedings, leaving them vulnerable to judges rushing to send them back home. (President Barack Obama did recently request $15 million from Congress to provide some of the children legal counsel.) Under the treaty, children seeking asylum are supposed to be provided with legal representation, according to the panel that oversees implementation of the agreement. That’s one reason why ratifying it might “put more pressure on the State Department to take a much bigger role” to live up to these obligations, Shah says. The Obama administration has technically signed the treaty, signaling symbolic support for its child protection provisions, but the Senate has not ratified it, which would require implementing the treaty into enforceable domestic law.

Ratifying the treaty isn’t a sure-fire guarantee that migrant kids would get better treatment. After all, the United States is already in violation of other international human rights treaties it has ratified that prohibit the country from returning immigrants to countries where they will be tortured, persecuted, or killed, says Michelle Brané, an immigration detention expert at the Women’s Refugee Commission. Many of the kids crossing the US border are fleeing targeted violence. Nevertheless, “if we signed onto this children’s treaty,” the ACLU’s Shah says, “it would be even more crystal clear that the US has these obligations” to protect the child migrants. Right now, though, American politicians seem more interested in spanking kids than helping some of them.

Read this article:  

Blame Spanking Advocates for Child Migrants’ Lack of Rights

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Blame Spanking Advocates for Child Migrants’ Lack of Rights

Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the Anti-GMO Crowd, Round 2

Mother Jones

Last week, we (and many others) posted a viral video (embedded below), in which Cosmos star Neil deGrasse Tyson is shown sounding off about genetically modified organisms. Tyson tells GMO critics to “chill out” because, as he explains, humans have been changing the genetics of the organisms that we consume for food (through artificial selection) for millennia.

Apparently Tyson received a lot of negative response to this video—though it also drew much applause—because now he has taken to Facebook with a quite long and often witty post explaining his views on the subject in a more “nuanced” way. The post is still pretty pro-GMO, in the end. But it certainly has many more shades of gray. As Tyson notes, the original video was very short, just over two minutes, and

had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I’ve noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

Tyson then goes on to address topics like the patenting of seeds (he’s basically okay with it); whether GMOs should be labeled (“Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods”); the role of monopolies in agriculture (“Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market”); and much else. You can read all of his thoughts here. Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial sic seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing—and will continue to do—to nature so that it best serves our survival. That’s what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn’t, have gone extinct extinct sic.

In sum, it seems that in the original video, Tyson’s major beef was with the idea that somehow, the genetic modification of food is novel or even unnatural. It isn’t, he argues, because we’ve been doing it forever. But as soon as GMO critics saw that, they wanted to argue back about all the other issues in the GMO debate, and Tyson thinks that’s missing the (rather limited) point he was trying to make.

“In life,” Tyson concludes his Facebook post, “be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don’t agree with.”

Here’s the original video that started the ruckus:

Continue reading: 

Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the Anti-GMO Crowd, Round 2

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the Anti-GMO Crowd, Round 2

This Comic Strip Explains Why We Could See More Disasters Like Toledo’s Toxic Algae Bloom

Mother Jones

Editor’s note: Over the weekend, officials in Toledo, Ohio, warned 400,000 residents not to drink their tap water after dangerous levels of a toxin called microcystin were detected—possibly the result of an algae bloom in Lake Erie. (Officials lifted the restrictions on Monday.) As this April comic from Years of Living Dangerously and Symbolia Magazine explains, agricultural practices and climate change are helping turn algae into a growing threat in the region.

You can read more comics exploring the impacts of climate change here.

See the original post: 

This Comic Strip Explains Why We Could See More Disasters Like Toledo’s Toxic Algae Bloom

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Comic Strip Explains Why We Could See More Disasters Like Toledo’s Toxic Algae Bloom

Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left

Mother Jones

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

When Hillary Clinton declined to attend the annual Netroots Nation conference in July, the most vocal outcry came not from the progressive base, but from a Republican super-PAC founded by former staffers for Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee. “Despite flying over Detroit, MI – the home of Netroots Nation 2014 – Hillary Clinton will not strategize with Democratic activists at the United States’ ‘largest progressive gathering’ this weekend,” the group wrote on its website. “Instead, she will be traveling from Connecticut to Minnesota in order to $ell her book.” That condemnation was paired with a meme-ified graphic of Clinton waving goodbye to the “grassroots” as she flew by.

Officially, Hillary Clinton is still a private citizen contemplating a possible 2016 presidential campaign. But everyone else in the political world is treating her as if she were a formal candidate. A slew of right-wing books targeting Clinton have been published this summer. And a bevy of Democratic super PACs have sprung into existence to defend Clinton and expand her base of support. “I’ve been amazed at what a cottage industry it is… If it all stopped, a lot of people would lose their jobs,” Clinton said recently on the Daily Show of the hype machine that revolves around her potential candidacy.

Continue Reading »

See the original article here: 

Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left

Watch Drought Take Over the Entire State of California in One GIF

Mother Jones

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

California, the producer of half of the nation’s fruits, veggies, and nuts, is experiencing its third-worst drought on record. The dry spell is expected to cost the state billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, and farmers are digging into groundwater supplies to keep their crops alive. We’ve been keeping an eye on the drought with the US Drought Monitor, a USDA-sponsored program that uses data from soil moisture and stream flow, satellite imagery, and other indicators to produce weekly drought maps. Here’s a GIF showing the spread of the drought, from last December 31—shortly before Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency—until July 29.

Originally from:

Watch Drought Take Over the Entire State of California in One GIF

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Drought Take Over the Entire State of California in One GIF

Should Obama Fire His CIA Chief for Misleading the Public About the Senate Spying Scandal?

Mother Jones

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

On March 11, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, strode on to the Senate floor and made a shocking charge: the CIA had spied on committee investigators who were examining the CIA’s past use of harsh interrogation techniques (a.k.a. torture). She essentially confirmed media reports that the agency had accessed computers that had been set up in a secured facility for her staffers to use—and that this high-tech break-in was related to a CIA memo that the agency had not turned over. The document was far more critical of the CIA’s interrogation program than the agency’s official response to the still-classified (and reportedly scorching) 6,300-page report produced by Feinstein’s committee. As Feinstein described it, the CIA, looking to find out how her sleuths had obtained this particular memo, had been spying on the investigators who were paid by the taxpayers to keep a close watch on America’s spies.

Feinstein’s public statement—unprecedented in US national security history—caused an uproar. I noted that this clash between the Senate and Langley threatened a constitutional crisis. After all, if the CIA was covertly undercutting and interfering with congressional oversight, then the foundation of the national security state was at risk, for the executive branch, in theory, can only engage in clandestine activity as long as members of Congress can keep an eye on it. Yet the system of oversight appeared to have broken down.

Continue Reading »

Read original article:  

Should Obama Fire His CIA Chief for Misleading the Public About the Senate Spying Scandal?

Posted in Anchor, bamboo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should Obama Fire His CIA Chief for Misleading the Public About the Senate Spying Scandal?