This post first appeared on Think Progress.
Speaking for Republicans at yesterday’s health care summit, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) called on President Obama and congressional Democrats to “renounce” the reconciliation process to finish health care reform. Though Alexander said it’s “right” that reconciliation has “been used before,” he declared that “it’s never been used for anything like this.” (In fact, reconciliation has been used regularly for health care reform initiatives.)
Though conservatives like Alexander have been falsely trying to paint reconciliation as a “nuclear option” that would “bypass rules in the Senate and ram legislation through on a one-party vote.” But their claims were undermined on Monday night when Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the Senate Minority Whip, admitted on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that “reconciliation is a perfectly legitimate process”:
By Jason Reece, Kirwan Institute Senior Research, Race-Talk contributor
In response to our nation’s ongoing economic challenges, a new federal jobs bill is expected from Congress soon. The Kirwan Institute has been tracking the impact of federal efforts to alleviate the economic crisis for the past year. Given our experiences tracking the impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other federal relief programs, we are concerned that the new jobs bill will not help those communities or states in greatest need.
While the federal response to the economic crisis has helped in many ways, most notably in avoiding catastrophic state budget shortfalls, it has not been able to address the extreme economic hardship facing some communities.
The economic crisis is falling unevenly across our nation, impacting some states, communities and populations more than others. Hard-hit Midwestern states are reeling from foreclosures and from the continued decline of the manufacturing sector. Among some populations, disparities in unemployment by race, age or gender are vast. The “gender gap” in unemployment now stands at its highest since 1948, with unemployment rates for men surging. Michigan leads the nation in this gender divide, with nearly 1 in 5 men in the State unemployed at the end of 2009.
Across racial lines, we see White unemployment starting to decline, but Black unemployment continues to grow, and now exceeds 16%. Even more troubling, the unemployment rate for Black youth is now more than 43%.
Recognition of the uneven nature of the economic crisis is not reflected in much of our federal response and is not addressed in the recent jobs bill. One measure stripped from the jobs bill in recent weeks was a stipulation to target some funds to communities with high unemployment.
This type of need-based targeting is critical, or we risk spreading our resources too thin, providing little relief to those communities and populations which have been devastated by the economic crisis. More diligent targeting of federal job and infrastructure investments to hard-hit communities would also provide an efficient use of our public investments.
This not be an unprecedented move – the first phase of the Neighborhood Stabilization program targeted communities with high rates of foreclosure, and the U.S. Department of Transportation runs a program which encourages investment in economically distressed counties.
Our measures of community need must also be accurate and robust in capturing the impact of the recession. Unfortunately, the latest attempt to prioritize states for federal housing relief did not use a measure of real need, like long-term foreclosure rates, but instead looked at housing depreciation, locking 45 states, out of 1.5 billion dollars in housing relief. If hard-hit states or communities do not push for more robust measures of addressing economic need in the next jobs bill, we may once again lose out, and not see the economic relief needed to address the state’s economic hardships.
For more information about recovery tracking visit: FairRecovery.org
This post first appeared in Treehugger.
I thought Bill Nye was awesome when I was a kid, and he’s still awesome now. Take this video clip, for example, in which the onetime (and always!) Science Guy keeps a cool head while explaining the science behind global warming to Bill O’Reilly and the frantic TV meteorologist/denier shill Joe Bastardi:
To O’Reilly’s credit, he respects Nye’s time, and allows him to effectively communicate his case. I like how, in the context of the network’s full lineup, he now frequently appears to be a voice of reason on Fox News.
Anyhow, these are good points that Nye makes, and a few useful ways to consider the content of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere with the Venus example and inky water. He’s also right about the recent ‘cooling’ trend touted by so many non-science types. Since 1998 was so exceptionally hot, many climate action opponents use it to obscure the fact that subsequent years, while not all as hot as ‘98, have shown a definite warming trend throughout the 2000s. They falsely claim a ‘cooling trend’ occurred, when, in fact, the 00s were found to be the hottest decade on record by a number of scientific institutions, including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
By the way, Bill Nye sure does have a thing for bow ties, doesn’t he?
In Arizona and Texas, policies popular with the anti-immigration wing of the GOP are running into sharp criticism from a group of experts who know a thing or two about law and order: cops.
Russell Pearce, the head Republican restrictionist in the Arizona Senate is pimping bills to allow everyone to sue public officials who don’t report immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally to federal authorities.
According to the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police aren’t too happy:
Nuclear power has been a hot topic these past few weeks with Vermont’s leaking reactor, Georgia’s plans for new ones (thanks to Obama), and the press’s blind approval of all things nuclear.
And now, Rachel Waldholz from High Country News, writes that Blue Castle Holdings, “a 3-year-old, politically connected startup” is trying to get Utah’s first new nuclear plant since 1987 built in the state.
While there are lots of reasons that nuclear power is a bad idea, residents in Utah are particularly concerned about water. Waldholz writes:
READ FULL POST
This post was co-written by Lyndsay Moseley, Associate Washington Representative for the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.
This week we had the privilege to listen in on a White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conference call with citizen groups from across the country to share the concerns and priorities of citizens around the country who are directly impacted by coal ash disposal problems.
Coal ash is the by-product of burning coal for power, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with the OMB, is preparing to draft new proposed rules to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash – hence this conference call.
On the calls, local spokespersons from 16 states delivered powerful stories of how their lives have been impacted by improper coal ash handling, and compelling messages on the importance of mandatory federal safeguards for coal ash.
We listened as residents from Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Montana, New Mexico, Maryland, Virginia and many other states spoke about water contamination, the questionable reuse of coal ash to fill in mines, and more.
One southeast Ohio resident spoke of residents near her getting sick from the coal ash contamination. “Environmental justice and the human cost really have to be taken into consideration with this,” said Elisa Young of Meigs Citizens Action Now, noting that the southeast Ohio area is very poor and Meigs County has no hospital despite having the highest rate of asthma in the state.
“The coal industry is dumping coal ash on us in so many ways, all with no regulation on how it affects us cumulatively,” added Young. “They even dump it on the roads in the wintertime, which all runs off the road into the streams and groundwater.”
Another resident who lives near a coal ash site by the New River in Virginia said he was tired of seeing ash from the unlined site in a 100-year-flood plain leech into the river and threaten the drinking water sources of communities down-river. “Our water table is being devastated,” he said.
Other residents spoke of their battles to keep proposed coal ash sites from being placed near them. The stories went on and on, and all were heart-wrenching. Overall, their most common phrase to the government leaders on the call was, “We need help.” These community activists want federal safeguards to protect them from the toxins in coal ash.
The staff of OMB, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and EPA were quite receptive during the calls, taking notes as they listened. After the meeting, one OMB staffer commented that that they don’t often hear local stories such as these.
Coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum, and most coal ash is stored near coal-fired power plants in waste ponds near communities and waterways. The toxic materials leach out of the waste and contaminate groundwater and surface water.
There are hundreds of coal ash storage sites across the U.S. We’ve already seen one major coal ash disaster – December 2008’s devastating Tennessee Valley Authority spill in Roane County, Tenn. The conference call included residents from near the spill, who spoke of the remaining devastation and toxins and how they do not want that kind of tragedy to happen anywhere else.
We need consistent mandatory federal safeguards to prevent future coal ash disasters – safeguards that will protect the environment and our communities from toxic leaching and flooding. Yet the coal industry continues fighting for special treatment to keep them from cleaning up their dirty business. Coal use from cradle to the grave is dirty, dangerous, and damaging, and but the coal industry continues spending millions on lobbying to retain and create more loopholes for themselves.
This much is clear – coal must be cleaned up and the industry will not clean itself. We must speak out in favor of stronger regulations and encourage EPA to quickly implement real safeguards to protect our communities from coal ash.
The fallout has begun.
Following a series of New York Times reports that linked his administration to a domestic abuse scandal, New York Gov. David Paterson is expected to announce today that he will not seek reelection in November. Paterson’s statement will come just about a week after he formally began his reelection campaign at Hofstra University.
The latest Times story describes an incident last Halloween in which David Johnson, a Paterson aide, strangled an ex-girlfriend, threw her against a dresser, tore most of her clothes off, and twice prevented her from calling for help. According to the piece, Paterson responded to the woman’s ensuing lawsuit by first sending state police to her house — a gesture she interpreted as intimidation — then by calling her himself (Paterson has maintained that she initiated the call).
Within the past 24 hours, Paterson’s office has limped its way through a political donnybrook, hemorrhaging officials and local support from Democrats. Yesterday, Denise O’Donnell, Paterson’s chief law-enforcement official, quit her job, citing the administration’s “unacceptable” behavior. Then Bill Perkins, a state senator from Harlem, told the Times, “This is a fatal blow, and it will probably only get worse. I just think that it’s clear that this is a storm he has to step away from.” Though no prominent Democrats have called for Paterson to resign, many have said his trifecta of new responsibilities (running a reelection campaign, governing New York and dealing with allegations of misconduct) is too much for one man to handle.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn’t have a whole lot to say at the health care summit yesterday, but when the topic at hand was mandates in the system, the GOP leader took his turn at the mic. Boehner brushed past the subject, and instead asked a few rhetorical questions.
“Mr. President, I told you the day after — maybe it was the day you were sworn in as president — I would never say anything outside of the room that I wouldn’t say inside the room. I’ve been patient. I’ve listened to the debate that’s gone on here.
“But why can’t we agree on those insurance reforms that we’ve talked about? Why can’t we come to an agreement on purchasing across state lines? And why can’t we do something about the biggest cost driver, which is medical malpractice and the defensive medicine that doctors practice?”
It’s important to keep the larger context in mind. Boehner’s comments came fairly late in the day, which means policymakers had already discussed, in considerable detail, exactly why Democrats and Republicans disagree on insurance reform, across state lines, and medical malpractice. In other words, Boehner wasn’t posing these questions in an opening statement, hoping to lay the groundwork for additional discussion; he was posing questions that everyone in the room already knew the answers to.
As Jon Chait noted, “It’s like he wasn’t even there. Does he not understand what the other side is saying? Does he not care at all? It’s not that he’s provided an answer to Obama’s arguments that I disagree with. He’s just totally unable to acknowledge or engage at any level with the arguments presented. You’re debating a brick wall.”
I suppose the extended debate over the nature of Republicans’ arguments — are folks like Boehner actually dumb or are they just pathologically dishonest — will never really end. But hearing Boehner’s bizarre presentation and ridiculous questions was one of the day’s more frustrating, head-shaking moments. He emphasized that he’d “listened to the debate that’s gone on here,” which couldn’t really be true — if he’d listened he wouldn’t have asked the questions — unless Boehner simply lacked the intellectual wherewithal to keep up.
It was also around that time when I remembered that John Boehner may very well be the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in just 11 months — at which point I broke out in a cold sweat.
For what it’s worth, the president patiently waited for Boehner to finish, before explaining to the GOP leader, “[E]very so often, we have a pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics, and then we go back to, you know, the standard talking points that Democrats and Republicans have had for the last year. And that doesn’t drive us to an agreement on issues.”
What, exactly, is happening with CBS? Has it suddenly merged with the Christian Right and become the “Christian (Right) Broadcasting System?”
It would seem so.
For the past month, reproductive justice groups in Atlanta, Georgia have been fighting against an anti-choice campaign by Georgia Right to Life and a group called the Radiance Foundation. The two groups have collaborated to buy billboard space throughout the city calling black children “an endangered species,” and advocating for laws to limit the reproductive choices of women of color, as well as to push for laws banning abortion based on “the race or the sex of the child.”
Now it turns out that the billboards are the property of CBS Outdoors, a subsidiary of the multi-media CBS corporation. This is not the CBS of my childhood (I Love Lucy, the Ed Sullivan Show) or of the once venerated show, 60 Minutes.
This is instead the CBS that “suddenly changed its advocacy policy” to air a Super Bowl advertisement earlier this month from Focus on the Family, the ultra-right conservative organization that seeks to limit the rights of women, homosexuals, and people of color generally. Meanwhile, they denied ad space to several organizations representing gay rights and gay advertising interests.
It is the CBS that then pushed for inclusion of Focus on the Family ads on the website of the NCAA.com, and for airing ads by the same during the March Madness college basketball tournament, until the latter pulled those ads in response to protests from the LGBT community and likely after someone, somewhere in the NCAA finally (re)read their own guidelines against ads coming from messengers that, for example, denigrate gay people.
That CBS.
There are currently 65 billboards throughout the Atlanta area, and Georgia Right to Life told the New York Times that it intends to soon have 80 such signs.
These are owned by and rented from CBS Outdoors, which is now the target of a campaign by women’s rights groups in Georgia seeking to remove the Georgia Right to Life signs.
One of the groups leading the campaign is SPARK Reproductive Justice Now, an organization that works to address the complexities of the lives of women and girls.
“SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW respects and defends Black women,” says a statement from the group, “and all people’s, reproductive health decisions including the right to abortion.”
“Black women know what is best for our lives, our families, and our communities and are capable of making these decisions without a coordinated assault by organizations that are not genuinely committed to addressing the host of social issues confronted by the black community. We strongly reject and denounce these billboards and the sponsoring organizations, Georgia Right to Life, the Radiance Foundation, and Operation Outrage for speaking about us, demonizing our decisions, and assuming they know what is best for our lives.”
The suggestion by these billboards that “black women somehow are perpetrators of a coordinated and intentional effort to “execute” black babies is harmful, deplorable and counterproductive,” states SPARK. “Black communities and our allies will not stand by while black women’s character and moral agency are persecuted, demonized and intimidated by these ads and their supporters.”
“We urge people interested in the lives of black children to look at black
communities more holistically and commit themselves to issues such as
poverty, food insecurity, unemployment and underemployment, the school to prison pipeline and the broader prison industrial complex, environmental
degradation and affordable housing.”
Yet rather than working on these issues, the “pro-life” community in Georgia is focused on passing House Bill 1155, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Bill, which asserts that abortion providers in the state of Georgia solicit women of color to have abortions based on the race or sex of the fetus.
“While such allegations are unfounded and inflammatory,” states SisterSong, another group leading the opposition to both the legislation and the billboard campaign, “the bill has sparked much interest. This bill also proposes a ban on sex-selective abortions, furthering the criminalization of women of color without any regard to the broader ubiquitous issues of gender discrimination that are deeply embedded in the fabrics of our lived experiences.”
A statement opposing the bill has been signed by more than 40 national leaders from communities of color committed to reproductive justice and other leaders in the reproductive justice movement.
According to SisterSong, HB 1155 was heard and voted on in the Non-civil Judiciary Sub-Committee last week. It passed and was then presented in the full Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, February 17, and Republicans in Georgia are attempting to fast-track the legislation.
“This bill seeks to ban the solicitation and targeting of women of color by abortion providers throughout the state,” says Sistersong in another statement.
“This misleading issue of abortions for sex- and race-selection in Georgia means that we have to use facts and science to stand up for women of color without undermining our support for abortion rights or without enforcing racial stereotypes about women of color. Intent on driving a wedge between reproductive justice and racial justice organizations, and pro-choice advocates, the bill reflects the false assumption that abortion providers throughout the state “solicit” women of color.”
If implemented, this bill will adversely impact abortion providers by requiring them to prove that they are not targeting women of a certain race or ethnicity. This burden could result in delayed medical services, particularly for women of color. Creating such delays are a common tactic of the anti-choice movement, creating additional burdens on women facing unintended pregnancy.
Additionally, this legislation would alter the racketeering laws of the Georgia Code to include abortion providers. This is unacceptable as abortion is legal in the State of Georgia, and the alleged abuses of this medical procedure are unfounded. Such a bill would have a terrible effect on women’s ability to access reproductive health care services throughout the state.
“This bill comes on the heels of a controversial billboard campaign that targets Black women in Georgia,” said SisterSong.
The blatantly sexist and racist billboards declare Black children as an endangered species and prey on the conscience of Black women. The mere association between the born and unborn with endangered animals provides a disempowering and dehumanizing message to the Black community, which is completely unacceptable.
Why CBS is allowing itself to become so deeply enmeshed with the anti-choice, anti-science, anti-rights community is a mystery, but given the confluence of recent events, it clearly underscores the need for a greater degree than ever of coordination among reproductive justice and pro-choice advocates with the LGBT community in the United States.
Meanwhile, in response to the billboards, SPARK has launched a campaign asking CBS Outdoors to remove the ads. Information on the campaign can be found here.
By Joshua Stanton, crossposted from Tikkun Daily
On February 18, 2010, Joseph Stack intentionally crashed his airplane into an IRS office building in Austin, Texas. Innocent life was lost, and thousands were terrified. But nobody rushed to pronounce him a terrorist. The media called him ‘frustrated,’ ‘deranged,’ and ‘disgruntled,’ but seldom a terrorist. No public figures that I am aware of countered the spin.
To many this may seem to be a simple omission, but it is a glaring one at that. In American popular culture and discourse, we only call Muslims (or, for those who don’t know the difference, Arabs) terrorists. Whether we like it or not, this is Islamophobic. Muslims are being singled out as targets for a debilitatingly charged word — while other Americans are left immune from it.
Daniel Cluchey may have said it best on the Huffington Post:
Everyone now knows the story of Joe Stack, the aptly named regular Joe whose outrages stacked up in his own mind until he hit the breaking point, setting his house on fire and flying his Piper Cherokee PA-28 into the Echelon office complex in Austin, Texas. In taking his own life, Stack injured thirteen people and murdered Vernon Hunter, a 67-year-old father of six. Watching the thick smoke jet out of the windows of the Echelon complex on television, I had the strangest feeling that I had seen this sort of thing before. Wasn’t there a name we used to use for people who flew planes into buildings in order to kill Americans? We used to say that these were the actions of a… the actions of a…
Ah, yes. Thank you,Wall Street Journal! These were the actions of a “tax protester.” I knew it started with a ‘T.’
I was fifteen when protesters flew planes into the Twin Towers, only back then we called them terrorists. Are we no longer terrified by airplane suicide attacks? I doubt it. So what’s the difference? Those murderers were from Saudi Arabia, they had dark complexions and unpronounceable names; Joe Stack was your next door neighbor, an engineer from Pennsylvania by way of Texas. His fervor was more acceptable to us, less foreign to the American mind. He hated the government. He hated taxes. His sickness, and his violence, already live here, and this will not be the last time we see the smoke.
Cluchey’s recommendation is to label Stack a “terrorist” for the sake of internal consistency. But there may exist an even better alternative: ridding our lexicons of the term “terrorist” altogether. It is a label that can be used to smear. And it has disproportionately been wielded against a particular religious community. The overuse, misuse, and inconsistent use of the word “terrorist” may itself comprise a threat to America’s well-being.
