What is the state of the union when a madman can come within a whisker of assassinating a member of Congress? When his rantings and ravings and drug use don't stop him from getting a high-capacity magazine? When a sophomore in high school can show up to school with a gun in his backpack, and accidentally shoot two of his classmates?
I'm not sure, but I know I'd really like to hear President Obama address this during his SOTU address--without platitudes, but with an actual plan of action. One which might include demanding that the Senate confirm his nominee to run the ATF forthwith, fixing gaps in government databases of mental health and criminal records, requiring states to share data on those who have been deemed mentally unfit, questioning the intelligence of selling high-capacity magazines to just anyone, allowing concealed carry without a permit, as Arizona and two other states do, wondering whether those with firearms should just be able to meander up next to their member of Congress, and closing loopholes that allow the crazed and criminal to get guns at gun shows while firmly ensconced on terrorist watch lists.
Oh yeah, it would also mean he is FAR to the Right of that key element in our democracy known as the American People:
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:
-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.
-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-------
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."
This folks, is about whether we want democracy by ballot or intimidation by bullet. It goes to the very heart of who we are and want to be, and it is most certainly an issue of National Security--or security for our democracy. Lets hope President Obama does the right thing.
House Republicans will hold a symbolic vote to overturn health care reform on January 12. The bill, which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and set the nation's health care laws back to the way they were last March, has no chance of becoming law. The GOP controls the House, but Democrats control the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate Democrats will block the bill.
Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones reports that the 2-page House bill carries no price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA would save $143 billion dollars over the next decade. The GOP repeal bill contains no alternative plan. So, repealing the ACA would be tantamount to adding $143 billion to the deficit. So much for fiscal responsibility.
Why are the Republicans rushing to vote on a doomed bill without even bothering to hold hearings, or formulate a counter-proposal for the Congressional Budget Office to score? Kevin Drum of Mother Joneshazards a guess:
[Speaker John] Boehner [(R-OH)] knows two things: (a) he has to schedule a repeal vote because the tea partiers will go into open revolt if he doesn't, and (b) it's a dead letter with nothing more than symbolic value. So he's scheduling a quick vote with no hearings and no CBO scoring just so he can say he's done it, after which he can move on to other business he actually cares about.
An opportunity?
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly argues that all this political theater around repealing the Affordable Care Act is an opportunity for Democrats to remind the public about all the popular aspects of the bill that the GOP is trying to strip away.
Last weekend several key provisions of the ACA took effect, including help for middle income seniors who are running up against the prescription drug "donut hole." Until last Saturday, their drugs were covered up to a relatively low threshold, then they were on their own until they spent enough on prescriptions for the catastrophic coverage to kick in again. Those seniors will be reluctant to give up their brand new 50% discount on drugs in the donut hole.
Another crack at turning eggs into persons
A Colorado ballot initiative to bestow full human rights on fertilized ova was resoundingly defeated for the second time in the last midterm elections. Attempts to reclassify fertilized ova as people are an attempt to ban abortion, stem cell research, and some forms of birth control. Patrick Caldwell of the American Independent reports that new egg-as-person campaigns are stirring in other states where activists hope to take advantage of new Republican majorities.
Personhood USA, the group behind the failed Colorado ballot initiatives, claims that there is "action" (of some description) on personhood legislation in 30 states. Caldwell says Florida may be the next battleground. Personhood USA needs 676,000 signatures to get their proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. Right now, they have zero, but they promise a "big push" in 2011.
Ronald McDonald = Joe the Camel
In AlterNet, Kelle Louaillier calls for more regulation of fast food industry advertising to children. New research shows that children are being exposed to significantly more fast food ads than they were just a few years ago. Other studies demonstrate that children give higher marks to food products when they are paired with a cartoon character. Louaillier writes of her organization's campaign to prevent fast food companies from using cartoons to market fast food to kids:
For our part, my organization launched a campaign in March to convince McDonald's to retire Ronald McDonald, its iconic advertising character, and the suite of predatory marketing practices of which the clown is at the heart. A study we commissioned by Lake Research Partners found that more than half of those polled say they "favor stopping corporations from using cartoons and other children's characters to sell harmful products to children."
Local elected officials are joining the cause, too. Los Angeles recently voted to make permanent a ban on the construction of new fast food restaurants in parts of the city. San Francisco has limited toy giveaway promotions to children's meals that meet basic health criteria. The idea is spreading to other cities.
2011 trendspotting: Baby food
The hot new snack trend for 2011 is mush, as Bonnie Azab Powell reports in Grist. In an attempt to burnish its portfolio of "healthier" snack options for kids Tropicana (a PepsiCo company) is introducing a new line of pureed fruit and vegetable slurries. The products, sold under the brand name Tropolis, feature ground up fruits and veggies, vitamin C, and fiber in a portable plastic pouch. These "drinkified snacks" or "snackified drinks" will be priced at $2.49 to $3.49 for a four-pack, making them more expensive than fresh fruit.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
There are two major benefits that would come from the Merkley-Udall Senate Rule reform proposal:
Filibuster reform.Biggest thing here is to shift the onus to maintain a filibuster onto the 41+ minority and away from the model of requiring 60 affirmative cloture votes to limit debate. But also very significant here would be making the motion to proceed non-debatable and ending secret holds. Much has been written about this, I think these are positive improvements and while I would rather just see the Senate move to actual overt majority rule, this is a significant improvement and would have led to a much better 2008-2010 for progressives.
Majority changing the rules at all. Like FDL, I think it would be very important for the Senate to pass changes to the Senate rules on a straight majority on the first day of the new Congress. It remains one of the most baffling self-delusions that the Senate and most Americans accept the fiction that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster or 67 to change the rules. I have tried to make the point that the 2005 "nuclear option" fiasco proves that the majority can in fact rule the Senate if they so choose, but it is a tough slog. Changing the rules on a straight majority would be a big step forward in forcing everyone to dispel this cherished fable of the "cooling saucer."
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
The Senate failed to pass the DREAM Act Saturday, as Democrats fell five votes short of the 60 needed to advance the bill. The final vote was 55-41. While a Republican filibuster diminished the bill's chances of success, five Democrats sealed the measure's fate. Max Baucus (D-MT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Jon Tester (D-MT) crossed party lines to vote against the bill that would have created a conditional path to legalization for immigrant youth who attend college or serve in the military.
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
A bill that would create a path to legalization for undocumented youth passed the House of Representatives Wednesday, and is now headed to the Senate. The DREAM Act, which has struggled for survival even amid steady and strong bipartisan support, could render more than 2 million undocumented immigrants eligible for conditional permanent residency if they attend college or serve in the military.
The following charts are from a HuffPo article by Michael P. McDonald, Associate Professor, George Mason University, "A Late Democratic Early Voting Surge in Nevada". Clark County is home to Las Vegas. Washoe is home to Reno:
There are no tallies of early voters since last weekend in Nevada. But Clark County represents about half the votes in Nevada, and Washoe is the second-largest county. Consequently, McDonald notes:
As of last Saturday, the state reported more registered Republicans had voted early in-person. Unless something dramatic is happening in counties where we do not have early voter party registration numbers reported on a daily basis, when the state reports the final statewide partisan registration among early voters, more registered Democrats will have voted in-person early in Nevada.
This late up-tick may signal that Dems will turn out more strongly on election day as well, and assuming that likely voter models do not reflect this, Reid is likely to outperform his polling as well. Whether this is so, and whether it's characteristic of other races as well, we'll only know after the election. But it definitely makes things a lot harder to predict going into the last 48 hours before the election.
Our projection says that Republicans are favorites in 231 House races, which would reflect a net gain of 52 seats.
But suppose that our forecast is biased against the Democrats by one point across the country as a whole, perhaps because pollsters are overestimating the enthusiasm gap very slightly. Just one point. Well, there are 6 seats in which we have the Republican candidate projected to win by less than 1 full point (it might be a very long election night, by the way). If Democrats hold those 6 seats, the projected Republican gains would be down to 46.
Now suppose that the forecast understates Democratic support by 2 points. There are 8 seats in which we project the Republican candidate to win by a margin of between 1 and 2 points; now these would also be wiped off the board. Now the Republican gains would be reduced to just 38 seats - and the Democrats would hold the House, 218-217!
Remember that horrible 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad that helped derail John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid? Well, Bob Perry, the billionaire tycoon who financed that smear campaign is back, and he's underwriting a barrage of dirty ads that target politicians he doesn't like.
I recently pointed out in two articles that I wrote, referenced below, that several Tea Party backed candidates are presently running into some strong headwinds as Election Day approaches. Some have tried to dismiss these facts as "progressive desperation". However, for one candidate in particular, Nevada's Sharron Angle, there seems to be some serious desperation within her own campaign. In fact that desperation became so evident that she tried to get a Tea Party fellow traveler to drop out of the race so she could "win." Well that just begs the question: If Angle is such a strong candidate and the Tea Party behind her is so much a force to be reckoned with, then why the need to desperately plead with Scott Ashjian to drop out of the race?
In a meeting held with Nevada Tea Party Chairman Sid James and other movement operatives, Angle tried to make a deal with Ashjian to drop out in order to give her a chance to win. The Party chairman showed a fair degree of desperation himself when he abandoned his support of Ashjian, insisting that Angle will lose unless he withdraws and that there was still time to get his name off the ballot. Angle herself went on to promise just about everything but the Moon, Sun and the Stars to get Ashjian to quit the race. Angle was quoted on tape as saying: "I believe you (Ashjian) can do some real harm, not to Harry Reid but to me...I'm not sure you can win and I'm not sure I can win if you're hurting my chance and that's the part that scares me." She went on to say:" Says the grass roots movement "gives me juice. That's really all I can offer to you (Ashjian) is whatever juice I have, you have as well..."
So there you have it, in the case of Sharron Angle there is no need for "progressive desperation" as there seems to be more than enough of it within the Angle camp. Perhaps this is what was behind the recent major flip flop on Ms. Angle's previous positions on privatizing Social Security and her attitude that unemployment compensation was akin to welfare. Then again, with her race with Harry Reid being a statistical dead heat, there is reason enough for her to be so desperate in trying to get Scott Ashjian out of the race and likewise there is no cause for any desperation on the part of the progressive electorate. As of today, RealClear Politics' average of all polls shows a 0.2-point spread in favor of Harry Reid. I guess that's enough to make any politician desperate with November 2nd just over the horizon.
Tea Party darling, Sharron Angle has apparently decided that politics as usual suits her better than sticking to her previously held Tea Party Movement principles. In an development that has been reported on both the left and the right, Angle has abandoned her previous positions on privatizing both Social Security and the Veterans Administration. Likewise, her attitude that unemployment insurance is welfare has been abondoned for the latest spin du jour. Think I'm putting you on? Well here it is from the conservative organ NewsMax:" In a dramatic shift, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle said Saturday she wouldn't work to privatize Veterans Affairs, dismantle Social Security or dismiss unemployment benefits as welfare... Angle on Saturday denied she had called for the end of the VA...In another slight change Saturday, Angle said of unemployment: "We pay into it, so in some respects, it is an insurance policy that we bought into with our paychecks." She described it previously as a "system of entitlement."
At the same time, another prominent Nevada Republican has decided against Angle and thrown her support to Harry Reid. As reported in yesterday's New York Times: "Harry Reid can now boast a second Republican feather in his cap, of sorts. Less than 24-hours after earning the endorsement of Bill Raggio, a highly influential Republican and Nevada state senator, the Senate majority leader on Friday landed the support of Dema Guinn, the wife of the former governor who died unexpectedly this year."
All of this fits into what I have said in previous posts and that is, that as we get closer to November 2nd, the scrutiny put on the Tea Party Candidates will cause people to have serious second doubts about their positions and the viability of those candidates if they are actually elected. Secondly, that many of the movements leading contenders are nothing more than professional politicians in Tea Party clothing who have jumped on the wave of voter discontent so as to get themselves elected.
A funny thing seems to be happening, as we get closer to November 2nd, the level of controversy surrounding the candidacy of several prominent Tea Party candidates seems to be either emerging or increasing. The list spans a who's who of some of the most prominent Tea Party candidates now running on the platform of bringing meaningful change to American politics.
First there's Rick Scott running for Governor in Florida. Scott has been a vociferous opponent of health care reform, having spent millions to oppose reform. However, his former company was the beneficiary of Medicare and Medicaid monies totally in the millions if not billions. In fact even the conservative magazine "The American Spectator" called Scott's company's actions into question: " His business record is also likely to draw fire. Scott was pushed out from Columbia/HCA in 1997 in the midst of a fraud investigation that led to a $1.7 billion settlement on charges that the company overbilled state and federal health care programs. While he was never charged with any wrongdoing himself, Scott was the head of the company - and thus the situation will garner more scrutiny now that he's a political candidate." Then there is an amplifying article that appeared a month later in the Florida paper; The Sun Sentinel, by Sally Kestin: "Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor...Rick Scott was co-founder and CEO of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, when the FBI launched a massive, multi-state investigation that led to the company pleading guilty to criminal charges of overbilling the government....Scott considers himself a health care pioneer who significantly cut costs and improved patient care. But his decision to enter the race and his explanation of what occurred at Columbia/HCA is rankling some of those familiar with the fraud scandal."
Next there is Rand Paul, who has called for restraint in health care spending so long as it does not go so far as to impact his own income. Paul's hypocrisy is so obvious that even the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal could not bear to ignore this fact and reported on it in a mid-May article appearing in it's Washington Wire: "Tea Party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government. But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments In fact, Paul - who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare - wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living," he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course." So there you have it, doctors are free to run on reforming federal spending so long as their income stream is held harmless. Well if that does not sound a bit hypocritical then what does?
Next on the hit parade of hypocrisy is New York's Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino whom Greg Smith of the New York Daily News says has grown rich thanks to government handouts and favors. According to Smith's research: "In a last-minute bid to keep that lucrative government subsidy, records show he overstated the worth of the company that got the break by including properties he'd already sold off. The millionaire Buffalo businessman, who last week became his party's candidate for governor, has shaped much of his Tea Party message by railing against government spending and vowing Draconian bureaucratic bloodletting. At the same time, he's received millions of dollars in tax breaks over the years, mostly as payback for investing in distressed properties in and around his native Buffalo, where manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the economy has long been in a free fall." Thus what we have in New York State is a Tea Party candidate who seems to have filled his pockets at the public trough but who has now "seen the light" on the excesses of government spending and wants to end it, that is, after he more than got his fill from that very trough.
In addition to these issues, the trials and tribulations of Senate candidate Sharron Angle just seem to keep on coming. Today it was reported that Republican Nevada State Senator Bill Raggio has done something he has never done before, endorsed a Democrat. Raggio is throwing his support behind the embattled incumbent, Harry Reid (D-NV) due to what he considers Angle's glaring shortcomings as a state level politico. In Raggio's own words: "What is difficult to overlook is her record of being totally ineffective as a four-term assemblywomen, her inability or unwillingness to work with others, even within her own party, and her extreme positions on issues such as Medicare, social security, education, veterans affairs and many others," Raggio said of Angle...He also challenged his Republican colleagues who have lined up behind Angle's campaign."Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she 'can't do much harm as a junior back bencher,'" said Raggio. "Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?"
So what are the voters to believe and how are they to vote for the likes of Paladino, Paul, Scott and Angle among others come election day. Isn't the Tea Party Movement supposed to represent some sort of catharsis in American politics, a movement to cleanse the system of rot and decay? Is it not supposed to be a citizens revolt against business and politcs as usual, both in Washington and at the state and local level? If so, how is it that individuals of such questionable qualities and backgrounds became some of it's leading candidates? Has the movement been hijacked by the very political slicksters that it's supposed to oppose? Are these accomplished political operatives and savy businessmen in the process of taking the rank and file Tea Partiers for the political ride of their lives? Have professional politicians on the right jumped on the bandwagon of reform and revolt all the while hoping to just harness this energy for their own political ends? Or is it the case that the aforementioned candidates, like Paul of Tarsus, have "seen the light" on their own personal road to Damascus. Are they like Constantine at the Battle of Milivan Bridge who looked into the sky, saw a cross, and then went on to win the battle and spread Christianity, the new and revolutionary religon,across the Roman Empire? My educated guess is that it's the former not the latter.
"Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor"; http://articles.sun-sentinel.c...
"WSJ: Washington Wire; May 14, 2010, 9:22 AM ET Rand Paul: Cut Spending But Not Medicare Doctor Payments"; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
Tea Party-backed GOP governor hopeful Carl Paladino fighting for $1.4 million tax break
:http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/20/2010-09-20_huge_tax_break_fits_carl_to_a_tea_big_govt_foe_fights_for_14m_windfall.html#ixzz11ouPpyw6:
The woman gunning for Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) job doesn't believe that autism exists.
Yes, you heard right. Sharron Angle believes that the neurodevelopmental disorder know to medical science as "autism" is actually a government-backed hoax to redistribute wealth from hardworking health insurers to pesky kids and their greedy parents.
Angle was caught on tape promising to abolish mandatory insurance coverage for autism. "Everything that they want to throw at us is covered under 'autism'," Angle told the American Association of Underwriters this summer, tracing scare quotes with her fingers as she said "autism."
Care2's Kristina Chew, the mother of a 13-year-old boy with autism, responds to Angle's airy dismissal:
...By saying that you don't think there should be health care for autism, I take it that you don't think that children, and individuals, with disabilities are in need of such things-living with their families and in their communities, healthy and safe, being loved and cared for? Being treated as we would all like to be?
The fact that Angle opposes mandated coverage for private insurers should concern voters, especially since she wants to privatize all government health care programs. In other words, Angle wants to turn health care over to the private sector and stamp out public competition. And yet, Angle's campaign admits that the candidate and her husband receive both government health care and a Civil Service pension, according to Eric Kleefeld of TPM. If Angle is so morally opposed to government health care, she should set an example by declining the coverage.
Andy Kroll of Mother Jones has more on Angle's record: She once told impregnated rape victims to buck up and make "lemons out of lemonade" by bearing their attacker's child. Angle also denounced people on unemployment insurance as "spoiled."
Food vs. health care
It may soon get even harder for poor families to make ends meet. The Senate is poised to slash the extra food stamp benefits in the stimulus before they expire. The Senate already raided $6.7 billion from the the so-called "food stamp cookie jar" to bail out Medicaid and save teachers' jobs at the state level. Now they want to take even more money to fund the child nutrition bill.
The cuts would fund a marginal improvement in school lunches, notes Monica Potts of TAPPED. That's all well and good, but why provide slightly better weekday lunches if the poorest children get less at every other meal?
Annie Lowery of the Washington Independent interviews anti-hunger activist Joel Berg about the cuts. Berg says that if the cuts go through, families will have to make do with considerably less than the current $4.50 per person per day. He notes that Congress wants to cut food stamp benefits in the face of rising food prices.
When families make do with less, healthy foods like fruits and vegetables will be the first casualty. Berg argues that it is economically short-sighted to prematurely terminate one of the most efficient economic stimuli in the entire stimulus package:
And we know that we aren't only feeding people. We come at this from a moral position, a nutritional position, and an economic recovery position. This cut is so insane from an economic position as well - we know food stamps are the most effect form of stimulus. The jury is still out on parts of the stimulus - but the jury isn't out on food stamps. It was a 1,000 percent, beyond home run grand slam success, if you'll excuse me mixing metaphors. The money went to people who needed it, rapidly, and without a lot of bureaucracy.
In the Progressive, Ruth Conniff has a personal take on the politics of improving school lunches. Her kids' school got a USDA Fresh Fruits and Vegetables grant to introduce more local produce into school meals.
"Bridalplasty"
The laws of Reality TV: 1) The most important thing in life is to be very beautiful so that a man will want to marry you; 2) You have until your wedding day to make yourself look like someone else.
The E! network is launching a new reality show in which brides-to-be receive free cosmetic surgery to make them look acceptable for their Special Day, as Stephanie Hallett reports at Ms. blog. Hallett notes that armchair psychiatrists are already diagnosing the contestants with Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a condition that causes sufferers to become obsessed with imagined physical imperfections.
Hallett also argues that competitive plastic surgery shows like Bridalplasty and The Swan are dramatic exaggerations. Labeling the contestants as "sick" or "crazy" implies that they are limited-edition freaks, not individuals on the extreme end of a continuum of self-loathing that affects most women.
Ectopic pregnancy
Anti-choicers have already attacked hormonal birth control as crypto-abortion. Their next target may be lifesaving surgery for a deadly complication of pregnancy. At RH Reality Check, Lon Newman writes about a young woman that survived a life threatening ectopic pregnancy.
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg takes root outside the uterus, nearly always in a fallopian tube. Tubal pregnancies are among the deadliest gynecological emergencies because the woman can rapidly bleed to death if the tube ruptures. Obviously, once a fertilized egg takes root outside the uterus, there is no chance that it will survive. However, some anti-choice extremists still maintain that treating ectopic pregnancies is a kind of abortion.
One of the ectopic pregnancy survivor's friends actually told her that she should have respected "God's will" and refused lifesaving surgery. "I have had friends who said that I should have 'gone with God's will,' imposing their beliefs on my will to live," the woman said.
Some friend.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Immigration reform activists suffered a disappointing setback this week. The Senate failed to muster enough votes to move forward with an annual defense authorization bill that would have included both the DREAM Act and a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as amendments. At Feet in Two Worlds, Sarah Kate Kramer has a good breakdown of the floor action.
As Kramer notes, not all is lost. The defense bill-and the DREAM Act with it-are certainly stalled, but Democrats say they plan to try again after midterm elections. The DREAM movement, for its part, seems invigorated by the close call.
(Both Congress and the President have been huge disappointment on dealing with climate change. But that's no reason to give up in despair, as this diary explains. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Congress comes back into session next week, but environmentalists and climate change activists have given up on the legislature. Instead, activists are planning to spur popular concern about these issues, until calls for change are so loud that Congress must listen.
Today, climate change reformer Bill McKibben will ask President Obama to reinstall a solar panel that first graced the White House roof during the Carter presidency. In the months to come, advocates hope to lead more radical direct actions that force more Americans to confront the issues at hand-and hopefully pressure change from the bottom up.
For the past two years, Congress has flirted with action on climate change, only to shy away time and time again. Environmental groups have spent record sums on courting lawmakers to no avail. McKibben and other environmental advocates are now convinced that they must bypass elected representatives and instead work to convince constituents that the country must do something to address global warming.
Direct action
McKibben, the environmental author who now leads an international climate campaign called 350.0rg, along with Phil Radford and Becky Tarbotton, both heads of environmental groups, wrote to potential allies against the energy industry in Yes! Magazine.
"We're not going to beat them by asking nicely," the three wrote. "We're going to have to build a movement, a movement much bigger than anything we've built before, a movement that can push back against the financial power of Big Oil and Big Coal. That movement is our only real hope, and we need your help to plot its future."
These three leaders see a greater role for direct action in pushing America to scale down its energy use, move towards renewable energy, and abandon its dirty energy habits. As civil rights and suffrage advocates suggest, to move the populace, "to effectively communicate both to the general public and to our leaders the urgency of the crisis," climate activists must "put our bodies on the line."
Those for who have suggestions on how to move forward can contact these leaders at climate.ideas@gmail.com. They hope to draw on submitted ideas for actions in the spring.
Clean Energy Victory Bonds
Those less inclined to take to the streets still have options for supporting clean energy. The Nation'sPeter Rothberg suggests supporting the idea of Clean Energy Victory Bonds (CEVB), as conceived by the group Green America. This idea requires Congress to pass legislation, but "it seems like a no-brainer," Rothberg writes.
"According to Green America, CEVBs would benefit the economy, the environment, and investors, by uniting individuals, communities, and companies to help finance the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects and energy efficiency upgrades," he says. Other benefits: it's a safe and potentially flexible investment, and the bonds could help create 1.7 million jobs.
Easy to ignore climate change
At this point, the push for direct action almost seems like a more sensible investment of political energy, at least. Climate change has dropped in importance for most Americans, so it's easy for Congress to ignore the problem. As Kevin Drum explains for Mother Jones, "The high-water mark for public opinion on climate change was in 2005 or so, and we've been losing ground ever since. Until we get it back, Congress is going to continue to do nothing."
It appears that, without broad popular pressure for some sort of action, Congress feels comfortable leaving aside even policy proposals that the majority of Americans support. One of the sticking points of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) energy bill has been a renewable energy standard (RES), a requirement that the country will increase the percentage of its power generated from clean energy sources within a certain time frame.
"Not many policies get this kind of bipartisan support these days," Roberts writes. "People are fond of saying energy should be a bipartisan issue and surely reasonable people can agree, etc. Well, here it is, happening."
What's more, an RES would go a long way towards spurring private sector investment in clean energy. Lew Hay, the CEO of NextEra, a major clean energy company, has said that an RES would spur his company to invest billions of additional dollars in wind and solar development.
East vs. Midwest
Passing an RES would also mean pushing the renewable energy industry to hash out a viable infrastructure for a clean energy future.
"As the nation looks to move to a renewable energy standard, a lot of that really comes down to how to meet the energy needs of the East coast," Jamie Karnik, the communications manager at a wind advocacy group, told The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia. "Certainly people who are building wind in the Midwest, have their eye on the eastern market."
The problem is, Restuccia reports, that entrepreneurs on the East Coast want a chance to develop off-shore wind farms. Ultimately, the country will need new electric lines to transport energy created from clean sources, but right now, competition among clean energy manufacturers could delay the construction of those lines.
Maybe climate change activists can come up with some ideas to push the clean energy industry along faster, too.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The "DREAM Now Series: Letters to Barack Obama" is a social media campaign that launched Monday, July 19, to underscore the urgent need to pass the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, S. 729, would help tens of thousands of young people, American in all but paperwork, to earn legal status, provided they graduate from U.S. high schools, have good moral character, and complete either two years of college or military service. With broader comprehensive immigration reform stuck in partisan gridlock, the time is now for the White House and Congress to step up and pass the DREAM Act!
Today marks the completion of the second week of the DREAM Now series. I am sorry I was not able to get a letter out on Wednesday. Too much travel and not enough sleep led me to come down with a soar throat and a fever on Tuesday. Thankfully, I'm starting to recover, today. If you're not getting enough of your DREAM Now fix I recommend reading Matias Ramos' post on why he stood up during Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) speech at Netroots Nation.
Three developments that I'm aware of coming from Netroots Nation 2010 today:
Reid promises filibuster reform. In the Q&A after his address today, Reid was quite clear that rule reform is needed. He compared the filibuster to the spitball in baseball, which initially wasn't illegal, but was used only sparingly, but once it began to be abused, baseball had to ban it. Interesting metaphor. He didn't give any details of what reform he has in mind though.
Tom Udall promises Senate rule reform. In the filibuster session that followed Reid's remarks, Udall promised to move that the Senate adopt its rules by majority vote on the first day of the 112th Congress next January. He is aiming to have this rule change adopted by simple majority, not two-thirds.
Common Cause planning lawsuit. At the filibuster reform session, someone from Common Cause stood up to announce they will file a federal lawsuit against the filibuster as unconstitutional. Nothing on their site yet, but hopefully soon.
As a reminder on the filibuster front, by my research, 36 State Senates do not allow the possibility of a filibuster. If a supermajority of States don't need the filibuster, why does the national Senate? Table inside.
STATE BLOGS
