ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Koch-funded book argues against mine safety laws in West Virginia

By Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 27, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Lee Fang wrote this Think Progress cross-post.

Paul Nyden, writing in the Charleston Gazette this Sunday, revealed that Koch Industries “” the massive conglomerate of oil, chemical, manufacturing, timber, hedge fund, coal, and shipping interests run by the right-wing ideologues David and Charles Koch “” has seeded West Virginia with several conservative front groups. Koch foundations provide the cash for anti-government efforts in the Mountain State, including a right-wing “think tank” called the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia and for free-market faculty members at West Virginia University.

Nyden notes that Russell Sobel, a local economist whose research and writing has been underwritten by Koch fronts, argues against the minimum wage and against mine safety laws:

Read more

LGBT

Foreign Militaries Advising Pentagon On How To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Igor Volsky on Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 pm

UK’s People Management is reporting that the British army is advising the Pentagon’s Working Group on how best to eliminate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — part of that group’s ongoing effort to review the experiences of open service in foreign militaries:

Colonel Mark Abraham told PM that fears surrounding the removal of the exclusion policy had been unfounded, and the overnight lifting of the ban in January 2000 had resulted in “no notable change at all”. [...]

“We knew a lot of gay and lesbian people were serving quite successfully, and it was clear that sexual orientation wasn’t an indication of how good a soldier or officer you could be.”

He continued: “The reality was that those serving in the army were the same people the day after we lifted the ban, so there was no notable change at all. Everybody carried on with their duties and had the same working relationships as they previously had while the ban was in place.”

The UK dropped its restrictions after it lost a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, and the new policy became effective in January 2000. “Thirty months after the United Kingdom changed its policy to permit open service, the Ministry of Defense concluded in a tri-service review of its army, air force, and navy that the change had been accomplished smoothly. The Royal Air Force reported that ‘the overwhelming view of RAF COs [commanding officers] is that the change in policy was overdue and represented recognition of the diverse culture in which we all live. All COs agreed that there had been no tangible impact on operational effectiveness, team cohesion, or Service life generally.’

For a sample of what the Brits may be recommending to the study group, click over to this report by CAP’s Lawrence Korb on how our allies implemented their open policies:

- CONDUCT: The British created a new Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct that applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Code provides equal protection for all service members by focusing on an individual’s behavior rather than the individual’s specific characteristics. It steers clear of the potentially rancorous process of establishing explicit, separate regulations on conduct for gay and straight soldiers.

- DISCIPLINE: The United Kingdom provides opportunities for service members to seek redress if they believe that they have been treated unfairly by other members of the armed forces. These protections do not specify or depend on the sexual orientation of the involved parties.

- CO-HABITATION: Concerns about co-habitation turned out to be much ado about nothing and abruptly disappeared once openly gay men and women were integrated into the military and began living and sleeping in the same quarters as straight service members.

- REINSTATEMENT: After the United Kingdom removed its ban on open service, the armed forces offered former service members who had been discharged under the policy the opportunity to rejoin the force. Only a small minority re-joined.

Read Lawrence Korb’s entire report on what the Study Group can learn from other countries here. (H/T: LezGetReal)

Climate Progress

Churches going green

By Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm

Excerpting the book Greening Our Built World

http://islandpress.org/assets/products/lg/1971_katscoverfinal300dpi170x2.jpgMore and more communities of faith””including Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Quaker groups”” are embracing green design and green building. While beliefs, traditions, and practices vary in many respects, care for the earth is a value that transcends religious distinctions and emerges as a common motivation for incorporating environmentally friendly designs into construction projects. Belief in a higher being, respect for creation, and a mandate to care for one’s neighbor are at the core of many faiths. Many religious traditions call upon members to be good stewards of the earth and its resources.

The results of a more qualitative survey in Greening Our Built World of 17 faith-based institutions that have built green buildings reveals a common sense that building green is a way of committing an entire community to the moral imperative to care for the earth and help all people share in the benefits of a healthy, sustainable environment. For a growing number of religious institutions, building green has become not just a cost-effective investment but, more importantly, a way to embody and demonstrate a religious and moral commitment to care for the earth and for life. The process of learning about and undertaking greening, in turn, commonly reinvigorates the religious community. According to Rose McKenney, a faculty member at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma Washington, the presence of the green building on campus is a major recruiting tool for new students.

Read more

Politics

GOP Rep. Ted Poe: ‘The Pledge Really Didn’t Go Far Enough’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Sep 27, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Even before House Republican leaders formally rolled out their “Pledge to America” last week, it had come under sharp criticism from conservatives for not being ambitious enough. Red State’s Erick Erickson called the Pledge “a series of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes.” Likewise, under the headline “Empty Promise,” Andrew McCarthy of the National Review slammed the Pledge as “living proof” of the “GOP’s fear of grappling with” serious problems. Meanwhile, tea party activists and conservative candidates are wary of the hollow document.

Today, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), a staunch fiscal conservative, became perhaps the first GOP House member to publicly criticize his own caucus’ Pledge. When asked why the proposal doesn’t address Social Security and Medicare in an interview with Fox 26 in Houston, Poe explained that in his mind, “the Pledge really didn’t go far enough“:

HOST: Now, congressman, critics are saying that the Pledge does not address serious problems. Social Security. Medicare, which we’ve been talking about for many years. When will the public get some concrete plans on any massive funding for these particular needs?

POE: Understand that the Pledge is a general outline. Myself, and others, we think that the Pledge really didn’t go far enough.

Watch it:

Indeed, the Pledge completely ignores Social Security and Medicare. Asked to explain this glaring omission yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) astonishingly said his party’s new agenda is not intended to lay out solutions to problems. Rather, it is to explain the problems until Americans are ready to hear the “solutions.”

Poe seems to be distancing himself from House GOP leaders, saying, “voters are frustrated because of the concept that party leaders, in both parties, just have a lot of rhetoric.” Voters “should vote for the candidates — not for the party,” he added.

Economy

Johnson Claims He Could Reduce Federal Spending By Billions, But Refuses To Name Any Programs He’d Cut

By Pat Garofalo on Sep 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm

Last week, after House Republicans released their “Pledge to America” — which waxed poetic about the need to reduce government spending — the plan’s architect, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), was unable to name a single program that he’d cut from the federal budget. McCarthy joined a whole host of House Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), who are unable to name one item that they’d axe from the budget.

But this problem has also afflicted Republican Senate candidates, as Carly Fiorina (CA) was unable to provide CNBC with any specifics regarding what she’d like to see removed from the budget. And Fiorina has now been joined by Wisconsin Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson, who asserts that there is billions available for cutting, but refuses to say where any of it is:

“There’s billions of dollars…that from my standpoint would be available for cutting. But I’m not going to get in the game here and, you know, start naming specific things to be attacked about, quite honestly,” said Johnson. [...]

“If you’ve got a tough budget in business, you go to all the departments and go, ‘OK, 10% cut across the board, figure out where you cut.’” Asked if he thinks it’s the role of a senator to identify such cuts, Johnson responded: “I would just respectfully disagree. I think the first priority is to establish that spending cap, and be dedicated to doing that.”

Johnson did cite repealing the Affordable Care Act and preventing the outlay of any more Recovery Act funding as ways to save money, even though the former would add to the deficit and the latter would increase middle class taxes and have no effect on the structural deficit.

Simply asserting that you’d implement an across-the-board spending cut shows you’re fundamentally disinterested in serious budgeting, as such a cut makes no attempt to prioritize between necessary programs that people depend upon and programs that are less important. Is Johnson willing to cut federal education funding, FEMA, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the National Park System, federal highway funding, food safety inspection, and the Secret Service, which are all on the discretionary side of the budget? If not, he’ll have to find larger savings elsewhere to compensate, or raid entitlement programs.

It’s precisely because such large cuts would be required to vital and popular programs, if we were to balance the budget without tax increases, that Republicans don’t want to detail them. But Johnson is far from the only one who thinks that he should be elected before laying out specifics regarding his policies. Linda McMahon, the Republican senate candidate in Connecticut, said that she won’t divulge her position regarding Social Security. “I’m not adverse to talking in the right time or forum about what we need to do relative to our entitlements,” McMahon said. “I just don’t believe that the campaign trail is the right place to talk about that.”

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 27, 2010 at 6:25 pm

This girl here is different:

— The cynical case for exaggerating the scope of U.S. K-12 education problems.

— Teach.gov

— HIV/AIDS in DC.

— Praise for Rebecca Traister’s Big Girls Don’t Cry.

— John Cole is history’s greatest monster.

— Some ideas on finding jobs for the long-term unemployed.

I like Stars and I like Mashups, so naturally I loved The Hood Internet’s “We’re Already Taken (Trey Songz x Stars)”.

Climate Progress

Around The World, Activists Arrested For Protesting Coal’s Destruction

By Brad Johnson on Sep 27, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Jim Hansen arrest at White HouseToday, scientists, youth, and coalfield residents came together to protest the coal industry’s destruction of our future in a global day of action. In Washington, DC, top climate scientist James Hansen, who warned Congress of the coming scourge of global warming in 1989, joined over a hundred others who were arrested at the White House for protesting mountaintop removal, which Barack Obama has called an “environmental disaster.” The Rainforest Action Network, which helped organize the Appalachia Rising protest, reports on the arrests:

More than 100 people were arrested today during Appalachia Rising, the largest national protest to end mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining. Arrests included Appalachian residents; retired coal miners; renowned climate scientist, James Hansen; and faith leaders. After a march from Freedom Plaza and a rally at Lafayette Park, more than 100 staged a sit-in in front of the White House to demand President Obama follow his own science and end mountaintop mining.

“In a stark reminder of the national connection to the coalfields,” journalist Jeff Biggers described, “the Obama administration officials looked on from their White House offices, as their electricity came from a coal-fired plant generated partly with coal strip-mined from Appalachia.”

Newcastle protestOn the other side of the planet, activists “shut down the world’s largest coal export operation” in Newcastle, Australia:

Climate activists brought Newcastle’s billion-dollar coal-loaders to a grinding halt yesterday, suspending themselves midair to effectively shut down the world’s largest coal export operation. Police arrested 41 members of the Rising Tide group, which launched a simultaneous protest at three coal-loader sites at dawn yesterday.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles hit an all-time record 113°, freak floods hit Minnesota and Wisconsin, and Wall Street remains bullish on coal. On October 10, thousands of people around the world will come together in a global day of activism for clean energy.

Media

Hume Claims ‘Almost None Of The Stimulus Money’ Had Been Spent When Recession Ended In June 2009

By Ben Armbruster on Sep 27, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday’s online-only “Panel Plus” segment, Juan Williams noted that in the previous segment that aired on television, Brit Hume was giving “the Republican narrative” on the Recovery Act — that it was “a huge blunder and it has come back to bite the Democrats and is so unpopular with the voters.” When Williams noted that “you never hear” about the successes, like the fact that unemployment would currently be much higher without the stimulus, Hume chimed in with another misleading Republican narrative — that the stimulus did nothing to get the country out of recession:

HUME: For one thing we know that there recession ended now according to the National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER] in June of 2009. Almost none of the stimulus money had gone out the door so the recession ended more or less on its own than by virtue of the actions of the fed which are always more potent than anything Congress does.

Watch it:

The NBER did indeed announce its findings recently that the recession officially ended in June 2009, but Hume’s claim that “almost none of the stimulus money had gone out the door” by then is simply not true. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, in its second quarterly report on the stimulus, by the end of June 2009, the federal government spent $93 billion of Recovery Act monies on tax relief to individuals and small businesses, state relief and government contracts.

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi told the Los Angeles Times that it “was during that month [June 2009] that the spending from the Recovery Act stimulus was at its maximum.” Indeed, in a report out in July 2010, Zandi and former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder found that “the stimulus has done what it was supposed to do: end the Great Recession and spur recovery”:

We do not believe it a coincidence that the turnaround from recession to recovery occurred last summer, just as the ARRA was providing its maximum economic benefit. [...] What matters for economic growth is the pace of stimulus spending, which surged from nothing at the start of 2009 to over $100 billion (over $400 billion at an annual rate) in the second quarter. That is a big change in a short period, and it is one major reason why the Great Recession ended and recovery began last summer.

And like Williams noted, the Congressional Budget Office found recently that the Recovery Act “increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise.”

Yglesias

The Disconnect

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm

4564064457_7461a48f2d_m

Reading George Packer’s profile of left-wing Israeli author and intellectual David Grossman I was struck by the disconnect between the Israeli political mainstream and the concrete issues the rest of the world is interested in. First, the critique of Grossman:

Though his moral position is unassailable, Grossman’s political position is increasingly dismissed. The failure of the peace process after 2000 has been a disaster for the Israeli left. The two liberal parties, Labor and Meretz, hold just sixteen of the Knesset’s hundred and twenty seats. The two-state solution is now official government policy, even under the right-wing Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, but the public has less trust or interest in it than at any time since the publication of “The Yellow Wind.” Yehoshua described the contradiction as “a nut covered with chocolate—a sweet official position, a hardening of public opinion. I told David yesterday, ‘The people feel guilty toward the Arabs, and so they hate them.’ ”

Yossi Klein Halevi, a scholar at the left-leaning Shalom Hartman Institute, said that Grossman’s views are more influential abroad than in Israel. “He’s respected morally,” he said. But when Grossman “speaks about the peace process, he has very little credibility,” Halevi said, because he never accounted for the failure of his position after 2000. Halevi associated Grossman’s “desperate naïveté,” his belief that there must be a way to peace if only Israel would change, with Ora’s magical thinking, and also with the famous words of Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism: “If you will it, it is no dream.”

So say Halevi is 100 percent right about this. The reason there’s no peace is that too many Palestinians are bad people, hell-bent on unreasonable demands that make endless violent conflict inevitable. No number of Israeli concessions can create peace.

Now read on:

Every Friday afternoon at four o’clock, the Grossmans join several hundred other Israelis at a traffic circle in the hilly, sparsely built East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Grossman’s maternal grandparents lived there before the 1948 war of independence; during the population transfers that followed, they left for West Jerusalem and Palestinians moved in. Recently, Jews have begun to claim Arab houses in the area, and Sheikh Jarrah has become the epicenter of the battle over settlements in Jerusalem. Grossman is a leader of small weekly demonstrations against the settlers that have been taking place for more than a year.

On a sunstruck Friday in July, Grossman and Michal stood in the middle of a crowd, while two dozen policemen manned barriers at the top of a street. Down the hill, a family of settlers had moved into a two-story compound, conspicuously erecting on the roof an oversized menorah made of orange metal. Across the street, the Palestinian family that had been evicted from the compound was camped under a fig tree. Drummers chanted, “Arabs and Jews do not want to be enemies,” and two protesters unfurled a banner that said, in Arabic and English, “Stop Ethnic Cleansing.” From time to time, a settler’s car inched its way through the crowd. Once, a driver got out and exchanged angry words with demonstrators.

Perhaps it’s naïve to think that if the Israeli state stopped evicting Palestinian families from homes in East Jerusalem that a peaceful resolution of the larger conflict would suddenly be at hand. Indeed, that certainly sounds naïve to me. But at the same time, why should Palestinian families be evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem? It’s simply a mistake to try to reduce everything to a tactical debate.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up