RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Lifting Crude Oil Export Ban Locks In Fossil Fuel Dependency for Decades to Come Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30672"><span class="small">Wenonah Hauter, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:20

Hauter writes: "One year ago this week, Gov. Cuomo banned fracking in New York, listening to the growing movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground. So it's especially disheartening that Congress, through a provision included in the omnibus appropriation, has just lifted the decades-old crude oil export ban - locking us into fossil fuel dependence for decades to come."

Oil port. (photo: Getty)
Oil port. (photo: Getty)


Lifting Crude Oil Export Ban Locks In Fossil Fuel Dependency for Decades to Come

By Wenonah Hauter, EcoWatch

16 December 15

 

ne year ago this week, Gov. Cuomo banned fracking in New York, listening to the growing movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground. So it’s especially disheartening that Congress, through a provision included in the omnibus appropriation, has just lifted the decades-old crude oil export ban—locking us into fossil fuel dependence for decades to come. At a time when we need to be investing in making a rapid transition to 100 percent clean energy, this decision would move us in the opposite direction.

The Democratic leadership traded this ban for a small extension of taxes that support renewable energy. The tax credit for solar will be extended and phased down over five years, with the credit for residential solar eliminated after 2021. The tax credit for wind will be cut each year until it is eliminated in 2020.

The decision by President Obama and Democratic leadership to cave in to the demands of the fossil fuel cartel will harm Americans in order to give oil companies larger profits. Lifting the export ban will give these companies hundreds of billions of dollars in new profits over the next decade, while leading to more drilling and fracking for oil and increased greenhouse gas emissions. We’ll see more oil trains through towns and cities and an armada of Exxon Valdez-sized ships on our oceans.

It has been estimated that lifting the crude oil export ban could lead to an increase in oil production of 3.3 million barrels a day and as many as 7,600 new wells drilled each year. Most of those wells will be fracked. The increases in drilling and fracking could lead to annual increases in greenhouse gas emissions on par with building 135 new coal fired electric power plants.

Instead of giving in to oil industry demands, Congress should be taking bold action investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar and making investments to improve our energy efficiency and expand public transit. Exporting domestic crude oil will hasten climate change, endanger public health, and threaten our air and water in order to give oil executives their number one item on their wish list: billions of dollars in profits. This isn’t the bold leadership we need.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: We Failed to Keep Them Safe Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7122"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 December 2015 12:54

Warren writes: "Day after day, month after month, the shootings keep happening. Mass shootings, drive-by shootings, random shootings. Children shot at school. Women targeted at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Four people shot outside a bar next to Fenway on Thanksgiving. And Congress still does nothing."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: ElizabethWarren.com)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: ElizabethWarren.com)


We Failed to Keep Them Safe

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

16 December 15

 

n December 14, 2012, twenty innocent children and six heroic teachers and staff members were murdered in their classrooms at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That’s 20 children who didn’t have birthday parties this year. 20 children who didn’t get to put a tooth out for the tooth fairy. 20 children who won’t be singing in a holiday pageant this year.

The number of victims is far more than 20. I meet mamas and daddies, sisters and grandmas who have lost children and grandchildren to gun violence – communities of people whose days will forever be marked by loss. I meet them, and I promise we will not forget.

After the massacre at Sandy Hook, it finally felt like we had reached a moment that we could agree to put aside our differences and move toward better gun safety.

The bipartisan Manchin-Toomey bill proposed in the wake of Sandy Hook would have closed the background check loophole for gun shows and Internet sales. It seemed like the very least we could do, really. I had only been in office a few months, but I was optimistic that we had the votes to make it happen.

Then on April 17, 2013, the NRA shut it down. Manchin-Toomey failed.

I stood on the floor of the United States Senate, stunned and appalled. I thought: What has happened to this country? What has happened to this democracy that one interest group can put the entire country at risk? Where is our political courage?

Some states have stepped in, taking action to pass stronger gun legislation. I’m proud that Massachusetts has some of the toughest laws in the country. But strong gun laws in Massachusetts won’t stop someone from going to a gun show in New Hampshire or Maine, states that don’t require a permit or license to buy guns, and bringing those guns across the border. Congress must act.

Day after day, month after month, the shootings keep happening. Mass shootings, drive-by shootings, random shootings. Children shot at school. Women targeted at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Four people shot outside a bar next to Fenway on Thanksgiving.

And Congress still does nothing.

Eleven days ago, the Senate voted on that Manchin-Toomey background check bill once again. The Senate had another chance to learn from its past mistakes, to show its political courage, to take one small step to keep our children and communities safe – and Manchin-Toomey received fewer votes than it did in 2013. In fact, the Senate even defeated an amendment that would have stopped people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

We cannot stand by while the NRA sets the agenda in Washington. So I’d like to ask you to do three things:

1. *Call your senators and your member of Congress.* The NRA is loud in Washington – and we need to be louder. It only takes a minute: A staff assistant will answer the phone. Tell him/her your name, where you’re from, and that you support common-sense gun reform. (If you don’t want to make a call, you can also go to his/her websites and fill out the contact forms.) People in Congress keep track of these calls, so please pick up the phone. (Click here to look up your senators' phone numbers and here to look up your representative's number.)

2. *Talk to your friends and family – especially ones who may not be on this email list.* The majority of Americans – even your Republican relatives and even people who own guns – support background checks. Ask them to call or write their representatives, too. This is how we magnify our voices.

3. *Check to see if your representatives will have any events back home during the holiday break.* If there’s something going on – anything – please show up and remind them that they work for people like you, not the NRA. Ask them, face-to-face, for sensible gun safety laws.

Change is up to us. We need to put some energy into this. We must show that we are as committed to gun safety as the NRA is committed to putting guns in the hands of people who endanger all of us.

Today is the three-year anniversary of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School – an anniversary that will be seared into my brain for as long as I live. It isn’t enough to remember – we need to act.

A new billboard from Stop Handgun Violence is also going up in Boston today. It’s a constant reminder that gun violence in our communities is not inevitable. We can change the laws if we just work hard enough.

I’ll keep fighting for change in Washington – for the children in Newtown, for the children of Massachusetts, and for children and families all across this country.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Nobody on Stage Tonight Will Be President Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 December 2015 11:44

Pierce writes: "Frankly, I wouldn't hire any of these people to watch my car in a valet parking lot, let alone lead the country into what they never miss a chance to call, 'the Third World War.'"

The 5th Republican debate. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The 5th Republican debate. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


FOCUS: Nobody on Stage Tonight Will Be President

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 December 15

 

Even if one of them wins, they won't do what the job really requires.

hen Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That title is rarely—more like never—heard today. It is just "commander in chief," or even "commander in chief of the United States." This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken "for the duration." But those impositions are removed when normal life returns. But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and "the duration" has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever—more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

—Garry Wills, 2007.

I needed to put that on the record because its basic truth was completely lost in a dark land of fear and amid the waving poison ferns in Wolf Blitzer's amygdala. First of all, none of these people will be my commander in chief. None of these people will have the job of keeping me "safe." The first priority of a president is not keeping the country safe. The first priority of a president—indeed, the only priority of a president—is to preserve, protect and defend not me, but the Constitution of the United States. So sitting there, listening to a bunch of people who never served a day in combat talk about how they're going to turn the Middle East into obsidian glass and how they will keep me safe, it was hard not to fall off my chair. Frankly, I wouldn't hire any of these people to watch my car in a valet parking lot, let alone lead the country into what they never miss a chance to call, "the Third World War." Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio?

Trump?

You see where I'm going here.

When he was a "federal prosecutor," Chris Christie made more ferocious war on his expense account than he did against the "people who want to kill us." (His big trophy case, the Fort Dix Six, is one of those strange half-entrapment cases.) He also doesn't seem to like the Senate very much. Marco Rubio, continuing his ongoing effort to fill out a grown-up person's suit, postured and promised us (again) a 500-ship Navy to keep us safe from the people who drive their pick-up trucks across the ocean to attack us. He also puffed himself up and declined to talk about classified information on national television. (This assumes, of course, that he even knows any, given the fact that he seems to have developed a severe allergy to something in the  room where the Senate Intelligence Committee meets.) Ben Carson said something very weird about being a neurosurgeon in connection with carpet-bombing Syria. (I'm not kidding.) It's a very good thing that we really are not electing a commander-in-chief for the whole country because none of these guys is up to the job.

There's a serious lightweight problem among even the Republican first-teamers. Trump's proposals are a couple dozen sheets to the wind, but they're just more vulgar expressions of things all of the other candidates are proposing. (Both Cruz and Dr. Ben—The Blade—Carson blamed "political correctness" for killing people.) Most conspicuously, Rubio is glued to his notion of being a geopolitical sage, especially on the subject of raising a Sunni army to fight Daesh on the ground. Blitzer asked him, quite logically, precisely how he was going to do that, since nobody over there seems to be too enthusiastic about the prospect. "Well," Rubio replied, "They're going to have to be worked on."

Gotcha.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The 10 Greatest Moments From the Fifth GOP Debate Print
Wednesday, 16 December 2015 09:50

Berney writes: "While Bush is trying to jump about five places in line by going directly after Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz know they have the best shots at knocking the frontrunner off his perch. But first each has to beat the other."

Republican U.S. presidential candidates businessman Donald Trump (L) and former Governor Jeb Bush (R) are seen debating on video monitors in the debate press room during the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, December 15, 2015. (photo: David Becker/Reuters)
Republican U.S. presidential candidates businessman Donald Trump (L) and former Governor Jeb Bush (R) are seen debating on video monitors in the debate press room during the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, December 15, 2015. (photo: David Becker/Reuters)


The 10 Greatest Moments From the Fifth GOP Debate

By Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone

16 December 15

 

1. Jeb Bush and Donald Trump Fight to the Death

Bush: "So Donald, you know, is great at — at the one-liners, but he's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president."

Jeb Bush's campaign is flailing, and he believes attacking frontrunner Donald Trump is his only shot at clawing his way back to the top. He is utterly disgusted with Trump's rise — and who can blame him?

On Tuesday night Bush said Trump lacked seriousness, and his approach to beating ISIS was "just crazy." And Trump's response — as always — was that he's beating Bush in the polls. "He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign," Trump pointed out, correctly. "It's been a total disaster."

And for that, Jeb doesn't have a comeback.

2. John Kasich Wanted to Change the Paris Talks' Agenda

Kasich: "And when I see they have a climate conference over in Paris, they should have been talking about destroying ISIS because they are involved in virtually every country, you know, across this world." 

Nearly 200 nations just signed a historic accord to fight climate change, a global challenge that has the power to devastate every country on the planet. On a stage full of global warming deniers, John Kasich, who likes to present himself as the serious candidate, said we should have canceled the Paris talks — years in the planning and execution — and replaced it with a conference to discuss ISIS.

It was an idea so crazy it could have come from Donald Trump.

3. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Go at Each Other's Throats

Cruz: "...they are knowingly false and they are, in fact, Alinsky-like attacks like Barack Obama."

While Bush is trying to jump about five places in line by going directly after Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz know they have the best shots at knocking the frontrunner off his perch. But first each has to beat the other.

They hit each other multiple times tonight, but the defining moment was an early sparring over surveillance: Cruz voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act that eliminated the metadata collection program; Rubio voted for it. What mattered wasn't their positions — they're both in favor of surveilling the American people to an uncomfortable degree — but Cruz's assertion that Rubio was lying about both the bill and Cruz's position. He would do that throughout the night. 

4. Yes, Donald Trump Really Wants to Shut Down Parts of the Internet

Trump: "What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing."

Trump literally wants to shut down parts of the Internet to defeat ISIS. Let's ignore the part where that actually makes it tougher to track what terrorists want to do. Let's ignore the gross violation of the First Amendment. 

Let's instead talk about how Donald Trump thinks the Internet is a magic room full of on/off switches, some of which are labeled THE PART THAT ISIS IS USING. Speaking of magic plans to defeat ISIS…

5. Ted Cruz Wants to Use Magic Bombs to Kill ISIS Dead

Cruz: "You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer pushed Cruz to answer whether he would "carpet bomb" the ISIS capital of Raqqa, which is still home to hundreds of thousands of civilians (in case you were wondering where refugees come from), and Cruz insisted he would only carpet bomb ISIS troops, not the city....

...the same city full of ISIS troops. Maybe he'll use magic carpet bombs that somehow distinguish between good guys and bad guys.

6. Donald Trump Will Murder Terrorists' Families

Trump: "I would be very, very firm with families."

It takes a special sort of commitment to medieval justice to go after the families of criminals for their sins, but that's exactly what Donald Trump is promising to do as president. He has promised to kill the families of terrorists, and when faced with a question tonight calling him on this extremely insane plan, he confirmed that he would go after innocents just for being related to terrorists. 

The audience applauded him for it.

7. Ben Carson Will Bomb Kids to Death Because They Didn't Like Getting Brain Surgery

Carson: "They're not happy about it, believe me. And they don't like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me."

Right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, who for some reason CNN has allowed to ask questions at two presidential debates, asked Carson if being a nice guy who has cured children he could as commander and chief order bombings that could kill children by the thousands. (He didn't ask if it would be a good idea to order such bombings. It would not.)

Carson said kids didn't like it when he said he'd have to open up their skulls to pick out pieces of their tiny brains, but later they loved him. I'm not sure how that was relevant, because I don't think the children he rained fire down from the sky upon would love him for that.

8. Donald Trump Is a Filthy Liberal

Trump: "We could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now."

Donald Trump thinks we should have spent the money on the Iraq War on our infrastructure instead. He also said we would have been better off using that money on our schools and hospitals.

He's … exactly right?

9. Ben Carson Uses All His Foreign Policy Flashcards in One Answer

Carson: "I think we can use that in order to keep Putin contained, because he is a one-horse show. Energy. And we have an abundance of energy, but we have archaic energy exportation rules. We need to get rid of those, allow ourselves to really make Europe dependent on us and other parts of the world dependent on us for energy. Put him back in his little box where he belongs.

The question was about North Korea.

10. Donald Trump Is the Scariest Person on the Planet

Trump: "Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important. And one of the things that I'm frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you're going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important."

Donald Trump was asked what his top priority would be in maintaining our nuclear triad, the three tools we have to deliver nuclear weapons (air-, land-, and sea-based systems, essentially).

Trump had no idea what the triad was or even what a basic priority for a president should be when it comes to our nuclear arsenal. Trump is famous for skipping the specifics, but he reached a new terrifying level of vagueness on this question. We should trust him with our nuclear arsenal because he opposed the Iraq War? 

His answer was rambling, incoherent, and honestly terrifying. It should remind people that putting the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the hands of a man who can't muster a more intelligent statement than "I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me" is perhaps an ill-advised idea.

That answer should have been the end of his campaign. But one thing we've learned is that nothing Donald Trump says has any consequences for Donald Trump's quest for the presidency.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Dearborn Muslims Protested ISIS, and You Can Probably Guess What Happened Next Print
Wednesday, 16 December 2015 09:46

Singal writes: "No way - the fever-swamp internet couldn't possibly be passing around a photo of an anti-ISIS march as a pro-ISIS march, right?"

Anti-ISIS protest. (photo: Illinois Review)
Anti-ISIS protest. (photo: Illinois Review)


Dearborn Muslims Protested ISIS, and You Can Probably Guess What Happened Next

By Jesse Singal, New York Magazine

16 December 15

 

ast night, a Facebook correspondent messaged me an alarming note: “Hey Jesse, thought you might be interested in what's not being reported in the news. This is Dearborn, Michigan, right after the terrorist attack in California. What flags do you see flying here?” The link was to this Facebook post, a photo of what appeared to be a procession of flag-bearing people marching down a street on a gray day, though they’re mostly obscured by cars, so you can’t really tell what’s going on, with scary text reading, "This is Dearborn Michigan after the radical Islamic attack in California ! These are Isis flags and Isis supporters folks but the media has not reported because of politically correctness.” It had been shared almost 3,700 times, and I also found a tweet with the same photo that had been retweeted more than 1,300 times.

I assured the guy who had messaged me that if ISIS were openly demonstrating in Dearborn (which has one of the highest proportions of Arab-Americans in the country and which is therefore a frequent subject of unhinged rumors about Muslims), “the media” would be all over it, and that this was probably false — but that I’d look into it.

A reverse-image search on TinEye quickly revealed that this rumor's thousands of shares on Facebook and Twitter had caught the attention of the rumor-investigating site Snopes. In a post there, Kim LaCapria concludes that, no, there was not an ISIS demonstration in Dearborn. In fact, based on the timing of the photo and a couple of other nuggets of evidence, she makes a pretty strong — albeit circumstantial — case that if the photo’s real, it’s of an anti-ISIS march that took place in Dearborn on November 27, during which Muslims gathered to raise their collective voices against the terror group.

No way — the fever-swamp internet couldn't possibly be passing around a photo of an anti-ISIS march as a pro-ISIS march, right? Surely there has to be some boundary point in the national conversation marked with a sign reading "Rumors about Muslims this crazy and fundamentally wrong, even the most terrified and ill-informed Americans won't believe"?

Alas, if there is a boundary, we haven't yet found it. Some light web-sleuthing reveals that the photo is, indeed, of an anti-ISIS rally.

For someone unfamiliar with Dearborn, the only real hint as to where the photo was taken is on the right, on a sign affixed to the building with the blue roof. If you look closely, you can make out, just barely, the word microcomputer.

If you search on Google Maps for "microcomputers near dearborn," you get a spot called Micro Computers at 15417 Warren Avenue. As for the demonstrators, a local news report noted that they gathered at the Karbalaa Islamic Center and then “walked together to nearby Ford Woods Park.” Here are the options for what that route would have looked like, according to Google Maps, given the Karbalaa Islamic Center’s listed address, with the computer shop indicated as well:

Yep, they marched right past it. And if you noodle around on Street View, you can roughly re-create the shot that's circulating online (click this link to jump there), which was apparently taken on West Warren Avenue, looking east across Greenfield Road.

The relevant Google Maps routes has the protesters coming toward the camera and then hitching a left (or going right, from the photographer's perspective), crossing Warren, and heading south on Greenfield, which seems to be what's happening in the original photo.

So, to recap: American Muslims in Dearborn banded together to vocally and visibly protest ISIS, and within a week and a half, parts of the right-wing internet were circulating a photo of this demonstration as proof that American Muslims in Dearborn were openly supporting ISIS.

This is what happens when the conversation about a minority group flies completely off the rails.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 Next > End >>

Page 2222 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN