Just as states with progressive lawmakers and activists have themselves initiated innovative programs over a wide range of issues, state-based progressive blogs have helped provide us with a point of view, inside information and often an edgy voice that we just don't get from the traditional media. This week in progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching.
Inclusion of a diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement or endorsement of its contents.
At Appalachian Voices, Thom Kay writes—What will Obama’s legacy be on mountaintop removal?
The Obama administration has taken steps to limit mountaintop removal coal mining pollution in Appalachia. The president and agency officials have also made quite a few promises. But mountaintop removal continues, so what have they actually done?
The Alliance for Appalachia, a coalition of groups including Appalachian Voices, just released a Grassroots Progress Report examining the administration’s successes and shortfalls in dealing with mountaintop removal. There have been successes, to be sure, but as the report clearly demonstrates, there have been many failures.
Large scale surface coal mining is still a huge problem in Central Appalachia. Although the pace has slowed due to the declining coal economy, many new permits are issued every year. In 2013 Virginia issued 9 new surface mining permits and 2 acreage expansions, West Virginia issued 25 new permits, and Kentucky issued 30. Only Tennessee issued no new permits. - Grassroots Progress Report
|
The report covers not only the scale of ongoing mining, but paints a clear picture of the costs that mountaintop removal continues to have on Appalachian communities. The poor economic outcomes and human health problems associated with mountaintop removal have not improved over the past six years. These issues are closely linked, and neither can improve without action from the White House. [...]
The report is not simply a list of grievances, however. There are four policy recommendations as well.
More excerpts from progressive state blogs can be found below the orange gerrymander.
At Plunderbund of Ohio, Abe writes—The Era Of Right-Wing NoBamans:
As we’re sure you’re aware of by now, the White House is in the merciless throes of the NoBama plague that has had everyone on edge. For six years, the president has faced assaults from the NoBama GOP that will feverishly grow for another couple of years. Even the party’s newly minted African-American Democrat-turned-Republican , Ben Carson, a doctor from South Carolina of all places, has added to his conservative star power by accusing Obama of presiding over worsening race relations,which takes a lot of white guys off the hook, right?
Keep an eye on him. He’s an author, essayist and opponent of Obamacare who figures to get royal treatment by his party. There’s already a “Run, Ben, Run” national presidential draft movement under way.
At
Juanita Jean's of Texas,
Juanita Jean writes—
The Last Time Texas Fought Over States Rights …:
Ya know, it seems to me that Republicans in the Texas legislature would remember that Texas has not been real successful in wars against the union over states rights.
Republicans are big on States but not so much on United.
Texas Republican Representative Dan Flynn, an old rich white guy from East Texas (heavy sigh), has decided that we are going to set up a panel of 14 legislators to vote on which federal laws we will follow and which ones we won’t. It’s called nullification.
Flynn wants this committee to be bipartisan. So, only 8 of the 14 members can be Republicans. That’s fair.
As James Madison warned early in American history, nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” because it would render each obligation a state’s citizens owe to the union as a whole optional. In effect, nullification is a way to secede from the union one law at a time.
Remember that part about Republicans wanting to follow the Constitution? They are having second thoughts about that. Assuming they have any thought at all.
At
The Prairie Blog of North Dakota,
Jim Fuglie writes—
Let’s Hear It For The Good Guys: The EPA:
Well, there probably aren’t a lot of North Dakotans who think they’d like to see a greater presence by the Environmental Protection Agency in our state right now. That’s unfortunate, because there are a lot of environmental problems here that aren’t being addressed. But fortunately, one of those who would welcome it, in the form of Special Agents from the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division, is our United States Attorney, Tim Purdon. Here’s why.
Nearly three years ago now, a company named Halek Operating, after hitting a dry hole in an oil drilling venture southwest of Dickinson, on the fringe of the North Dakota Badlands, turned around and began using the hole to illegally pump toxic saltwater back into the ground. This was no ordinary saltwater. It was flowback water produced by the fracking process, water which contains a host of fracking chemicals and is very, very salty. It is multiple times more salty than sea water, and much more toxic than oil itself, if spilled.
After inspectors from the state’s Oil and Gas Division busted the company, a fellow named Nathan Garber, who had actually done the dumping of the saltwater, was charged in state court with illegally putting more than 800,000 gallons of saltwater into the ground, threatening Dickinson’s drinking water source. Garber had done the dumping on behalf of his boss, Texan Jason Halek, who owns Halek Operating. Halek Operating was fined $1.5 million in a civil suit. Interestingly, during the dumping process, Garber thought it was such a fine way to make money—disposing of unwanted saltwater from other well-drillers’ operations—that he bought the well from Jason Halek for an undisclosed amount of money, so he could keep the profits from the illegal acts for himself. Subsequently, Halek then claimed he didn’t own the well, which is how he avoided a felony charge, and got off with only a fine, which he does not intend to pay.
At
Blue Virginia,
lowkell writes—
National Journal Article Explains Why Koch Brothers' War on Clean Energy is Failing in the States:
As we know, the billionaire Koch brothers and their fossil fuel allies have been waging relentless war against clean energy for years now. Yet, as this fascinating article in National Journal explains, while the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has seen some successes at the national level in fighting clean energy, they are larging striking out in the states. Why is this the case? A few key points from the National Journal article answer that question.
• ...in statehouses nationwide-even those where Republicans are running the show-the GOP lacks the lockstep march on energy policy that is coming to define the national party. Certainly, a powerful faction working to undo the green-energy laws has swept through states over the past decade, but as in Kansas, their repeal efforts have repeatedly failed." [...]
• "Why hasn't AFP had greater success in the states?...state legislators-by definition-are more local in their focus, and that puts them face-to-face with renewable-energy projects in their districts. In many parts of the country, red states included, wind and solar energy are already big business. They're not ExxonMobil or Koch Industries big, but they have lobbying muscle and business interests of their own, and that's enough to make state lawmakers think twice before going against them, even if that means standing against AFP." [...]
In sum, the National Journal article demonstrates that no matter how much money fossil fuel interests spend to attack clean energy, it's difficult for them to win those battles due to wind and solar's strong, bipartisan support across America. Of course, that doesn't mean the fossil fuel folks are going to give up, which means that cleantech must stay on top of this situation.
At
RI Future.org,
Bob Plain writes—
Ferguson protesters’ tactic of choice: shut down highways:
It touched a nerve when activists took to Interstate 95 Tuesday night and shut it down for at least 15 minutes.
Blocking traffic has nothing to do with racial injustice, some said. Others worried that an ambulance might be delayed in route to the hospital. It’s plainly dangerous to both protesters and motorists and everyone feels a little uneasy that a few dozen otherwise peaceful people can bring the busiest highway in the nation to a screeching halt.
The tactic drew a sharp rebuke from some—many of whom are not otherwise receptive to addressing racially-charged issues—but also managed to propel the protest onto the front page of the Providence Journal and it was highlighted by nearly every local news outlet. As a protest tool, it’s hard to argue it didn’t accomplish it’s objective—which was to call attention to the Ferguson ruling, racial inequality and police brutality.
And it happened all over the country. From San Diego to Providence, police arrested hundreds of people who took to highways protesting the Ferguson ruling.
At
Green Mountain Daily of Vermont,
Sue Prent writes—
Taking the Smart Out of Science:
Just a week after the election, while the Senate was still nominally in Democratic control, the House was already pressing the imaginary Republican mandate as far as they could.
Passage of H.R. 1422 is one example.
H.R.1422 effectively strips independent scientific expertise from the E.P.A.'s information toolbox and replaces it with captive industrial lobbying.
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. |
Only in the Neverland of Congress could this seem like a reasonable thing to do.
In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in "advisory activities" that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn't clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research. |
I guess that, "If you don't like the message, change the messenger."
The "messenger" that the House has just voted to empower is industrial pollution.
This is unsurprising when you consider that those who really control today's Republican party plan to eliminate the EPA entirely at their first opportunity.
At
The Seminole Democrat of Florida,
Independent Thinker writes—
Two Down ... (No, Make That Three):
Rick Scott hasn't even officially started his second term yet, but already, he's down one cabinet position. This time it was his head of Corrections, Michael Crews. Though it was billed as a retirement, it seems kind of funny that it happened just as a collection of scandals closed in on Scott's crew member. You know, things like inmate gangs led by prison guards taking over a prison in the Pandhandle, multiple inmate deaths like this one at the hands of sadistic guards, a health care privatization scheme that has a couple of corporate donors of Scott's doing things like treating bone cancer with ibuprofen, a whistleblower suit against Crews and Scott....just another ho hum day for the Scott administration.
Less publicized was the departure of Herschel Vinyard of DEP, who never met a polluter he didn't like.
And now, just a day after I first wrote this ... Scott's DOT secretary resigned, also under a cloud of scandal.
So if you thought Scott's second term would be cleaner than the first, it looks like you were wrong. Instead we can expect more of the same, as Scott guts state agencies to fund corporate tax breaks for corporations like Colt Manufacturing that still haven't brought jobs here after nearly 4 years. (In fact, get this ... something I just discovered while writing this...now it looks like Colt is in danger of going belly-up. Now that was a great investment of your tax dollars, wasn't it?)
At
Hillbilly Report of Kentucky,
Berry Craig writes—
The elephant is still there:
“Some black political leaders think Democratic candidates who distanced themselves from President Barack Obama sapped enthusiasm among African-Americans in states where they anchor the party's base,” writes Bill Barrow of the Associated Press.
He cited Sen. Kay Hagan’s narrow defeat in North Carolina, Michelle Nunn’s near-landslide loss in Georgia, and the plight of Mary Landrieu, who faces a tough runoff election in Louisiana next month.
In Kentucky, Democratic hopeful Alison Lundergan Grimes also fled from the president. Sen. Mitch McConnell handily defeated her.
Barrow added that a larger turnout among African Americans by itself wouldn’t have added up to Democratic triumphs in Georgia or Louisiana because 3 out of 4 white Georgians voted against Nunn and more than 4 out of 5 Louisiana whites voted against Landrieu.
Grimes likely would have come up short, too. But I’ve heard some Kentucky Democrats wonder if Grimes depressed the African America turnout to some extent by keeping the president at arm’s length and especially by refusing to say if she voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
In any event, Linda Wilkins-Daniels, an officer in the North Carolina Democratic Party's Black Caucus, told Barrow that Democratic candidates missed an opportunity to use the president to tell a success story and to make political hay off differences with Republicans on issues like the minimum wage, financial regulation, student loans and health care.
At
Blue Mass Group,
Bob_Neer writes—
Warren splits Democratic Party into Republican and Democratic wings:
The Boston Globe lays it out about as clearly as reading between the lines will allow in Jessica Meyers’ piece “Critics assail Warren’s bid to block nominee for Treasury: Backlash tests ability to influence party policies,” a review of Warren’s struggle for the proposition that Wall Street millionaires should not have responsibility for regulating their fellow Wall Street millionaires, as evidenced by her opposition to Treasury Department nominee Antonio Weiss.
On the one hand, Senator Warren: “‘All of my objections to Weiss’s nomination are substantive, including the concern about his Wall Street background,’ Warren said in an interview, offering one of her strongest defenses yet. ‘The administration already has plenty of Wall Street executives to make sure that their views are represented in economic policy discussions ... that is what this is all about. It’s trying to get some balance.’”
On the other hand, “Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who will lead the Senate Finance Committee when Republicans gain power next month, said he leans heavily toward him.” Allied with Senator Hatch on this issue: the Obama administration, the Washington Post editorial board (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos), and NYT reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin, who makes his living covering Wall Street millionaires.
A key point: no candidate is likely to win the Democratic nomination for president without the support of the Democratic wing of the party. Barack Obama schooled Hillary Clinton on that principle in 2008 (and, impressively, reiterated it for an audience of one—himself—in his uncontested 2012 renomination). Jim Webb, Joe Biden, and any other possible Democrat contender is well aware of that history. If Warren sticks to her guns, which she almost always does, Weiss will likely join Larry “$135,000 from Goldman Sachs for a speech” Summers in the pile of former bankers given a polite, but firm, reality check by the popular senator.
At
Michigan Liberal,
Eric B. writes—
Four more fears: The thing from last century:
A few months ago, Michigan's finest legal mind—along with the office of our benevolent overlord Rick Michigan—sent a letter to the city commission of Mount Pleasant advising them that if the city voted to decriminalize marijuana that literally all hell would break loose. Hippies would riot in the streets, the police would be powerless and order would be restored by state troopers and federal agents enforcing state and federal Drug Wars laws. Eventually, someone got around to asking the local police what would happen. The Mt. Pleasant police public information officer said, "Not a hell of a lot," because of the way drugs are already handled locally. A prominent local attorney who does criminal defense said basically the same thing, and everyone concluded that once again Michigan's finest legal mind was full of shit and the town voted to decriminalize marijuana.
As you can well imagine, the resulting Armaggedon has those of us left living envying the dead.
At
Nebraska Watchdog,
Deena Winter writes—
Nebraska governor denies pressuring parole board:
Gov. Dave Heineman denied pressuring the Nebraska Parole Board into paroling more prisoners as the prison population swelled in recent years.
Last week, parole board chairwoman Esther Casmer told a panel of lawmakers investigating prison scandals that she and the parole board were pressured into releasing more prisoners. She said former corrections director Bob Houston routinely stopped by her office to remind her of his goal of paroling 168 people per month — turning the parole board into an extension of the corrections department rather than the independent gatekeeper it’s supposed to be, by law.
HOT SEAT: Gov. Dave Heineman testifies before a legislative committee investigating the state’s prison problems in late October. The governor denied pressuring the parole board into releasing more prisoners.
Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop’s staff compiled statistics showing the number of paroles spiked from 982 in 2009 to 1,764 in 2013 and furloughs increased from 22 to 260.
Casmer said she felt pressure from Houston—who made it clear he had permission from his superiors to push out more prisoners—and also the governor’s chief of staff, Larry Bare, who once told her to worry more about not paroling enough people.
But the governor said she should have come to him if she was feeling that way.