LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The 10,000-page study found that the three pesticides under review—chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion—pose a risk to roughly 1,800 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act. The evaluations were compiled by federal scientists over the last four years and were expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used.
But lawyers representing Dow and two other makers of the organophosphates sent letters to the heads of three cabinet agencies last week, asking that the study be "set aside" and saying that the results are flawed.
"Our government's own scientists have already documented the grave danger these chemicals pose to people and endangered species," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Unable to win on the facts, Dow is now adopting the same disgraceful tactics honed by the tobacco industry and the climate deniers to try to discredit science and scrap reasonable conservation measures that will protect our most endangered animals and plants."
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
According to a Prison Policy Initiative analysis, "More than 191,000 driver's licenses are suspended every year for drug offenses unrelated to driving."
However, the Drug Policy Alliance reported this month that an effort is underway in Congress to repeal the onerous federal law that has caused this destructive process in a number of states: U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke (D-TX-16) has introduced bipartisan legislation with Representatives Justin Amash (R-MI-3), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI-5), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), and Mia Love (R-UT-4) that would repeal a 26-year-old federal law that mandates states to automatically suspend driver's licenses for anyone convicted of a drug offense or risk losing federal highway aid money.
Since this mandate was adopted in 1991, 38 states [and the District of Columbia] have opted-out, demonstrating that the policy is counterproductive.
A 2015 Boston Globe article describe the hardships the law has caused:
The 26-year-old law was designed, in part, to deter drug use.
There's little evidence it has served as a deterrent. However, it has left tens of thousands of former convicts struggling to find work and do other basic things, like get to the grocery store. On a snow-encrusted day last winter, [Edwin] Melendez had to bundle his infant son to his chest and set out to the hospital on foot when he feared the boy was catching pneumonia.
JOHN LAFORGE FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
You have to hand it to the nuclear industry for socializing costs and privatizing profits. Last year, lobbyists for operators of dirty, deadbeat old reactors won massive public subsidies -- bailouts -- in New York and Illinois that will keep decrepit, retirement-age reactors from shutting down.
Instead of turning off the rattle traps -- and investing public funds in renewables – state-sponsored electric ratepayer handouts in the two states will total $10 billion over 12 years. Remember Reagan's mythical "welfare queens"? These utilities are welfare gods, propping up decrepit reactors by buying entire state legislatures that in turn legalize monthly electric bill increases.
In New York, the FitzPatrick reactor (Entergy Corp) and Nine Mile Point station (Exelon Corp) join the Ginna reactor in foisting rate hikes on customers, giveaways that will keep the failed reactors spewing "allowable" radioactive emissions to the air and water indefinitely.
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Sometimes our tame and compliant media upchucks a piece of truth. For instance:
"American officials had predicted that the missile strike would result in a major shift in Assad's calculus, but the US attack appeared to be symbolic in reality.Within 24 hoursof the strike, monitoring groups reported that warplanes were again taking off from the bombed Shayrat air base, this time to attack Islamic State positions."
This paragraph in a Washington Post story refers, of course, to the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles Donald Trump earned such plaudits for launching against Syria on April 7. Suddenly he was our commander in chief, waging war -- or, well . . . waging "symbolic reality," whatever that means, at a cost (for the missiles) of maybe $83 million and change.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The advocacy organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is attempting an innovative method of challenging the Trump administration's denial of climate change: It has filed a lawsuit against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, demanding that he produce one shred of evidence that climate change is not primarily caused by humans. PEER is simultaneously pursuing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for Pruitt to produce documents supporting his claims that global warming is "natural."
As quoted in a PEER news release announcing the actions:
"This lawsuit tells Mr. Pruitt to put or shut up – produce his evidence or stop spouting deceptive climate pseudo-science,” stated PEER Staff Counsel Adam Carlesco who filed suit after EPA failed to produce the requested materials within FOIA’s statutory deadlines. “His confirmation as EPA Administrator does not entitle Mr. Pruitt to ignore existing agency research and proclaim his own set of alternative facts....”
“Mr. Pruitt spoke on television in his official capacity and must do so in a manner that honestly represents EPA’s scientific findings,” added Carlesco, noting that any other EPA employee would be subject to disciplinary action for presenting personal views as official policy. “Even if Mr. Pruitt is presenting his personal opinion, he must specify that he is not speaking for the agency – a disclaimer he did not make.”
In fact, Reuters reports that the EPA's own ombudsman is investigating a falsehood recently spewed by Pruitt.
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Women's organizations are excoriating him. Advertisers are bailing on him. The president is defending him. Glenn Beck says he "deserves the benefit of the doubt." Viewers are flocking to him. Religious Right leaders are silent. So it has gone since the beginning of the month when The New York Times' Emily Steel and Michael Schmidt reported that Bill O'Reilly, the host of the Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" – the No. 1 program in cable news – had paid out $13 million to five women "in exchange for agreeing to not pursue litigation or speak about their accusations against him."
And, to add one more excruciatingly odd factoid to the above, O'Reilly's new book, called Old School, co-authored with Bruce Feirstein, and a defense of traditional family values, is #1 on The New York Times' "Combined Print and E-Book Best Sellers" list. The book is also doing quite well at Amazon, where, as of Sunday, April 16th, it is #10 in Books, #1 in Books, "Nationalism," "Public Affairs & Policy," and "Conservatism & Liberalism."
According to The New York Times' Alexandra Alter, Old School: Life in the Sane Lane (Henry Holt and Co.) "includes advice on how men should treat women respectfully, not as sex objects."
The "Product Description" at billoreilly.com, offers the following: "Those crusading against Old School now have a name: Snowflakes. You may have seen them on cable TV whining about social injustice and income inequality. You may have heard them cheering Bernie Sanders as he suggested the government pay for almost everything. The Snowflake movement is proud and loud, and they don't like Old School grads."
LAWRENCE WITTNER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Political parties on the far right are today enjoying a surge of support that they have not experienced since their heyday in the 1930s.
This phenomenon is particularly striking in Europe, where massive migration, sluggish economic growth, and terrorism have stirred up virulent nationalism, hatred of immigrants, and Islamophobia. Trumpeting these sentiments, parties like France's National Front (led by Marine Le Pen), Britain's United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP, led by Nigel Farage), Netherlands' Party for Freedom (led by Geert Wilders), Italy's Northern League (led by Matteo Salvini), Austria's Freedom Party, Alternative for Germany, and others have become major political players.
Only one of these rising rightwing parties is usually referred to as fascist: Greece's Golden Dawn. Exploiting Greece's economic crisis and, especially, hatred of refugees and other migrants, Golden Dawn has used violent nationalism and the supposed racial superiority of Greeks to become Greece's third-largest party. Its spokesman, Elias Kasidiaris, is known for sporting a swastika on his shoulder and for reading passages from the anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to parliament. The party also employs gangs of black-shirted thugs who beat up immigrants.
Although the other far right parties strive for greater respectability, they also provide reminders of past fascist movements. Addressing a Northern League rally, Salvini wore a black shirt while supporters waved neo-Nazi symbols and photos of Benito Mussolini. Alternative for Germany has revived words and phrases once employed by the Nazis.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The conflict minerals rule was required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law and is supported by human rights groups that want companies to tell investors if their products contain tantalum, tin, gold or tungsten mined from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), in the hope that such disclosures will curb funding to armed groups.
Business groups have contended that it forces companies to furnish politically charged information that is irrelevant to making investment decisions and that it costs too much for companies to trace the source of minerals through the supply chain.
The National Center for Policy Analysis, a pro-business "free market" think tank, was thrilled that companies and shareholders will no longer have to reveal the use of blood-stained minerals to shareholders and the public.
BILL MCKIBBEN FOR ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Reposted from EcoWatch.com
Donald Trump is so spectacularly horrible that it's hard to look away (especially now that he's discovered bombs). But precisely because everyone's staring gape-mouthed in his direction, other world leaders are able to get away with almost anything. Don't believe me? Look one nation north, at Justin Trudeau.
Look all you want, in fact—he sure is cute, the planet's only sovereign leader who appears to have recently quit a boy band. And he's mastered so beautifully the politics of inclusion: compassionate to immigrants, insistent on including women at every level of government. Give him great credit where it's deserved: in lots of ways he's the anti-Trump, and it's no wonder Canadians swooned when he took over.
But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he's a brother to the old orange guy in DC.
JONATHAN D. SIMON FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
When Senator Mitch McConnell pushed the button on the "nuclear option" last week, putting an end to the filibuster as a tactic for blocking confirmation of nominees to the US Supreme Court, some may well have wondered whether the Republican majority leader would one day, when the political shoe was on the other foot, come to regret the action. But McConnell -- whose professed devotion to the hallowed traditions of the Senate yielded politely to his unrivalled strategic and tactical acumen in the service of partisan causes -- had little reason for worry.
Here's why. In establishing a bicameral legislative branch, the Founding Fathers devised the Senate as a body of geographic rather than demographic representation. That is, its numbers would reflect equal representation for each state regardless of how disproportional to population that representation might turn out to be. This at-the-time novel (and quite deliberately anti-democratic) concept, which has had various interesting effects throughout our history, is now crystallizing into what may well prove a blow to our democracy more serious than any intended or imagined by the Founders. As Senator McConnell is doubtless aware, half the population of the United States lives in the nine largest states and is represented by 18 senators; the other half gets to elect 82 senators. As McConnell also knows well, the hyper-polarization and lines of division of our era are such that solid "red" states abound, predominating among the lower-population states that elect four-fifths of the Senate. He can therefore rest easy in the knowledge that, unless those fundamental factors of American politics undergo an extremely unlikely sea change, the Democrats will not regain control of a Senate majority during his tenure and probably long after.
But, one might object, they are so close, needing a pick-up of a mere three seats to turn the trick. This is an illusion. With every advantage in 2016 (the Republicans had to defend 24 seats to the Democrats' 10), the Democrats nonetheless fell short. In 2018 they will be paying the piper, defending 25 seats (including the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats) to the Republicans' eight. Trump's many failings notwithstanding, virtually no analysts see 2018 as a Senate pick-up year for the Democrats. Beyond that, as long as our nation remains starkly divided, both politically and geographically -- as long as Election Night maps flash a great dollop of red fringed with a thin garnish of blue -- the Republicans will be playing with house money in their quest to maintain control of the Senate.