Mindfahhhhhk

Death Throes

The Democrats' Political Suicide

Michael Brenner  Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations; Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh

For six years the Democrats have been bent on committing political suicide. Or so it seems. President Barack Obama has been the point man for this bizarre self-immolation. That period represents the culmination of a long 30 year exercise in political obtuseness that has seen a steady estrangement from the party's roots and a fatal mimicking of their Republican rivals. 2010 saw the first fruits of the project. Despite every plank in the traditional GOP program being exposed as rotten and the cause of national disasters at home and abroad, the Democrats under White House leadership contrived to allow the opposition to paint them as the problem. What should have been 1934 became 1994. Now the party has had both wrists slashed as it awaits morosely and impotently for the coup de grace in 2016.
Yet, party leaders react with surprise. They beat their breasts and gnash their teeth -- how on earth could this have happened? Who could have predicted this debacle?
This bizarre tale knows no precedent in American political history. The explanation, though, is readily apparent for those willing to look at the record. The formula did not require anything as exotic as hemlock; rather the more prosaic ingredients were imbibed gradually. The most toxic have been these.
One, alienate your core constituencies. That includes reneging on a pledge to help the trade unions; launch a campaign of vilification against school teachers -- from kindergarten through college; attack civil liberties protections; commit to reductions in Social Security and Medicare; stiff the environmentalists. In short, do to them in a calculated way what a Republican president would do instinctively.
Two, curry favor with your party's traditional enemies: Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Christian Right, the energy and industrial agriculture trusts. That has the dual effect of blunting your message and blurring your image while emboldening the objects of your favors to demand even more.
Three, permit the Republicans in Congress to exploit to the fullest their irresponsible tactics by never denouncing them for what they are or moving to challenge them on their own electoral turf. As a corollary, go along with the coy designation of the Tea Party controlled radical reactionary Republican Party as self-styled "conservatives."
Four, enable the Republicans to shape public discourse by monopolizing the airways and media. Democratic silence, timidity, defensiveness and evasion have given the Republicans the free run of the playing field. On this score, the party's leadership has been abject -- the president above all. Endless visits to daytime TV shows to schmooze about nothing in particular undercut respect for the presidency, neutralize the advantage of the incumbency and motivate the public to tune out or denigrate important messages. Mr. Obama seems oblivious to the obvious truth that most of the country stopped paying attention to what he says years ago.
At a time when Americans feel more discontent and view their prospects more darkly than on any occasion since the depths of the Great Depression, the Democrats have defaulted. They offer no interpretation that conforms to their bedrock principles; they offer no narrative that fits the pieces into a comprehensible whole; they offer no vision for the future. Instead, they have adapted themselves to the Republican narrative and Republican motifs. They present no robust defense of government as the people's instrument for meeting communal needs and wants. Rather, they incline toward the assumption that government and public programs should be viewed skeptically.
Privatization has been taken aboard without critical scrutiny; the White House-proposed sequester has resulted in a sharp reduction of all government services, personnel and budgets. That effect has been compounded by the failure to provide assistance to state and municipal governments in 2009 that could have prevented mass layoffs and cutbacks. The president's buying into the "austerity" snake oil went so far as broadcasting the Republican propaganda that presents the federal budget as being no different from a family budget. Above all, he went out of his way to buffer the financial barons from condemnation and accountability.
The near total neglect of the Detroit crisis pulls into focus these multiple flaws and faulty judgments. A great American city is allowed to founder at the very moment that the federal government is spending hundreds of billions to salvage predatory financial interests. Not only is this tragedy allowed to occur without assistance from Washington, it is studiously ignored. The critical financial aid is wrung out of foundations -- the ultimate confirmation that public responsibilities have been shed and replaced with pleadings before the "private sector." The earned pensions of hundreds of thousands are saved only by their generosity, not by a Democratic administration. The Detroit Museum of Arts, too, gains a reprieve from having its world class collection scattered to the four winds like the ashes from a city sacked by barbarians.
The overwhelming majority of those abandoned by their government are Democrats. Consequently, the populist passions that have raged since 2008 have been diverted from Wall Street to Washington. Almost all American politics is a contest for populist imagery. It provides the only vocabulary for political discourse. Democrats, for more than a century, identified and encouraged that current of populist thinking that found its target in the established power of big business and banking. Republicans have tried strenuously to counteract that tendency by playing on skepticism of government -- especially the federal government. That great battle produced the historic victory of the Democratic conception as embodied in the New Deal. It now is in the process of being reversed.
That is the outcome of a long-term strategy that gained momentum in the Reagan years. Its successes have gone far beyond anything that could reasonably be imagined at the time. The Great Financial Collapse promised to stop the movement in its tracks -- to regain lost ground and to consolidate what had been won. That the diametric opposite has occurred represents the ultimate failure of Democrats and their allies. There is much blame to go around; surely, though, the largest share goes to Mr. Obama. In this sense, his presidency indeed has been one of the most consequential in our history. To call it a success, though, is to embrace the thinking of the radical reactionaries who are celebrating their triumph. Have years of appeasement -- intellectual and political -- led to a silent conversion?
What next? The first signs are discouraging. The noises coming out of the punditocracy, think tanks, media and the Clinton entourage suggest that the same blinkered views that have brought the Democratic Party low are being reinforced. Some of this phenomenon can be understood as sheer intellectual laziness among the inbred Washington elites. Some expresses the self-interest of those who long have reconciled themselves to a status quo that has placed them among the country's privileged and keeps threats to their sinecures at a distance. This is not the age of conviction or empathy. The psychology of cognitive dissonance reinforces these dispositions.
Adversity is rarely the mother of invention, as the old adage has it. Experience and history tell us otherwise, as do behavioral experiments. The psychology of perceived necessity is complex. Adversity or threat in and of itself does not trigger improvisation or adjustment. Even the survival instinct does not always spark innovation. Denial, or avoidance, is normally the first reaction when facing adversity in trying to reach an objective or to satisfy an interest. Reiteration of the standard repertoire of responses follows. Hence, we already are seeing a spate of commentaries to the effect that the big test is 2016; that what happens then will determine future control of the Senate; that what really counts are the social issues -- abortion, same sex marriage, immigration -- where legislation is less important than executive action and the Supreme Court. Hence, we see Democrats grasping at the straw represented by the weak field of prospective Republican candidates, most with extreme views far out of line with the locus of public opinion.
True innovation tends to occur only in extremis; indulgent complacency is built on the premise that the party is not in extremis. So they rest content with making tactical adjustments at the margins rather than alteration of core premises and patterns of action.
There are few signs that any significant slice of Democratic Party elites have the motivation, conviction and intestinal fortitude to break out of their self-induced coma. The harsh truth is that the gumption to take on the arduous task of creating a new political frame of reference in the country is in short supply. It is far easier to think in terms of personal career, to concentrate on the political maneuvers that might keep you in office or get you into a higher office. That clearly is the outlook of Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday, her camp heralded the connection being made with the famed Austin public relations wizard who produced the slogan "Don't Mess With Texas."
It is this kind of puerile attitude that has the Democratic Party sinking beneath the waves -- dragging with it the decent country that the party did so much to create.
We are witnessing a great contest that will determine the American destiny for generations to come. One side is mobilized for total war. The other isn't even sure that the battle is engaged. The latter's supposed champion expends his energy in the neutral no-man's land searching blindly for common ground. He positions himself thus because he is a pacifist at heart -- and because he sees some virtue to parts of the opponent's creed.
Can the outcome be in doubt?

Electromagnetic War Games>>Olympic National Forest

Navy Plans Electromagnetic War Games Over National Park and Forest in Washington State

Monday, 10 November 2014 11:34 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest in Washington State are two of the most beautiful wilderness areas in the United States. Majestic glacier-clad peaks rise above temperate rainforest-covered hills. Gorgeous rivers tumble down from the heights and the areas are home to several types of plants and animal species that exist nowhere else on earth.
These protected national commons are also the areas in and near where the US Navy aims to conduct its Northwest Electromagnetic Radiation Warfare training program, wherein it will fly 36 of its EA-18G "Growler" supersonic jet warplanes down to 1,200 feet above the ground in some areas in order to conduct war games with 14 mobile towers. Enough electromagnetic radiation will be emitted so as to be capable of melting human eye tissue, and causing breast cancer, childhood leukemia and damage to human fetuses, let alone impacting wildlife in the area.

What is at stake is not just whether the military is allowed to use protected public lands in the Pacific Northwest for its war games, but a precedent being set for them to do so across the entire country.

If it gets its way, this means the Navy would be flying Growler jets, which are electronic attack aircraft that specialize in radar jamming, in 2,900 training exercises over wilderness, communities and cities across the Olympic Peninsula for 260 days per year, with exercises lasting up to 16 hours per day.
No public notices for the Navy's plans were published in any media that directly serve the Olympic Peninsula; hence the Navy initially reported that it had received no public comments on its "environmental assessment" for the war games.
One barely advertised public comment meeting was held in the small town of Forks, a several hour drive from the larger towns and cities that will be impacted by the war games. When asked to schedule more public comment meetings, the Navy refused.
But word spread. Tens of thousands of residents across the peninsula became furious, and widespread and growing public outcry forced the Navy to extend the public comment period until November 28 and schedule more public meetings.
It is not news that the Navy has been conducting electronic warfare exercises for years, but it might come as a surprise for people to learn that according to the US Navy's Information Dominance Roadmap 2013-2028, the Navy states it "will require new capabilities to fully employ integrated information in warfare by expanding the use of advanced electronic warfare."
What is at stake is not just whether the military is allowed to use protected public lands in the Pacific Northwest for its war games, but a precedent being set for them to do so across the entire country.

The Die Is Cast
The Navy already has an area in Mountain Home, Idaho, that is available for such war gaming.
Nevertheless, according to the Navy's "environmental assessment," it opted not to fly the 400 miles to Idaho in order to save jet fuel and enable their personnel to have more time with their families.
The war games would include the use of large RV-sized trucks equipped with electromagnetic generating equipment that would be dispersed along 14 sites in Olympic National Forest and several right along the boundary of Olympic National Park. While no trucks would, in theory, be allowed inside Olympic National Park, the warplanes would most likely be crossing over the park on a regular basis.

"This is bringing militarism home in a very direct way, in one of the most pristine parts of the country."

The exercises would be conducted by naval warplanes launching from the US Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island that would fly over the northern coast of the Olympic Peninsula in order to reach the West Coast, where they would fly inland over national forestland and Olympic National Park, in order to target the vehicles' aimed electromagnetic radiation.
According to the Navy's so-called environmental assessment, the purpose of these war games is to train to deny the enemy "all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. electromagnetic energy) for use in such applications as communication systems, navigation systems and defense related systems and components."
Six of the radiation emitting truck sites would be within 10 miles of the Quinault Reservation, and at least six of them would be right along the border of Olympic National Park.





Truthout requested comment from the Quinault and received this statement from Fawn Sharp, the president of the Quinault Indian Nation:

The Quinault Indian Nation has spoken with the Navy regarding the electronic warfare range proposal due to our ongoing concerns for our people and our wildlife in our usual and accustomed hunting grounds. Our people have lived here for thousands of years. We have always depended upon the fishing, hunting and gathering resources here, and managed these resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Today we co-manage these resources with our fellow sovereigns, the state and federal governments. The Navy has responded to our questions, on a government-to-government basis. At this time our only additional comment is that we will be monitoring the Navy's activities, to assure there is no harm to the resources we manage and must protect for the sake of our people, our heritage and our generations to come.

The Navy claimed it had served notice to the Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault tribes, all located in close proximity to the proposed war games areas.
John Moshier, the Navy's northwest environmental manager for the US Pacific Fleet, has stated that their planes would be flying as low as 1,200 feet above the ground.
Yet the Navy's environmental impact assessment does not even mention noise pollution or the sound of the Navy's jets, and lists "no significant impacts" for public health and safety, biological resources, noise, air quality or visual resources.
Tens of thousands of outraged residents from around the Olympic Peninsula have expressed their opposition via letters to the US Forest Service, public meetings, letters to the editor in newspapers across the peninsula, flooding article comment sections and via social media.
David King, the mayor of Port Townsend, a town on the Northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula, has voiced his opposition to the plan, along with numerous other public officials from around the Olympic Peninsula, in addition to the thousands of angry residents.
"This is bringing militarism home in a very direct way, in one of the most pristine parts of the country," Linda Sutton, a retired teacher who lives in Port Townsend, told Truthout. "Most of the people who live here do so because we are free of this kind of militarism. And people who visit here, come here for the natural beauty and environment, and if we allow this place to be turned into a war-gaming area, it is reprehensible."



"No Significant Impact?"
According to the National Park Service, the top two purposes of a national park are:

• To preserve and protect the natural and cultural resources for future generations.
• To provide opportunities to experience, understand and enjoy the park consistent with the preservation of resources in a state of nature.

As for national forests, according to US Code 475, which outlines the purposes for which national forests were established and how they are to be administered:

No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of said section, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.

The Navy's war-gaming plans are most likely in violation of the stated purposes of the National Park Service, in addition to being in violation of the aforementioned US code.
The Navy's so-called environmental assessment, which they claim includes plans for "protecting people and large animals," reported "no significant impact" would result from the $11.5 million warfare training project, which aims to be operational by September 2015.
The report, however, failed to provide specifics on either the maximum potential exposure or the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation emitters from the trucks to be used in the war games.

"Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes."

Nevertheless, Dean Millett, the district ranger for the Pacific district of the Olympic National Forest, had issued a draft notice of a decision in which he had agreed with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact," which has cleared the way for a Forest Service special permit to be issued to the Navy for the war games. Millet, however, insists that the decision is his to make, but has not made a final decision yet.
Under massive public pressure, however, Millett reopened public comment because of what he claimed was "renewed interest . . . from members of the public who were unaware of the proposal."




Mike Welding, the Naval Air Station at Whidbey Island spokesman, recently admitted to reporters that any antennas emitting electromagnetic energy produce radiation.
"As a general answer, if someone is in the exclusion area for more than 15 minutes, that's a ballpark estimate for when there would be some concern for potential to injure, to receive burns," he said.
The Navy's "environmental assessment" (EA) states, "There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation," and, "Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time."
However, in direct contradiction to the Navy's responses along with their so-called environmental assessment, in 1994, the US Air Force published the report, "Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review."
Page 18 of the report states: "Nonthermal disruptions have been observed to occur at power densities that are much lower than are necessary to induce thermal effects. Soviet researchers have attributed alterations in the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system to the nonthermal effect of low level RF/MW radiation exposure."
The report concludes, "Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes." (emphasis added)

"The planned range may alter the attractiveness of this region as a destination for tourists and there is potential for significant economic impact."

It is important to note that at the time that report was written, the standard for exposure was 50,000 milliwatts per square meter. Today, the maximum exposure limit is 10,000 milliwatts per square meter, yet even that level is more than 1 million times higher than the allowable exposure limits published in the 2012 BioInitiative Report.
Furthermore, the "EA" quotes from a study (Focke et al. 2009) that deals with extremely low frequency radiation (50 hertz) only and is thus completely irrelevant to the gigahertz radiation being proposed (1 gigahertz equals 1 billion hertz).
The Navy has not provided any relevant studies that prove no long-term effects to flora and fauna for their proposed 4,680 hours per year of exposure.
Nor does the "EA" factor in the electromagnetic radiation from the Navy's Growler jets, as the jets will be using it to locate ground transmitters.
Peer-reviewed, published scientific studies about the harmful effects to humans of electromagnetic radiation abound.
A quick search on Google Scholar for "Electromagnetic fields risk to humans" produces over 63,000 results, most of which are published scientific studies that chronicle the deleterious impact of electromagnetic fields to the human organism.
Some of the studies titles are: "Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency," "The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields," "Exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and the risk of malignant diseases - an evaluation of epidemiological and experimental findings," "Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields as effectors of cellular responses in vitro: possible immune cell activation," and "Exposure to electromagnetic fields and the risk of childhood leukemia," to name just a few.
One study, titled "Leukemia and Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Review of Epidemiologic Surveys," states in its abstract: "Results for total leukemia show a modest excess risk for men in exposed occupations, with an enhanced risk elevation for acute leukemia and especially acute myelogenous leukemia."
A report titled "Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards," published in the journal Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy in 2008, concluded:

Health endpoints reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF include childhood leukemia, brain tumors, genotoxic effects, neurological effects and neurodegenerative diseases, immune system deregulation, allergic and inflammatory responses, breast cancer, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. The BioInitiative Report concluded that a reasonable suspicion of risk exists based on clear evidence of bioeffects at environmentally relevant levels, which, with prolonged exposures may reasonably be presumed to result in health impacts.

Electromagnetic radiation's impact on wildlife is very well documented, as thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published on the topic.
In May 2014, a study titled "Electromagnetic Interference Disrupts Bird Navigation, Hints at Quantum Action" was published in the journal Nature. "Researchers found out that very weak electromagnetic fields disrupt the magnetic compass used by European robins and other songbirds to navigate using the Earth's magnetic field," according to the study.
That same month another study, "Sensory biology: Radio waves zap the biomagnetic compass," was also published in Nature. "Weak radio waves in the medium-wave band are sufficient to disrupt geomagnetic orientation in migratory birds, according to a particularly well-controlled study," Nature reports. It added, "Interference from electronics . . . can disrupt the internal magnetic compasses of migratory birds."
A 2013 study published in Environment International, "A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)," concluded, "In about two-third[s] of the reviewed studies ecological effects of RF-EMF [were] reported at high as well as at low dosages."
A June 2011 study published in Ecosphere, titled "Impacts of Acute and Long-Term Vehicle Exposure on Physiology and Reproductive Success of the Northern Spotted Owl," found that while the spotted owl is able to compensate for a low level of increased noise pollution and vehicle presence up to a threshold, "beyond which disturbance impacts may be greatly magnified - and even cause system collapse." The northern spotted owl is an endangered species.
While more studies on the impact of electromagnetic radiation on larger animals are underway and the results pending, the negative impacts on birds in the proposed war-gaming areas are clear.



Richard Jahnke, the president of the Admiralty Audubon Society located on the Olympic Peninsula, submitted comments to Greg Wahl, the environmental coordinator for the US Forest Service, who is fielding comments about the Navy's war games plans.
Jahnke's letter, which he provided to Truthout, clarifies the impact on birds in the war game area: "The western side of the Olympic National Park has a unique soundscape. A location in the Hoh River valley was identified as the quietest place in the lower 48 with respect to anthropogenic sound (see onesquareinch.org for further info)."

Sullivan sees many holes in how both the Forest Service and Navy have gone about making the war game exercises happen without following proper protocol.

Jahnke noted how the Navy's so-called EA did not assume any economic impact, hence categorically excluding that from their analysis. Of this he stated, "The planned range may alter the attractiveness of this region as a destination for tourists and there is potential for significant economic impact. Since this region is already economically stressed, even small variations in overall economic activity may result in large, relative impacts. The Navy should, therefore, assess the potential economic impact before proceeding."
According to the Admiralty Audubon Society, the Pacific Coast is part of the Pacific Flyway, which makes it a critical pathway for migratory birds, with an estimated 1 billion birds migrating along the flyway annually.
"The Navy's assessment includes little discussion of indirect impacts of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] on wildlife and does not incorporate the most recent, best available science," Jahnke wrote, adding, "Since successful migration is critical to the survival of a migrating species, potential navigational impacts must [be] evaluated. However, these potential impacts are not considered in the current EA and hence the potential impacts were not assessed."
Thus, the Admiralty Audubon Society has gone on record in recommending that the Navy's EA and its associated "Findings of No Significant Impacts" not be adopted.
"The deficiencies documented above are significant and must be addressed," Jahnke stated. "For these reasons, the EA does not meet the requirements of law and a full environmental impact statement under NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] must be prepared."
Navy officials said that they "did not know" the impact of the electromagnetic radiation emissions "on small animals."
The Forest Service's Greg Wahl chose to parrot the Navy's finding of "no significant impact" for the war games project.
Forest Service Response
Wahl chose not to respond to Truthout's repeated requests for comment on how the Navy's plans would have "no significant impact" on wildlife or humans in the affected areas.
Dean Millett, Olympic National Forest's district ranger, downplayed impacts of the Navy's plans, and told reporters that the Forest Service roads where most of the emitters will be located "are remote," and added, "They don't get much traffic unless there is some activity going on in the area."
He claimed the electromagnetic radiation transmissions would "cease if large animals come into the area where the exercise is taking place," and said he "was not concerned about the electromagnetic radiation emissions" and said this was "just one more small dose" of electromagnetic radiation.
Olympic Peninsula resident Karen Sullivan worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 15 and a half years, in Delaware, Washington, DC, and from 1998 through 2006 in Alaska. She worked in the Division of Endangered Species, External Affairs, and spent the last seven years as assistant regional director for External Affairs, which covered all media and congressional interaction and correspondence, plus outreach, publications and tribal grants for the Alaska region.
She called the Navy's so-called environmental assessment "bogus" because "it's relying on the biological opinion, which is totally invalid because it is old and not of broad enough scope."
A "biological opinion" is a narrowly focused legal document prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of evaluating whether an activity will jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Hence the Navy, in theory, is required to consult with Fish and Wildlife about endangered species and other impacts, according to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
"To illustrate this, the Navy can go explode mines on the sea floor, which creates a kill zone and alters the seafloor habitat, but if the one endangered fish being evaluated in the document doesn't use that seafloor habitat, then the effects of that explosion are called 'insignificant' because they don't affect that particular species," Sullivan told Truthout.
The Sierra Club also submitted a letter to Wahl protesting the Forest Service's concurrence with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact." The letter began by taking issue with the Forest Service not adhering to its mission:

The USFS's mission, as set forth by law, is to manage its lands under a sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people. Among these diverse needs are forestry, recreation, and the protection of wildlife habitat and wilderness. The very nature of the Navy's proposal, which involves open-ended access restrictions, makes it difficult to imagine how the USFS will be able to adhere to its multiple-use mandate as other uses will necessarily be precluded.

Sullivan takes issue with the Navy's "EA" for numerous reasons, which she detailed for Truthout:

This 200-page document covered a huge area of airspace, but only 875 acres of land were specifically named, between Everett and Mt. Baker. The lone ground-based emitter mentioned was located in Coupeville, and the number of annual training events for Growler jets proposed back in 2009 was 275. That's what the biological opinion evaluated. Not three mobile emitters and one fixed tower in 14 brand-new places, not 36 low-altitude Growler jets in areas previously not evaluated, not 2,900 Growler training events in the Olympic National Forest and another 2,100 elsewhere, for eight to 16 hours per day, 260 days per year. This is 20 times the level of activity that was covered in the biological opinion; therefore, using it so dishonestly to justify their new plans invalidates their environmental assessment.

Sullivan believes the Navy is violating NEPA by their initial attempts to not adequately seek public comment, and pointed out how the Navy tried to use the same tactic in Mendocino, California, which was met with similar public outcry then as well.
Sullivan sees many holes in how both the Forest Service and Navy have gone about making the war game exercises happen without following proper protocol.
"The Forest Service is supposed to evaluate everything else, including the effects of chronic radiation on trees and plants and animals, and there is nothing in their EA about that . . . nothing," she said. "There is clearly an absence of data, and they are not doing their own research."
The Sierra Club is clear in their findings and what they believe the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service must do:

Sierra Club North Olympic Group (NOG) believes that the Forest Service should not accept the finding of "No Significant Impact" and decline the Navy a Special-Use Permit and access to the Forest Service roads for their mobile electromagnetic (EM) emitters until the Navy revises and augments the final EA, requests an updated Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and (potentially) prepares a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The FONSI [Finding of no significant impact] is not supported by the final EA from the Navy due to the inadequacies of that document. Without the FONSI or a complete EIS, the Forest Service cannot grant the Navy a special-use permit and access to Forest Service roads.

Like Sullivan, the Sierra Club found sections of the "EA" that needed "to be updated and rewritten to include the newest scientific literature research on the effects of EM and Noise on Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species in the proposed military operations area (MOA) . . . research into the literature found no less than 3 peer-reviewed articles that would contradict the findings of no significant impact in the EA and perhaps the 2010 Biological Opinion."
Sullivan pointed out that there are at least two endangered species, the marbled murrelet and the bull trout, that would likely be adversely affected by the war games, and possibly rendered extinct.
The Sierra Club pointed out that the northern spotted owl, also an endangered species, would also be adversely affected.
The group also voiced its concerns with the fact that the planned missions begin well before daylight and continue long into the night, the sound pollution emitted by the generators on the 14 mobile units and Growler jets, several areas in the "EA" where the Navy contradicts itself, impacts on gray wolves, vagueness in many areas of the Navy's report, and the fact that Growler jets will be flying in trios ("with two in [radar] jamming mode and one in detection-mode"), among several other issues.
The Sierra Club's letter to Wahl contained several open-ended questions and concerns, and pointed toward one section of concern, stating, "the last paragraph identifies a process of the Navy consulting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the effects on ESA listed species from the stressors and impacts described in this EA. When would this consultation take place, what is the output of the consultation (a report?) and is it subject to citizen review? Furthermore, we believe this consultation must take place prior to the granting of any special-use permit by the Forest Service."
Sullivan concluded with asking open-ended questions to the Navy and federal agencies involved:

Does the Navy intend to reinitiate formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, to obtain more recent evaluations of impacts to biological resources? Will the Navy revise the EA to reflect all of the information that was left out? Is it possible to insist there could still be "no significant impacts" unless you are blindfolded?

The current public comment period has been extended until November 28, and it is yet to be determined if the Navy will succeed in their efforts to carry out their war games on the Olympic Peninsula.

Bombing Islam...for Fun & Profit

How Many Muslim Countries Has the U.S. Bombed Or Occupied Since 1980?

By Glenn Greenwald

Barack Obama, in his post-election press conference yesterday, announced that he would seek an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from the new Congress, one that would authorize Obama’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria—the one he began three months ago. If one were being generous, one could say that seeking congressional authorization for a war that commenced months ago is at least better than fighting a war even after Congress explicitly rejected its authorization, as Obama lawlessly did in the now-collapsed country of Libya.
When Obama began bombing targets inside Syria in September, I noted that it was the seventh predominantly Muslim country that had been bombed by the U.S. during his presidency (that did not count Obama’s bombing of the Muslim minority in the Philippines). I also previously noted that this new bombing campaign meant that Obama had become the fourth consecutive U.S. President to order bombs dropped on Iraq. Standing alone, those are both amazingly revealing facts. American violence is so ongoing and continuous that we barely notice it any more. Just this week, a U.S. drone launched a missile that killed 10 people in Yemen, and the dead were promptly labeled “suspected militants” (which actually just means they are “military-age males”); those killings received almost no discussion.
To get a full scope of American violence in the world, it is worth asking a broader question: how many countries in the Islamic world has the U.S. bombed or occupied since 1980? That answer was provided in a recent Washington Post op-ed by the military historian and former U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich:

As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State militants extent into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.

Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.

Bacevich’s count excludes the bombing and occupation of still other predominantly Muslim countries by key U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, carried out with crucial American support. It excludes coups against democratically elected governments, torture, and imprisonment of people with no charges. It also, of course, excludes all the other bombing and invading and occupying that the U.S. has carried out during this time period in other parts of the world, including in Central America and the Caribbean, as well as various proxy wars in Africa.
There is an awful lot to be said about the factions in the west which devote huge amounts of their time and attention to preaching against the supreme primitiveness and violence of Muslims. There are no gay bars in Gaza, the obsessively anti-Islam polemicists proclaim—as though that (rather than levels of violence and aggression unleashed against the world) is the most important metric for judging a society. Reflecting their single-minded obsession with demonizing Muslims (at exactly the same time, coincidentally, their governments wage a never-ending war on Muslim countries and their societies marginalize Muslims), they notably neglect to note thriving gay communities in places like Beirut and Istanbul, or the lack of them in Christian Uganda. Employing the defining tactic of bigotry, they love to highlight the worst behavior of individual Muslims as a means of attributing it to the group as a whole, while ignoring (often expressly) the worst behavior of individual Jews and/or their own groups (they similarly cite the most extreme precepts of Islam while ignoring similarly extreme ones from Judaism). That’s because, as Rula Jebreal told Bill Maher last week, if these oh-so-brave rationality warriors said about Jews what they say about Muslims, they’d be fired.
But of all the various points to make about this group, this is always the most astounding: those same people, who love to denounce the violence of Islam as some sort of ultimate threat, live in countries whose governments unleash far more violence, bombing, invasions, and occupations than anyone else by far. That is just a fact.
Those who sit around in the U.S. or the U.K. endlessly inveighing against the evil of Islam, depicting it as the root of violence and evil (the “mother lode of bad ideas“), while spending very little time on their own societies’ addictions to violence and aggression, or their own religious and nationalistic drives, have reached the peak of self-blinding tribalism. They really are akin to having a neighbor down the street who constantly murders, steals and pillages, and then spends his spare time flamboyantly denouncing people who live thousands of miles away for their bad acts. Such a person would be regarded as pathologically self-deluded, a term that also describes those political and intellectual factions which replicate that behavior.
The sheer casualness with which Obama yesterday called for a new AUMF is reflective of how central, how commonplace, violence and militarism are in the U.S.’s imperial management of the world. That some citizens of that same country devote themselves primarily if not exclusively to denouncing the violence and savagery of others is a testament to how powerful and self-blinding tribalism is as a human drive.

What is the Alternative?

Capitalism Is a Tumor on the Body Politic, What's the Alternative?

Thursday, 06 November 2014 11:03 By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed



The biggest challenge facing those who believe in social justice is to provide an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses and vision that can convince US citizens that a real democracy is worth fighting for.




The right-wing Republican sweep of Congress testifies to a massive memory and educational deficit among the US public and a failure among progressives and the left regarding how to think about politics outside of the established boundaries of liberal reform. The educative nature of politics has never been more crucial than it is now and testifies to the need for a new politics in which culture and education are as important as economic forces in shaping individual and social agency, if not resistance itself.


The cultural apparatuses owned by the financial elite are largely responsible for the political and social darkness that engulfs the American public. Americans are shaping a new moment in history in which the symbiosis among cultural institutions, power and everyday life has shaped the very nature of politics and the broader collective public consciousness with an influence unlike anything we have seen in the past.  Economics drives politics and its legitimating apparatuses have become the great engines of manufactured ignorance. This suggests the need for the left and their allies to take seriously how identities, desires and modes of agency are produced, struggled over and taken up. The left and other progressives need to rethink Pierre Bourdieu's insistence that the left "has underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle and have not always forged appropriate weapons to fight on this front" and in doing so have failed in its responsibility to address the educative nature of politics by challenging modes of domination "that lie on the side of the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle. (1) Couple that understanding with the need for a more comprehensive vision of change and the necessity for broad-based social movements, and it may become possible once again to develop new opportunities for a new political language, forms of collective struggle and a politics for radical change rather than cravenly center-right reforms.


As Hannah Arendt and others told us many years ago, there is no democracy without an informed public. This is a lesson the right wing took very seriously after the democratic uprisings of the 1960s. This is not a matter of blaming the public but of trying to understand the role of culture and power as a vital force in politics and how it is linked to massive inequities in wealth and income. The financial state promotes a form of ideological terrorism and the key issue is how to expose it, and dismantle its cultural apparatuses with the use of the social media, diverse apparatuses of communication, new political formations, and ongoing collective educational and political struggles.
Relatedly, how can ideologies, policies and structures be made visible, challenged, and changed that play such a powerful role in the expanding forms of indebted citizenship, poverty and mass incarceration, that make students, low income groups and poor minorities desposable and unable to offer any collective resistance given their struggle either just to survive or suffer under harsh conditions of state repression.


Lies, misinformation and the spectacle of entertainment drive how issues are presented to the American public by the vast cultural machinery of education that extends from mainstream news to conservative think tanks.  For instance, in the aftermath of the election, ABC, CBS, and NBC all claim that the government will be more sharply divided as a result of the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress. What the mainstream media fails to point out is that both parties have more in common than what divides them. They both support the consolidation of power in the hands of the financial and corporate elite. Both parties have passed policies that cut back on social provisions for the needy while providing tax breaks for the wealthy. Moreover both parties, as Arun Gupta points out, have enacted "policies that increase the wealth and power of those on the top of the economic pyramid." (2) Both parties need the financial support of the financial elite to get elected in an authoritarian society in which money rules politics and kills any vestige of democracy. The established press is playing up Obama's claim that he is willing to cooperate with the Republican Party as if this represents a new stage of partisanship among both parties. What is missed in this rush to judgment is that these parties have been cooperating for years on maintaining the privileges of the ultra-rich, corporations and bankers, while at the same time punishing the poor, unions, the working class, immigrants and poor minorities of color. The only major difference between these parties is that the Republicans wage naked class warfare without any apologies or political concessions while the Democrats offer a few painkillers to soften the blow. In some cases, Democratic leaders such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama outdid their Republican counterparts in consolidating class power, while imposing enormous hardships and misery on the poor and middle class.


Clinton expanded the punishing state, callously removed millions of poor women and children from the welfare system and repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thereby paving the way for the financial crisis of 2007. Obama makes George Bush look tame given his unprecedented war on whistleblowers, his use of sweeping state secrecy doctrine, his escalating violations of civil liberties, his waging drone warefare that often resulted in the indiscriminate death of civilians, and his reckless establishment of an illegal kill list with the power to assassinate American citizens. To make matters worse, he refused to prosecute corrupt bankers, CIA agents who engaged in torture, and deported and imprisoned record numbers of immigrants.


As Paul Buchheit points out, capitalism is spreading like a tumor in US society and the key is to cut out its ability to convince people that there are no other alternatives, that the market should govern all of social life including politics itself, and that the government's only role is to protect the benefits of big business and the interests of the super-rich.


Terrorism and the culture of fear have become the glue holding together a society that relies more on ethical tranquilization and the forces of the punishing state than any semblance of social justice in order to protect the interests of the rich. Terror is no longer simply a reference to reveal foreign and domestic threats; however real, it has become an alibi for state terrorism, whether it be in the form of a massive state-sponsored spying apparatus, the gutting of social provisions, the criminalization of social problems, the war on women or the endless police violence used against innocent black youth.


The argument that things will now get much worse and push people into action is politically naive because there are never any political guarantees of how people will act in the face of massive repression. They could for all intents and purposes go either left or right. There are no guaranteed political outcomes in any society. Political outcomes have to be the result of coordinated struggles waged by mass movements using a diversity of tactics extending from boycotts and strikes to sit-ins and direct action.


The biggest challenge facing those who believe in social justice is to provide an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses, vision and modes of identification that can convince the US public that a real democracy is worth fighting for, and that such struggles need to begin immediately before the elected oligarchs and the financial interests they serve close down any hope of a future in which matters of justice and equality prevail.


Footnotes:
1. Pierre Bourdieu, Acts of Resistance (New York: Free Press, 1998), p. 11.
2. Arun Gupta, "How the Democrats Became the Party of Neoliberals," CounterPunch, (November 3, 2014).

The New & Instilled UberDysfunctional Paradigm

Global Warming Denier Will Head Committee Dealing With Global Warming

By Susie Madrak November 5, 2014 7:00 am

In handing Republicans control of the Senate on Tuesday, Americans effectively voted for the party's hostile plans against President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Their votes also put the Senate's environment and climate policy into the hands of the worst science-denier in national politics: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe claimed in 2003 that global warming might help humanity. “It's also important to question whether global warming is even a problem for human existence. Thus far no one has seriously demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.”
In that same speech, he argued that an international body of climate change scientists “resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meet The Newly-Empowered Right-Wing Radicals

By Anonymous November 5, 2014 10:00 am




Some of the most extreme right-wing radicals got elected to Congress Tuesday. Let's begin with Glenn Grothman, who won Wisconsin's 6th District. Grothman wants to eliminate weekends,  and believes " no people…care about Kwanza, just white left-wingers." He co-sponsored a bill that equated single-parenthood with child abuse. In addition…

He calls Rick Santorum his "soul mate" and labor union activists "slobs." He wants to end not only the minimum wage but weekends and paid sick leave and called for the elimination of municipal water disinfection, calling it "big government."
He opposes abortion for any reason and wants to make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion even to save the life of the mother.
He has said that the "gals" are running the nation and ruining it and that the "country is not going to survive if we continue this war on men."
Grothman has called Planned Parenthood "the most racist organization" in the country while supporting the Ugandan law that makes homosexuality a crime.

Joni Ernst, the newly-elected Iowa Senator, is another Tuesday winner who goes where the buses don't run. She has referred to President Obama as both "apathetic" and a "dictator."  She carries a gun which, she says, she may need to defend herself from the government.  Ernst echoes the the John Birch Society on Agenda 21, an innocuous United Nations initiative that "seeks for the government to curtail your freedom to travel as you please, own a gas-powered car, live in suburbs or rural areas, and raise a family. Furthermore, it would eliminate your private property rights through eminent domain."  But what really is Agenda 21? It's a non-binding UN resolution that asks nations to conserve open land by encouraging people to live in more populated areas. Period. That's it. Nothing to see here.  Ernst is "flattered" when she is compared to that "strong leader," Sarah Palin. Ernst believes in nullification, a Civil War-era notion that states could nullify federal laws they didn't agree with. She referred to the mass shooting at University of California, Santa Barbara as "an unfortunate accident."  As a senator who can weigh in on judicial nominations, she's vowed to block nominees who don't follow Biblical law. As a state senator, Ernst says she missed half her votes because of National Guard service, but an investigation by The Gazette revealed that just 10% of missed votes were on days she was on duty.





Thom Tillis, who eked out a North Carolina Senate win by less than two points against Kay Hagan, agrees with Joni Ernst that there should be a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Speaker of the House in his state, he tacked an anti-abortion provision to a motorcycle safety bill that would have closed all but one of North Carolina's abortion clinics. Tillis has compared welfare to reparations, claiming  the United States has "redistributed" "trillions of dollars over the years" - amounting to "de facto reparations." And Tillis has stated, "What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance."

It's no longer the burden of Democrats to produce. It's incumbent (you'll pardon the expression) upon the right to show what it can accomplish. I'm reminded of the old saw about being careful about what you ask for, because you might get it. If these far-right radicals are half as good at governing as they've been at heckling from the sidelines, they'll be political superstars.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Will Democrats Try To Kill The Party's Progressive Wing To Regain Power?

The GOP went after its more principled wing. Will Democrats follow?

November 5, 2014 / Steven Rosenfeld





Here’s the question nobody on the left wants to ask: are progressive Democrats poised to go the way of Republican Tea Partiers? That is, exiled to the margins and ignored as the party's centrists seek to regain power?
The front pages of America’s most influential newspapers are touting that the Republican Party’s biggest lesson this year was they realized they had to “crush the enemy,” as The Times put it, “not Democrats but the rebels within their own party.” And so they did.
Is that what is coming in Democratic Party circles? A resurgence of the so-called Third Way and Fix The Debt types whose values are more aligned with Wall Street than Main Street? You might hope not, but with the Clintons at the helm as the party soul-searches and looks toward 2016, it’s not so far-fetched, even though Clinton-style centrists lost on Tuesday. Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor is one example.   
Though leading progressives are privately writing, “Good riddance to GOP-lite pols” on listserves, take a hard look at what progressives accomplished in 2014. If you want to be honest, when it came to candidates—not ballot initiatives—they got clobbered. There’s no reason that the corporate centrists who dream of reviving Clintonian good times will be looking left, despite the popularity of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Almost all congressional candidates running as working-class Democrats lost this year—most not even winning their primaries. They touted economic messages that progressives know are true—that the nation has growing class divides, worsening inequality, job stagnation and increasingly inadequate safety nets—including Social Security, whose average monthly retirement benefit is akin to a minimum wage job after a lifetime of work.   
Everybody knows the political system serves the wealthy, is dominated by a flood of anonymous large donors and needs to be rebalanced. Yet on the anti-corruption front, Larry Lessig’s vaunted multi-million dollar reform effort, the MayDay super PAC, also failed to elect most of its candidates who pledged to push reforms in Congress. Just before the Election Day, Lessig didn’t blog about his team—he said he was finding renewed inspiration in the Edward Snowden movie, Citizenfour.
More seasoned progessive groups used every possible electronic platform to try to engage voters and state the stakes, yet that big effort could not muster enough momentum to carry the day in our “winner-take-all” system. To be fair, they moved the dial, which is significant—but candidate victories were few and far between. There is no growing bench of elected progressives who can counter a likely rightward Hillary drift.  
Meanwhile, some of the worst Republican governors are back. Union-busting governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Paul Le Page in Maine won. Corporate tax cutters like Sam Brownback in Kansas, who did what Republicans in Congress dream about, causing a billion-dollar deficit with cuts to every state program including schools, also won. Some of them will be running for president in 2016 and beyond.
Progressives are being written off in the mainstream media’s assessment of what the final two years of President Obama’s term will be like. The Times, for example, said that Republicans expect Obama to reign in his liberal tendencies—if only he had many. If eviscerating civil liberties, dithering on the Keystone XL Pipeline, launching a new war front in the Middle East and adopting the conservative Heritage Foundation’s health insurance reform template is liberal, one can only imagine what’s moderate.

Yet, here is a typical passage from an analysis by The Times’ political correspondent, Jonathan Martin, telegraphing that Democrats might soon exile its left wing:

“The Obama years have in effect represented a political trade-off: Democrats largely abandoned the more centrist, line-blurring approach of Bill Clinton to motivate an ascendant bloc of liberal voters. That strategy twice secured the presidency, but in the two midterm races it meant sacrificing the culturally conservative districts and states that had ensured Democratic congressional majorities.”
Meanwhile, as the post-election jockeying begins, the corporatists are reviving their messaging—calling for responsible leadership and spending cuts, and ignoring issues that are on the minds of progressives and should concern everybody, such as the U.N.’s latest climate change science report that says the industrial world is passing the point of no return with continuing carbon emissions.
Democrats, especally those lined up behind Hillary, will be desperate to find a path back into power. We can hope that they won’t jettison progressives along the way, like the mainstream Republican Party did with its Tea Party wing. But progressives shouldn’t be surprised if that is what unfolds in the near future.        


__________________________________________________________________________________

Nader: Time To Purge Top Dems

By Susie Madrak November 5, 2014 7:00 am

Time to face facts: Our "leadership" isn't doing much for the Democratic brand.

With House Democrats bracing for Election Day losses on Tuesday, Ralph Nader is calling on Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top party leaders to call it quits.
The prominent consumer advocate and perennial presidential candidate says the failure of those leaders to win the House gavel over three straight election cycle should means it's time for a new crop of lawmakers to take control of the party.
"Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Steve Israel should now recognize the wisdom of baseball’s 'three strikes and you’re out' ... step down from their posts and invite fresh leadership who can save the country from the ravages of today’s Republican party," Nader said Tuesday in a statement. Hoyer (Md.) is the minority whip, and Israel (N.Y.) is chairman of the party's campaign committee.
Nader is quick to praise the three leaders for their hard work and fundraising prowess. But, he added, "the result is just exemplifying the adage that nice guys finish last.”
"Between 2010 and 2014 … they have demonstrated their inability to reverse a growing Republican majority espousing cruel, brutish and harmful policies to almost any human interest, any environmental interest, and any Main Street interest in conflict with Wall Street demands for privileges and immunities of crony corporate capitalism and to any interest in waging peace over war," he said.

________________________________________________________________________________

Exorcist Gordon Klingenschmitt Elected To CO State House

By John Amato November 5, 2014 3:00 pm

Colorado elected a former Navy chaplain who performs exorcisms on lesbians to the CO House of Representatives with 69% of the vote.





Far-right Christianist zealot Gordon Klingenschmitt was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives. He's most likely the first exorcism-practicing evangelical weirdo to hold that distinction. Obviously there is no candidate that embarrasses the right wing these days, it would appear.

The former Navy chaplain’s victory was not surprising, as Republicans outnumberDemocrats by a 2-to-1 margin in the El Paso County district Klingenschmitt now represents.
The notoriously anti-LGBT Klingenschmitt came to national attention last year, when he attempted to exorcise a “demonic spirit” from President Barack Obama.
“We pray against the domestic enemies of the Constitution,” Klingenschmitt said, his eyes tightly closed, “against this demon of tyranny who is using the White House occupant. That demonic spirit is oppressing us.”

I sure hope the people of Colorado who voted for Gordon "Demon of Rape" Klingenschmitt get what they voted for.


___________________________________________________

McConnell And Obama Are Already Planning To Undercut Liberal Democrats In Congress

11/05/2014 4:51 pm EST //
Zach Carter




WASHINGTON -- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he and President Barack Obama are already discussing plans to cut corporate tax rates and pass free trade agreements, following the GOP's major gains in Tuesday's elections.
The comments from McConnell, who is expected to become the next Senate majority leader, shed light on the Republicans' potential strategy next year. For months, Republicans have argued that if they controlled both chambers of Congress, Obama would have to moderate his own liberal positions and give more ground in legislative talks. But McConnell's early agenda suggests a different strategy: He will seek to exploit economic policy rifts between Obama and congressional Democrats to press for deals on issues where the president and Republicans already agree.
"Trade pacts," McConnell said at a press conference Wednesday. "The president and I were just talking about that, right before I came over here. Most of his party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it's good for America, and so I've got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America."

The senator added, "I think he's interested in moving forward. I said, 'Send us trade agreements. We're anxious to take a look at them.'"
Obama has struggled to sell Democrats on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact his administration is negotiating with 11 other Pacific nations. Leaked drafts of the text have sparked a host of liberal concerns. Consumer advocates are worried about potential restrictions on food safety and other regulations, environmentalists fear it will undermine environmental protections, and global health experts are concerned it will curb access to low-cost generic medicines.
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has a testy relationship with many Democrats in Congress and with many liberal policy organizations, who accuse him of making promises on key Democratic priorities and then retracting them as trade negotiations continue.
Large swaths of the Democratic Party are simply wary of free trade deals in the mode of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. Some studies have concluded that such deals exacerbate income inequality and depress wages. While the NAFTA and World Trade Organization treaties have helped to expand overall U.S. economic growth, many economists argue they have had substantial negative consequences for American workers.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, is a strong supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been finalized. The pre-eminent American corporate lobbying group almost exclusively supports Republican candidates.
Tax reform could prove somewhat less controversial among congressional Democrats -- although Obama has supported a plan to close corporate tax loopholes and reduce the corporate tax rate for years with nothing to show for it.
"The president's indicated he's interested in doing tax reform," McConnell said Wednesday. "We all know having the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world is a job exporter." He added, "[Obama]'s interested in that issue and we are, too."
The U.S. does have a high official rate of 35 percent for the largest corporations. But a 2013 Government Accountability Office report found that extensive loopholes and tax credits allow companies to pay an average rate of just 12.6 percent, which is in line with or below the rates of other developed countries.
Obama has supported "revenue-neutral" tax reform, in which all the revenue gains from closing corporate loopholes would be balanced by the losses from lowering the corporate rate. Many Democrats would prefer to use at least some of those revenues to fund progressive policy items. Republicans generally favor corporate tax cuts.
Also on Wednesday, the president said he would be open to providing a corporate tax holiday -- known as "repatriation" in tax circles -- in which for a period of time, companies with cash stashed overseas would be allowed to bring it back to the U.S. at a reduced rate. Democrats in Congress are generally skeptical of the idea, and studies suggest that the Bush administration's 2004 effort served to drive up the deficit without creating jobs.
Obama said he would consider using the immediate revenues generated by a tax holiday to help finance a broader legislative package that would include Democratic priorities like infrastructure spending.
"Repatriation," Obama said. "There is an opportunity for us to do a package that is good for business, good for jobs."


________________________________________________________

Senate Now Has Enough Votes To Pass Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Bill

Posted: 11/05/2014 12:37 am
Kate Sheppard


WASHINGTON -– The new Senate Republican majority creates an opportunity for likely Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to force a vote on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline he's been waiting years to hold.
By The Huffington Post's count, the new Senate will have at least 61 votes in favor of a measure forcing the pipeline's approval -- a filibuster-proof majority.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday in an appearance on MSNBC that passing a Keystone approval bill would be the second item on the Republican agenda, after a budget. "I actually think the president will sign the bill on the Keystone pipeline because I think the pressure -- he’s going to be boxed in on that, and I think it's going to happen," Priebus said.

The controversial 1,660-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Texas has been under consideration for six years. Because it crosses an international border, the permitting decision lies with the State Department. In April, the State Department again delayed a decision until a Nebraska court can resolve a lawsuit over the proposed route through the state. A decision in that case is expected later this year.
Tuesday's vote didn't dramatically alter the pipeline's standing in the Senate. That's because some Democrats who lost their re-election bids were also pro-Keystone, including many who signed a letter to President Barack Obama earlier this year urging him to approve the pipeline. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who signed that letter, lost their re-election bids. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and author of earlier Keystone legislation, heads to a runoff in her race that she is likely to lose.
Montana Democratic Sen. John Walsh also signed that letter, though he ended up dropping out of his race and clearing the way for a pro-Keystone Republican, Steve Daines. Alaska Senate results aren't final, but Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Begich is pro-Keystone, so the outcome there won't shift the tally on a pro-pipeline vote.
Retiring Democratic Sens. Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) have both been less clear about their positions on Keystone. Johnson didn't sign the Democrats' pro-Keystone letter, feeding rumors he was likely to retire, which he later announced. Rockefeller voted for a 2013 budget measure supporting Keystone, but he's never fully endorsed the pipeline. Stridently pro-Keystone Republicans Mike Rounds and Shelley Moore Capito will take over the seats of Johnson and Rockefeller, respectively.
The pro-Keystone camp did pick up two new votes outright: Republican Cory Gardner, who defeated incumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D) in Colorado, and Republican Joni Ernst, who beat Democrat Bruce Braley in the race to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.
Other Democrats who have been somewhat supportive of Keystone in previous measures would likely vote against a Republican measure forcing it through. Delaware Democratic Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper both voted for a 2012 budget resolution that was pro-Keystone, but have said they will defer to the Obama administration's decision-making process. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has said the process has taken too long, but deferred to the State Department's process.
At least one Democrat is a swing voter on Keystone. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey has voted for a previous pro-Keystone measure, but it's unclear how he would vote in the future.
The Obama administration has said it wants to see the government's full decision-making process finished before rendering its verdict on the pipeline. That means Obama is likely veto any measure that comes to his desk before the State Department finishes its review.
Environmental activists who have made defeating the Keystone XL pipeline their top priority said Tuesday that they haven't lost yet, and will continue to urge the Obama administration to block the pipeline.

"Republicans may have won control of the Senate, but they're still a few votes shy of the 67 they'd need to override the Keystone XL veto President Obama promised them," said Jason Kowalski, policy director at the group 350.org.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++








____________________________________________________