Gavin Aronsen

Gavin Aronsen

Reporter

Gavin is a Mother Jones reporter in the DC bureau.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Gavin is an Iowa native, and covered the 2008 first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses for the Ames Tribune. His work has also appeared in the Agence France-Presse, Iowa Independent, Manhattan Media, and VillageVoice.com.

Free-Market Group Fights to Save California Oyster Farm

| Fri Dec. 7, 2012 4:03 AM PST

Last week, the Interior Department announced its decision to let a historic Northern California oyster farm's permit expire to make way for the West Coast's first marine wilderness. In response, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company's owner, Kevin Lunny, filed suit this week in hopes of saving his company. That's not a big surprise: Lunny told the San Francisco Chronicle that the news had left him in "disbelief and excruciating sorrow." Here's the twist: As the East Bay Express reported, Lunny is being represented by a low-key, free-market advocacy group—a somewhat strange bedfellow for a company that bills itself as a environmentally sustainable operation and has enjoyed strong support from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The group representing Drakes Bay Oyster Company, Cause of Action, is run by Dan Epstein, a former GOP counsel on the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under California Republican Darrell Issa. Epstein is also a veteran employee of billionaires Charles and David Koch; he used to work at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and for a Koch Industries lawyer. Epstein supports Lunny's lawsuit against the National Park Service and the Interior Department, he said in a statement, because "we refuse to let the NPS and Secretary Salazar get away with exerting power that destroys a business and a community under the guise of authorized discretion."

Cause of Action alleges that the government failed to fulfill its obligation to conduct a proper environmental review and relied on flawed science showing that the oyster farm harmed the environment in its decision not to renew its permit. But in reality, according to interior secretary Ken Salazar, the decision was made to avoid setting a precedent that would threaten longstanding National Park Service policy to let permits expire on public land chosen by Congress to become wilderness. (Congress flagged Drakes Estero, where the oyster farm has operated since the 1930s, as a "potential wilderness" site in 1976.)

Epstein's advocacy work, in any case, hasn't always been so noble as coming to the rescue of a family business. After congressional conservatives slipped a measure into a recent spending bill that banned federal grants from going to 501(c)(4) non-profits engaged in lobbying, Cause of Action sent letters to at least 20 groups using federal money to fight obesity and tobacco use, warning them they might be sued. The group said it sent the letters "only as a convenience," but critics contended it was an attempt to intimidate the non-profits.

This time, no one can claim that Esptein is hiding his free-market, Koch-esque motive for helping Drakes Bay Oyster Company: "Cause of Action is committed to ensuring that federal agency decision-making that can affect economic prosperity in the United States is held to the scrutiny of public accountability," his statement also read.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

How the War on Drugs Caused the Fake Pot Problem

| Wed Dec. 5, 2012 4:12 PM PST
Spice "herbal incense": Not for human consumption (wink wink)

Yesterday, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a "first-of-its-kind report" finding that synthetic marijuana, commonly sold as "herbal incense" with names like K2 and Spice, was linked to more than 11,400 drug-related hospitalizations in 2010. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who'd spearheaded a recent bill banning chemicals used to make fake pot, quickly responded to the news with a statement: "This report underscores that a federal ban was right to protect public safety…Still, cynical manufacturers are evading the federal ban by altering chemicals or ignoring the ban altogether. Anyone who might be tempted to try this drug should realize its use can end in tragedy, such as the loss of my constituent, David Rozga."

Rozga was an 18-year-old Iowan who may have had a history of depression and committed suicide in June 2010 after smoking K2 with his friends. Soon, reports of the dangers of synthetic pot, ranging from nausea to hallucinations and seizures, were all over the local and national news. Later that year, the Drug Enforcement Agency invoked emergency powers to temporarily ban the drug as lawmakers scrambled to outlaw it for good.

"This report confirms that synthetic drugs cause substantial damage to public health and safety in America," drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police chief who came into the Obama administration as a reformer, said in a statement about the SAMHSA report. "Make no mistake—the use of synthetic cannabinoids can cause serious, lasting damage, particularly in young people."

The irony in all this, of course, is that synthetic marijuana only exists because of the federal prohibition on the real stuff. While smoking pot isn't as benign as many advocates claim, particularly when used by teens, it's still one of the safest recreational drugs. Synthetic pot, on the other hand, was largely unregulated in 2010 (as its still-legal derivatives still are), and because it only contains synthetic cannabinoids and not THC—the primary part of the cannabis plant that gets you high—it's good for passing drug tests but provides a worse high with an elevated risk of adverse effects. (The SAMHSA report says there were more than 461,000 emergency room visits in 2010 involving real marijuana. But this is a misleading statistic since it counts a patient's mention of marijuana use regardless of whether it was a factor in the hospitalization.)

Not that the prohibitionists would ever tout the relative safety of pot over its synthetic counterparts. In 2007, responding to constituents' letters asking that he support the legalization of marijuana, Sen. Grassley likened pot to rape, genocide, and counterfeit money:

After several thousand years, civilized societies have failed to eliminate murder, rape, or child abuse. Nor have they eliminated organized crime, the manufacture of counterfeit money, or genocide. But no one seriously sees these failures as justification for surrender. Illegal drug use costs society at least as much as any of these social ills. Yet we do not hear any calls to legalize these abuses. Why then should we give up? Should we surrender to the criminals, and legalize marijuana? No. Instead, we should do whatever we can to prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand, do what needs to be done to give our families, our friends, and our neighbors a safe and secure place to live.

Meanwhile, in the past month, recreational marijuana use has been legalized in Colorado and Washington. Medical marijuana is legal in 18 states and Washington, D.C., and 58 percent of voters now support legalization.

App Rates 2012's Most Loved and Hated Attack Ads

| Fri Nov. 30, 2012 4:08 AM PST

Thanks to several smartphone apps created just for the 2012 election, TV viewers could fact check attack ads from the comfort of their couches. One of these programs, the Super PAC App, allowed viewers to hold up their iPhones when a TV ad aired and—provided the phone could pick up the audio—get a report back with links to articles that addressed the ad's claims and data about the group behind it. Viewers could also opine on the spot by selecting one of four ratings: fail, fair, fishy, or love.

Earlier this week, Glassy Media, the maker of the Super PAC App, uploaded the results of the more than 38,000 votes cast from its app. We dug into the data to determine the top vote-getters for each of the four ratings (as selected from the 40 ads that were tagged the most by app users):

Fail: "Join Our Fight to Repeal Obamacare"
Restore America's Voice is a PAC that spent nearly $3.4 million against Democrats in 2012. None of that money is evident in this amateurish, low-budget ad, in which Mike Huckabee urges viewers demand the repeal of Obamacare. Of the 179 Super PAC App users who voted on the ad, 66 percent gave it a "fail." The Super PAC App links to a CNN article that backs up the ad's claim that Democrats introduced a $940 billion health care plan, but it also points to PolitiFact posts that dispute the claim that Obamacare will eventually cost $1.76 trillion and say Huckabee's claim that Obamacare is the "largest tax increase in American history" is pants-on-fire false.

 

Fair: "Romney/Ryan Bromance: You Complete Me"
About 35 percent of the 360 viewers who voted on this ad from the liberal super-PAC American Bridge 21st Century thought it was fair. It features Mitt Romney repeatedly saying that his budget policy is identical to Paul Ryan's. The Super PAC App links to articles that back up the ad's implication that Romney incorporated his running mate's idea to privatize Medicare into his campaign and shed a few details on Ryan's budget plan. (American Bridge spent $8.7 million during the election.)

 

Fishy: "Failing American Workers"
The Super PAC App wasn't foolproof: It still reports that "no specific claim [was] found in this ad," a Romney campaign spot that claims that 582,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost under Obama and that the president failed on seven occasions to "stop China's cheating." But according to PolitiFact, the country has actually gained half a million manufacturing jobs under Obama. PolitiFact ranks the ad's claim that Obama failed to stop China's cheating as half true. Yet 24 percent of the 226 viewers who voted on this ad deemed it fishy.

 

Love: "Pants on Fire"
This ad from the Democratic Governors Association's super-PAC, which spent $1.6 million on the election, juxtaposes clips of Republican governors allegedly lying about health care with a cartoon of Yosemite Sam inadvertently blowing himself up. The Super PAC App fact-checks Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's pants-on-fire claim about a Medicaid mandate and Florida Gov. Rick Scott's false assertion that Medicaid would cost his state $1.9 billion a year with the same PolitiFact articles that the ad cites. The app links to a different PolitiFact article in response to Sarah Palin's death panel claim; this one doesn't call it the "lie of the year," but it still gives it a pants-on-fire rating. Viewers enjoyed the ad: Of the 155 who voted on it, 66 percent gave it a "love."

 

Crist and GOP Officials Accuse Republicans of Voter Suppression

| Mon Nov. 26, 2012 1:46 PM PST
An early voting line in Florida on November 3, 2012.

According to a report in the Palm Beach Post, current and former Republican Party officials in Florida have confirmed what voting-rights advocates have long suspected: That the GOP has hyped concerns about voter fraud as a means to reduce Democratic election turnout. Former Governor Charlie Crist told the Post that party leaders approached him when he was governor to see if he'd back efforts to limit early voting. While he didn't recall the officials explicitly saying their intention was to target black voters, Crist said that "it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn't want them to go there at all."

In 2011, Crist's successor, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, signed a bill passed by the GOP-controlled legislature that slashed Florida's early voting period from two weeks to eight days. (The bill also tightened restrictions on voter registration laws, although many of those provisions were tossed after a court challenge.) This November, Florida was plagued with long early voting lines that extended into Election Day and may well have disenfranchised voters.

Crist's claims were echoed by former Florida Republican party chairman Jim Greer, who told the Post he was first approached about restricting early voting in 2009. Greer told the Post: "The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates. It's done for one reason and one reason only…'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.'…They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue. It's all a marketing ploy."

Republican Party of Florida spokesman Brian Burgess told the Post that Crist, who recently left the GOP and is considering running for governor as a Democrat, "speaks out of both sides of his mouth" and implied that Greer's claims weren't credible in light of his indictment for embezzling $200,000 from party coffers. But two current Republican consultants also told the Post that their party's intentions were clear:

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.

"In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle," Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.

Read the rest here.

UPDATE, November 28, 2012: Republican Party of Florida spokesman (and former Rick Scott communications director) Brian Burgess sent out a press release today attacking the Palm Beach Post for its "unsupported claims" and "dubious sourcing." He pointed to a statement on the state GOP's website from Wayne Bertsch, who says he "never participated in any discussion or meetings with any of the named individuals about how to create impediments to any voters," has never been on contract with the party, and that "a quote from me [was taken] entirely out of context."

Burgess also repeated the assertions he made to the Post that Crist and Greer are untrustworthy sources with an axe to grind against the GOP, and claimed the fourth, unnamed source in the Post's story "has no first hand observations to substantiate Greer's claim" that voter suppression talks happened. Meanwhile, Florida Democrats have called for a federal civil rights investigation because of the story.

Timeline: How the Benghazi Controversy Unfolded

| Thu Nov. 15, 2012 5:00 PM PST
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14 during the return of the remains of four Americans killed in Benghazi three days earlier.

Today, the House and Senate intelligence committees are starting hearings on the September 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens. At the heart of the issue is the allegation, embraced by conservative pundits and echoed by Republicans including Mitt Romney, that Obama adminstration has covered up what they knew about the true nature of the assault and when they knew it.

Here's a blow-by-blow look at how the events and statements under scrutiny unfolded. Kevin Drum has more on why the Benghazi controversy has been the overblown. And for a more extensive, detailed timeline, visit FactCheck.org.

September 11

  • A protest breaks out at the US embassy in Cairo in response to Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muslim film advertised on YouTube that was created by a real estate developer in California. The film's trailer was first posted in July.
  • The US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked by "unidentified Libyan extremists," who kill US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials.
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement acknowledging the death of one State Department official during Benghazi attack. The statement references the anti-Muslim video, condemning "any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," but stops short of blaming it for the attack.

September 12

  • Clinton confirms that four US officials were killed in the Benghazi attack.
  • During a morning speech at the Rose Garden, President Obama condemns the attack, saying, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." He also echoes Clinton's acknowledgment of the anti-Muslim video, saying, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."
  • Obama is asked during a 60 Minutes interview whether terrorists were behind the attack and replies that "it's too early to know exactly how this came about." Reporters later ask White House press secretary Jay Carney if the attack had been preplanned. Carney replies, "It's too early for us to make that judgment."
  • The BBC talks to Ahmad Jibril, Libya's deputy ambassador to London, who says that the militant group Ansar al-Sharia launched the Benghazi attack.
  • Citing anonymous government officials, Reuters reports that the attack may have been preplanned and Ansar al-Sharia may be to blame.

September 13

  • At a State Department function, Libyan Ambassador to the United States Ali Suleiman Aujali speaks to Clinton, apologizing for "this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya." Clinton again condemns the anti-Muslim video but does not refer to the attack as an act of terror. (Clinton later meets with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine al-Othmani, saying much the same thing.)
  • During a Colorado stump speech, Obama says, "To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."
  • Citing anonymous State Department officials, CNN reports that the Benghazi attack was a "clearly planned military-type attack" and not related to the anti-Muslim video.

September 14

  • At an Andrews Air Force Base ceremony honoring the officials killed in Benghazi, Clinton quotes from a letter that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent her, in which she says he praised Stevens and called the attack "an act of ugly terror."
  • At a White House press briefing, Carney says the CNN report that the US government has evidence the attack was preplanned "is false."
  • Roll Call reports that during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaves committee members with the impression that the attack was a premeditated act of terror.

September 15

  • In his weekly address, Obama mentions the Benghazi attack. He does not refer to it as an act of terror, but mentions "every angry mob" that had reacted to the anti-Muslim video.

September 16

  • Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, speaking to Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face the Nation, suggests that the attack began "spontaneously" in reaction to the Cairo embassy protest that was "sparked by this hateful video."
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf, also speaking to Schieffer, says the attack "was planned by foreigners…who entered the country a few months ago." He later tells NPR that Rice's suggestion that the protest began spontaneously "is completely unfounded and preposterous."

September 17

September 18

  • Obama tells David Letterman that extremists used the anti-Muslim video "as an excuse" for several attacks including the one in Benghazi.
  • Carney tells reporters that the video "precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere." Later, Clinton says she was told that "we had no actionable intelligence that an attack…was planned or imminent."

September 19

  • National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen, speaking to a Senate subcommittee, says that the American officials in Benghazi "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy" but that there was "no specific evidence of significant advanced planning." Olsen is the first administration official on record using the phrase "terrorist attack."
  • Nuland tells reporters that she stands by Olsen's words, but Carney balks, just repeating that "we do not yet have indication that [the attack] was preplanned or premeditated."

September 20

  • Carney refers to the Benghazi incident as a "terrorist attack" for the first time. Asked about Carney's remarks on the stump, Obama says only that extremists had taken advantage of "natural protests" that arose from the anti-Muslim video.

September 21

September 24

  • Asked on The View if the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack, Obama replies, "We're still doing an investigation." At a UN address the next day, Obama condemns the anti-Muslim video but doesn't refer to a terrorist attack.

September 27

  • Panetta tells reporters that Benghazi "was a terrorist attack" and that it "took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location."
  • Carney tells reporters, "The president's position [is] that this was a terrorist attack."

October 9

October 10

  • Asked about discrepancies in the various responses to the attack, Carney replies, "Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available."

October 15

October 16

October 24

October 26

  • A conspiracy theory begins to circulate that General Carter Ham, the head of the US command in Africa, was "relieved of his command" after refusing orders to stand down as he attempted to dispatch a rescue unit to the Benghazi consulate.

November 9

November 14

  • Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announce that they would oppose a nomination of Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Graham justifies his position, saying that "either [Rice] didn't know the truth about Benghazi—so she shouldn't have been on TV—or she was spinning it."

November 15

  • The House and Senate Intelligence Committees begin holding hearings on the Benghazi attack. Petraeus, scheduled to testify on November 16, says his resignation had nothing to do with Benghazi.

This article has been revised.

Thu Mar. 21, 2013 3:56 PM PDT
Tue Mar. 19, 2013 8:51 AM PDT
Mon Mar. 18, 2013 1:03 PM PDT
Fri Mar. 15, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Mar. 1, 2013 3:29 PM PST
Fri Feb. 15, 2013 4:01 AM PST
Fri Jan. 11, 2013 4:01 AM PST
Fri Nov. 30, 2012 4:08 AM PST
Thu Nov. 15, 2012 5:00 PM PST
Fri Nov. 9, 2012 4:03 AM PST
Wed Nov. 7, 2012 2:26 PM PST
Fri Nov. 2, 2012 3:08 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 26, 2012 4:28 PM PDT
Fri Oct. 26, 2012 3:03 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 24, 2012 3:03 AM PDT
Mon Oct. 22, 2012 3:03 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 19, 2012 3:03 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 12, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 5, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 28, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 28, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 21, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 14, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 7, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 31, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 24, 2012 3:01 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 17, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 10, 2012 3:00 AM PDT