Blogs | Mother Jones

"Chernobyl Diaries": Is It Really Any More Insensitive Than Zombie Nazis?

Asawin Suebsaeng — Sat, 26 May 2012 01:02:05 +0000

Chernobyl Diaries
Warner Bros. Pictures
86 minutes

It sometimes seems as though people who make zombie movies (and zombie-ish movies) are trying to create a monopoly over minimizing tragedy.

This trend continues with Chernobyl Diaries, the new horror flick conceived and produced by Oren Peli (the Israeli-American director and ex-video game programmer who brought you the Paranormal Activity series and ABC's The River). A group of upper-middle class white kids from America sojourn to Eastern Europe. They decide to dabble in "extreme tourism" and jump in a van headed to Prypiat, a long-abandoned Ukrainian city bordering the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. It's worth mentioning that these kids have big dreams. One of them is about to propose to his intelligent/hot/super-loyal girlfriend. Another is mulling over plans to relocate to Prague. Another wants to make a name for herself as an artist and photographer.

Well, none of those nice things are ever going to happen because, as previously mentioned, these people made a conscious decision to hike through a radiation-drenched, eerie-ass ghost town—a deserted city where (you guessed it) they are not alone.

By "not alone," I mean to say that there's a large gaggle of flesh-chomping freaks waddling all about the joint. The deranged gaggle of nuclear-undead chase after them in the dark of night. Needless to point out, the young tourists are: [censored].

Chernobyl Diaries does indeed have some chilling atmospherics—for that you may thank first-time feature director and visual-effects ace Bradley Parker. But the movie ultimately falls flat due to its lagging energy and a disappointing, thrill-free final act.

Continue Reading »

Corn on "Hardball": Trump Revives the Birther Meme

Sat, 26 May 2012 00:14:37 +0000

David Corn and Salon's Joan Walsh joined guest host Michael Smerconish on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss Donald Trump's role in the most recent iteration of the birther conspiracy. Why won't Mitt Romney repudiate The Donald?

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

Senate Panel Advances Measure To Broaden Military Access to Abortion

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:00 +0000

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 that would allow greater access to abortions for women in the military and their families.

The measure, from New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D), would allow the military to pay for ending pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. Current Department of Defense policy only provides abortion coverage if the life of the mother is at stake. Under the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal money cannot be used to provide abortion services, except in the case of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. But since 1979, the DOD has had an even stricter limit on abortions, refusing to cover them in cases of rape despite the high rate of sexual assaults in the military. (Over 3,000 sexual assaults were reported in the armed services in 2010 alone.)

If Shaheen's measure passes, the 400,000 women in the armed services will have the same access to abortion that other federal employees get. If a Department of Health and Human Services employee working in Washington, D.C. is raped, her government health insurance plan will pay for an abortion if she wants one. But if an Army medic serving in Afghanistan is raped and wants an abortion, she can't use her government health insurance to cover it—she'll have to pay out of her own pocket. And even when she does pay for it, she won't be able to get the abortion at a military hospital, because that's illegal, too.

Attempts to lift the military's abortion ban failed in 2010 and 2011, but advocates are launching an all-out push this year through the Stand With Servicewomen campaign launched by retired military officers and a coalition of reproductive rights groups. Given all the attention abortion has received over the past year, you can bet the military abortion debate will be contentious this time around, too.

Friday Cat Blogging — 25 May 2012

Adam Serwer — Fri, 25 May 2012 21:10:10 +0000

Last week, when I mentioned that I lived with four orange cats, some folks were disappointed I didn't post pictures of all four. If you were one of those people, today is your lucky day.

Here's Pumpkin, who says it's time to get off the computer:

And here are Butters and James, hanging out:

Here are Burns and James (right), who happen to be twins although Burns takes much better care of himself:

Now, you might be wondering whether they all decide to crowd on one person ever. The answer is yes, and this is what it looks like when the herd of Garfields is at full strength:

This is about sixty pounds of pure, uncut marmalade tabby.

Anyway, I'm going on vacation next week, so some of my other Mother Jones colleagues will be pitching in. I'd like to thank Kevin for giving me the opportunity to blog in his absence, and all of you guys for putting up with the lack of charts in the meantime.

Adam is now done filling in for Kevin while Kevin is on vacation.

Obama and Marijuana

Adam Serwer — Fri, 25 May 2012 20:43:43 +0000

Turns out young Barack Obama was a fairly frequent weed smoker, according to a forthcoming biography by David Maraniss:

A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning "to smoke marijuana."

[...]

Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted "Intercepted!," and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

This shouldn't and won't bear on Obama's reelection prospects, which seems about right. But we shouldn't ignore it, particularly given the president's recent campaign against medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. It's past time that public officials who have smoked weed acknowledge that youthful marijuana use doesn't consign individuals to a life of crime and addiction, and that current policy is at odds with that basic fact.

Liberals' Targeted Killing Problem

Adam Serwer — Fri, 25 May 2012 20:15:47 +0000

The Associated Press recently reported that White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan is America's new death czar—the individual most responsible for overseeing the Obama administration's targeted killing of suspected terrorists.

There's long been a right-wing meme comparing targeted killing to torture, with the conclusion that torture is obviously less immoral. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf doesn't make this argument directly, but he alludes to it in his post on Brennan's new authority:

So to sum up, Barack Obama insists while campaigning that "enhanced-interrogation techniques" are a euphemism for illegal, immoral torture that makes us less rather than more safe from terrorism, and insists that the Bush Administration was imprudent for using those tactics.

After being elected, Obama forbids those tactics from being used. And he names as a top counterterrorism adviser someone who advocated the tactics he regards as imprudent and immoral -- ultimately entrusting him with more power than anyone else to decide whether various figures should be assassinated by our classified flying robot army.

There's a really important moral and legal distinction to be made between torture, which is always illegal and always wrong, and killing, which can occasionally be both justified and legal. And conservatives who argue that targeted killing is worse than torture are not saying we should stop killing people—they're saying we should also torture them. There is an obvious legal and moral bright line between mistreating people in our custody and killing on the battlefield.

Blurring the lines between custodial treatment and killing combatants only aids lawlessness. The laws of war exist to contain violence to combatants, who have consented to fight one another with the knowledge that doing so could lead to their deaths. This is why we should (but we sometimes don't) make a distinction between those who fight willingly and those who cannot consent, such as child soldiers. By definition, no one consents to being tortured.

Nevertheless, liberals' uncritical embrace of the Obama administration's widespread use of targeted killing represents a significant departure from their stated values. Although the ethics of targeted killing don't parallel the ethics of torture (except as far as disclosure is concerned), they do resemble the ethical debate around detention. For most of the Bush administration, liberals fought against President Bush's attempt to place suspected terror detainees in a legal black hole without habeas rights. Bush's critics understood that the concept of membership in a terrorist group is far more nebulous than being a soldier in a uniformed military. Establishing that the individuals we're treating as terrorists are actually terrorists is therefore a moral imperative.

With targeted killing, the same issues are at play. Unlike detention, however, the results of targeted killing are irreversible. Dead is dead. And the collateral damage is considerably greater, because civilians can be killed along with the target. Osama bin Laden's death was the most justifiable use of targeted killing in the past decade, but he's obviously also a unique case. What percentage of the thousands who have died in American drone strikes represent as clear-cut a choice as killing the man responsible for carving a bloody hole into New York City? That lethal force is sometimes justified does not absolve the government to ensure that it is only used when it is justified.

Yet that same insistence on accuracy, on making sure that we "had the right guy," so to speak, is largely absent in the debate over drone strikes. Liberals have been largely content to use Obama's body count to defend his foreign policy record without confronting the moral implications of our vastly expanded covert battle against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The admirable skepticism towards Bush's claims that those imprisoned at Gitmo were "the worst of the worst," long since vindicated, is absent. Many of the same people who fought the Bush-era imperial presidency—groups like the ACLU and the CCR—still hold fast to their banners, but for the most part political liberals have quit the field, preferring to defend their president from right-wing lunacy about Democratic weakness. That's a tragic abdication of responsibility that will have profound implications for national security in the future.

Adam Serwer is filling in while Kevin is on vacation.

LA Bans Plastic Bags—Is Your Town Next?

Kacey Deamer — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:01:41 +0000

Attention Los Angelinos: It's time to start hoarding those plastic shopping bags you love so much. The Los Angeles City Council voted on Wednesday to phase out plastic bags over the next 16 months. The city will eventually implement a 10-cent charge for paper bags, too.

LA is the largest city to approve a ban on "single-use" plastic bags in supermarkets. The ban is a victory for environmentalists, who campaigned for it for years. The decision did not pass without complaint, however—employees of plastic bag companies and some consumers have voiced concerns over the change.

LA's not the only city that has passed a plastic bag ban. Here are some other places that have similar ordinances:

San Francisco was the first US city to adopt a plastic shopping bag ban in April 2007. The ordinance originally applied only to supermarket and pharmacy chains but was expanded to all retail establishments earlier this year.
Maui, Hawaii banned plastic bags in August, 2008, becoming the first county in Hawaii to do so. Since then, Kauai and Honolulu have also passed legislation to ban plastic bags.
Washington, D.C. has charged 5 cents for all disposable shopping bags since 2010. The tax has reduced plastic bag use.
In December, Seattle unanimously passed an ordinance banning single-use plastic bags and forcing stores to begin charging for paper bags. The new rules will go into effect later this year.
In March, Austin adopted a ban on all single-use shopping bags for all business establishments. The ban begins in 2013.
Portland passed a plastic bag ban in July 2011 after the state legislature failed to pass a state-wide ban.

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before folks with fashionable eco-friendly tote bags no longer stand out in a crowd.

Also, it seems that the British are behind the trend, too:

Record Early Start to Hurricane Season

Julia Whitty — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:00:08 +0000

Hurricane Bud at 1345 Zulu on 25 May 2012: NOAA Last night Hurricane Bud off Mexico's west coast peaked at Category 3 strength, with 115 mile-per-hour winds. That makes it the earliest Category 3 hurricane on record this early in the Eastern Pacific. As Jeff Masters writes at Wunderblog:

Hurricanes are uncommon in the Eastern Pacific in May; there have been just twelve since record keeping began in 1949—an average of one May hurricane every five years. If Bud ends up making landfall in Mexico as a hurricane, it would be only the second Eastern Pacific May hurricane on record to hit Mexico.

Sea surface temperatures on 24 May 2012, in degrees Celsius: NOAA Masters also notes that sea surface temperatures (SSTs) this year in the Pacific where Aletta and Bud formed are slightly above average... though he concludes that large-scale atmospheric patterns are the more likely cause of this year's exceptionally early start to hurricane season in the Eastern Pacific.

Near-average SSTs are one factor NOAA is citing in its prediction for a near normal hurricane season on the Atlantic side this year—with 9 to 15 named storms, 4 to 8 hurricanes, 1 to 3 major hurricanes, and an Accumulated Cyclone Energy for the season ranging from 65 to 140 percent of the median.

94L at 1915 Zulu on 25 May 2012: NASA | NOAA | GOES Project Science At the moment the National Hurricane Center is following a system called Invest 94L 275 miles southeast of the Carolinas. There's currently an 80 percent chance this system will develop into a tropical or subtropical cyclone in the next 48 hours and turn west into the US coast over the weekend.

The good news is that 94L, which may develop into Beryl, will likely bring relief to the severe drought underway in the US Southeast.

Senate Says 'Frankenfish' Don't Need More Testing

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Despite strong lobbying from northwestern senators for a measure that would require more testing of genetically engineered salmon before it's introduced in the US, the Senate on Thursday voted it down. The "frankenfish" measure, introduced by Alaskan Republican Lisa Murkowski, failed by a 46-50 vote.

Murkowski put forth the measure as an amendment to the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Bill (a measure that would create a user-fee to partially fund FDA's work). Her measure would have required that the FDA hold off on approving or rejecting so-called "test tube salmon" until the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has done its own tests on the environmental and economic impacts the salmon might have on fisheries.

The FDA granted preliminary approved for GE salmon back in September 2010, but it remains a contentious issue. If approved, it would be the first GE animal approved for human consumption in the US.

AquaBounty Technologies has been seeking approval for the fish for 15 years. The fish is an Atlantic salmon that has been tweaked to include a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to grow to full size in half the time it takes for normal Atlantic salmon. But that's probably the least strange thing about them. As the Los Angeles Times described last year, the company's proposal "calls for the embryos of the fish to be sterilized in Canada before being shipped to Panama, where the males would be exposed to estrogen and sex-reversed."

Murkowski and other opponents argue that the FDA is not looking at the wider environmental concerns. Agitating against GE salmon is a bipartisan issue in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Murkowski's cosponsors included Democratic Alaskan Sen. Mark Begich, Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell, and Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley—all from states where the salmon industry is a big player. The fast-growing GE salmon would provide stiff competition with regular salmon.

"At my home, we eat a lot of salmon and I can stand there and I can say 'This is brain food, this is good for you, it’s loaded with Omega 3 fatty acids – it’s as good as you’re going to get.’ And I can say that with certainty," said Murkowski in a floor speech on Thursday. "We can’t say that, and we won’t say that with this genetically engineered fish. As a mom, I’m not going to say, 'Eat this Frankenfish.'"

Supporters of GE salmon argue that the modified fish would help grow the industry in the US, and provide alternatives for declining natural fish stocks. And you could grow the fish in places where it doesn't live naturally, they argue.

While the measure failed, supporters at the Marine Fish Conservation Network said in an emailed statement that they believe the 46 votes in favor is "indicative of wide-spread concern on behalf of the public" about GE salmon.

11 Awful John Edwards Pickup Lines

Tim Murphy — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:48:57 +0000

The way we live now: On Friday, ABC News reported that former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards has been flirting with a female alternate juror at his trial for allegedly making illegal payments from his campaign fund to cover up an affair. Per the story:

Since the alternates were identified last Thursday, it has been impossible to ignore the dynamic between Edwards and one of the female alternates, an attractive young woman with jet-black hair, who seems to have been flirting with Edwards for days.

The juror clearly instigated the exchanges. She smiles at him. He smiles at her. She giggles. He blushes.

But what does he say? We took a stab at it:

"Want to see what a $400 haircut buys? [Winks.]"
"Improper use of federal matching funds? More like matching fun, amirite? [Winks.]"
"[Points at electronic tracking bracelet.] [Winks.]"
"Hello, voir dear [long pause] [winks]."
"Shall we adjourn to my place? [Winks.]"
"I'll bring the handcuffs [winks]."
"You've been acquitting yourself nicely [creepy laughter] [points fingers] [claps] [winks].."
"They say justice is blind. But I can't take my eyes off of you [winks]."
"We can build one America, baby [winks]."
"Did it hurt...when you fell from heaven? Because I know a good personal injury lawyer [winks]."

And for old times' sake...

"My daddy worked at a mill all his life."

Okay, now we need to take a shower.

SPLC Highlights New Extremist Leaders To Watch

Stephanie Mencimer — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:12:09 +0000

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center Gage SkidmoreThe Southern Poverty Law Center published a new report this week on 30 up-and-coming leaders of the radical right. There are some old familiars on the list, like David Duke, and many others who probably won't come as much of a surprise to regular Mother Jones readers. SPLC singles out some of the chorus of anti-Muslim activists like Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney and David Yerushalmi as people to keep an eye on. There are some gay-bashers in there, too. Birther-conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah, the founder of WorldNet Daily, also makes the list. But not everyone on the group seems to rise to the level of menace that SPLC suggests.

Among those might be Mike Vanderboegh, a former militia activist from Alabama. Vanderboegh is probably most famous these days for having encouraged readers of his blog to break the windows of Democratic Party headquarters after the passage of health care reform, which prompted some of his readers to toss bricks through the windows of a few Democratic congressional offices.

Vanderboegh, though, is a bit more of a complicated character than the SPLC has made him out to be. His rhetoric is certainly inflammatory, but it's also mostly confined to his blog, which has a very small following. Vanderboegh has also helped bring to light some evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government in the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, in which the federal government allowed guns to be illegally exported to Mexico in the hopes of tracking them to major drug cartel leaders. (The ATF agents ended up losing track of thousands of the guns, which later turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and the US.) He's also got a sense of humor, a rare quality in an extremist. He responded to his inclusion on the list by writing a blog post about it that included a photoshopped picture of Mark Potok, the SPLC senior fellow who tracks right-wing extremism, wearing a tin-foil hat.

Another entry on SPLC's list that seems slightly off-base is Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, which urges states to nullify federal laws they see as unconstitutional. SPLC links Boldin with the "Patriot movement" and far-right extremists. But it overlooks a lot of the issues that Boldin himself has championed. I met him two years ago at a Tenther conference in Atlanta, which definitely featured some fringey right-wingers, including the John Birch Society. But Boldin stuck out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a California hipster who travels with tins of sardines in his suitcase to ensure that he eats enough omega-3 fatty acids.

Boldin got into politics through his opposition to the Iraq war, not through the tea party or any other right-wing cause. He is a libertarian, and believes the Tenth Amendment applies to all sorts of things that right-wingers generally wouldn't agree with. For instance, he and his organization support pot legalization and the right of states to legalize gay marriage. Lately, though, he has been focused on state opposition to the new National Defense Authorization Act because he believes it could allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens—a position that puts him squarely on the side of the American Civil Liberties Union. That's why he was a little surprised to find himself on the SPLC list. He told me in an email:

I think these people are just lazy and aren't paying attention to the work we do, the columns I write, or the speeches I give. Or, maybe they're just exploiting fear of real radicals who use propaganda to advocate their wars, racism to justify their torture, and fear to promote their indefinite detention scheme - both in Guantanamo and here in the U.S. Then again, I just happen to think that most of those dangerous people are wearing suits in Washington D.C.

SPLC deserves credit for keeping tabs on the nation's potentially violent fringe elements, but it does seem like they are occasionally casting too wide a net in their efforts to identify the next Timothy McVeigh. But then again, it only takes one guy like him to create mass carnage. Maybe when it comes to monitoring extremism, you can't really have too much information.

Explaining Black Voters' Shift on Same-Sex Marriage

Adam Serwer — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:23:13 +0000

Black voters in Maryland have flipped on same-sex marriage, going from majority opposed to majority in favor in the space of two months. As I noted on Thursday, that means that Maryland could become the first state to approve of marriage equality by referendum.

So what does this say about the power of the bully pulpit? Empirical data suggests that presidential speeches rarely move public opinion in an affirmative direction, and may even harden it against whatever the president is proposing. The key shift on same-sex marriage, though, comes from a population that was already supportive of Obama. Political scientist John Sides points to an experiment that may shed some light:

Although the polling data thus far generally support the finding that presidents don’t move public opinion very much or very often, there is some reason to believe that Obama himself could move opinion among African-Americans. In a 1994 paper (gated), James Kuklinski and Norman Hurley conducted an experiment in which respondents read a statement urging African-Americans to demonstrate more self-reliance. The statement was attributed to Jesse Jackson, Clarence Thomas, George Bush, Ted Kennedy, or no one.

Among black participants, the most persuasive cue-giver was Jackson, following closely by…? Thomas...This is nothing unique to Jackson or Thomas or even African-Americans, of course. Sources of information are generally more credible when they are perceived as sharing our identities, values, etc.

I'm inclined to think that this doesn't mean that Obama's been holding out on magic pixie dust for influencing public opinion, but that this is a fairly unique circumstance in that black Americans, prior to Obama's endorsement, were more likely to oppose marriage equality and really like Obama. The president has given many more public speeches in support of the Affordable Care Act than same-sex marriage, without moving the dial a notch. Also "really like Obama" is understating it a bit: the president is a singularly unique figure in the black community as a symbol of accomplishment and hope for a better future.

Another factor here is that I think opposition to same-sex marriage among black Americans is wide, but for the most part not particularly deep. This is why black legislators who support same-sex marriage don't get punished at the polls. There's also a partisanship factor at work here: As Jonathan Bernstein writes, "African American voters who really don’t care very much one way or another about the marriage issue — but do consider themselves on Team Democrat — are now aware that marriage equality is the normal position of that team." I'd say that we saw similar psychological effect with Republicans and climate change.

Adam Serwer is filling in while Kevin is on vacation.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 25, 2012

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:08:12 +0000

Service members pose for a photo with television host Kelly Ripa after the taping of Live with Kelly during Fleet Week New York 2012. This marks the 25th year the city has celebrated the nation's sea services. This year, the seven-day event coincides with he commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 and will host more than 6,000 service members from the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard team in addition to coalition ships from around the world. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist MC2 Drae Parker.

Targeting America's "Stand Your Ground" Laws

Adam Weinstein — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:45:00 +0000

Nearly three months after the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin put the spotlight on "stand your ground," a new national organization is pressing thousands of lawmakers across the country to "reform or repeal" laws that sanction the controversial self-defense doctrine.

Second Chance on Shoot First, a nonprofit started in April by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and a collection of progressive and civil-rights organizations, is targeting 26 states that legalized "stand your ground"—or "shoot first," as the group calls it. "Prior to 'Shoot First,' people had a traditional duty to retreat from a situation outside their home when they could safely do so," the campaign's website states. "Now, afforded immunity and a presumption of lawfulness by the law, armed individuals can seek out opportunities to use deadly force outside their homes. And the hands of law enforcement and prosecutors are tied."

Mother Jones has reported about how the National Rifle Association and the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council lobbied nationwide for the laws, and how the laws have hampered law enforcement in numerous cases—including the investigation into Martin's fatal shooting.

This week, Ginny Simmons, the director of Second Chance, sent letters to more than 4,000 legislators in states with the lax defense standards, urging them to modify or discard the legal guidelines. "[E]xperience has now shown that these laws encourage vigilantism, sow confusion among police, and stymie prosecutors," she wrote in the letter. "People carrying guns now feel emboldened to resolve conflicts with firearms even if they could safely walk away, and police and prosecutors are uncertain about which shootings may be instances of legitimate self-defense and which are murders."

Continue Reading »

This Week in Dark Money

Gavin Aronsen — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:00:00 +0000

A quick look at the week that was in the world of political dark money...

Citizens United fever: The debate over the controversial Supreme Court ruling continues. Curious how it could be undone? Check out our DIY guide to ditching the ruling. For more details, iWatch News reports on the argument over whether a constitutional amendment is the best way to overturn it. MoJo's Andy Kroll explores whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who just asked Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, is reclaiming his status as a campaign-finance reformer. Meanwhile, dark-money fans are lining up to tell the court not to touch Citizens United.

Going soft on Obama (sort of): The New York Times' Jeremy Peters deconstructs the latest ad from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, in which a mom complains that President Obama's policies have forced her grown children to move back home. The ad's partly the work of Larry McCarthy, the producer of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad:

McCarthy's new ad, though, strikes a far softer tone. It repeatedly uses the word "change" and breaks from the attack-ad norm by employing professional actors.

Oppo-research group targets Dems: Andy Kroll reports on Media Tracker, a "nonpartisan" opposition-research group founded by to dig up dirt on Democrats that can be used in attack ads. "I'm talking about creating long-lasting impact for the conservative movement," says its founder, a former Republican National Committee staffer. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has a sophisticated ad shop ready to fight back against the likes of Media Trackers, Slate's Sasha Issenberg reports.

Where are the liberal megadonors? Also at Slate, Dave Weigel takes a look at why the super-PAC-fueled ideological purging of unworthy GOP candidates isn't happening on the left. As Michael Vachon, spokesman for conservatives' favorite boogeyman George Soros, explains, "The reason there's not a Club for Growth-like organization on the left is that there is a greater diversity of views in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. There's less of a hierarchically enforced ideological structure."

Super-PACs keep the money flowing to state races: The Sunlight Foundation's Anupama Narayanswamy reports that super-PACs spent nearly $1 million ahead of Tuesday's primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky. A 21-year-old millionaire's pro-Ron Paul super-PAC provided the majority of the $766,000 in outside spending that propelled Republican congressional candidate Thomas Massie to victory in the Bluegrass State. (MoJo's Tim Murphy has more his group here. Watch a campaign ad below.) Meanwhile, real-estate interests have spent a "mind boggling" $700,000 attempting to oust a 14-year incumbent in a Republican House primary in California.

A Wall Street slump for Romney: Barack Obama's difficult relationship with Wall Street donors is well known. Now Mitt Romney is having troubles too, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. Since April, the securities and investment industry has been donating significantly less to his campaign as well as the pro-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future. But Romney is still outraising Obama, who took in just $166,000 from the financial industry last month (and less from Silicon Valley, too).

Frack-Friendly New Report Debunked

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:00:00 +0000

Earlier this month, the State University of New York at Buffalo released a report concluding that fracking is getting safer, as both industry and regulators are doing a better job. The study got plenty of coverage—the Associated Press, Forbes, WGRZ, Buffalo News—but in the week since it was released, it's been attacked for a number of flaws.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process by which a blast of chemicals, water, and sand are used to tap into natural gas reserves. It's also highly controversial, as many have raised concerns about the environmental and health impacts for people living near drilling sites. So it's not surprising that this report, the first from Buffalo's new Shale Resources and Society Institute, drew a lot of attention.

But on Wednesday the university was forced to remove the "peer-reviewed" description it gave to the report, since it was not. And a reviewer from the Environmental Defense Fund notes that the paper draws some questionable conclusions that he did not actually endorse. On Thursday, the watchdog group Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) released a scathing review of the report, concluding that the data actually shows that the number of environmental problems related to fracking increased by 189 percent from 2008 to 2011.

PAI also found that two of the report authors had previously written a report paid for by the natural gas industry, and a third works for an environmental consulting firm involved in the natural gas industry. They also revealed that large portions of the paper were lifted, word-for-word, from a pro-fracking paper that three of the authors had written for the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute.

The University at Buffalo's Shale Resources and Society Institute is also getting more scrutiny for its own relationship to the energy industry. As PAI points out, a University at Buffalo spokesman told WGRZ News that the Shale Institute "does not have any external funding." But the institute's website notes that it is currently seeking future funding from outside grants, contracts, and memberships.

"Taken together," concludes PAI, "the serious flaws in the report, industry-friendly spin, strong industry ties, and fundraising plans raise serious questions about the Shale Resources and Society Institute's independence and the University at Buffalo’s decision to lend its independent, academic authority to the Institute's work."

On Aid, Obama Sells Out Poor Countries to Big Ag

Tom Philpott — Fri, 25 May 2012 09:29:12 +0000

"More than one in four Africans—close to 218 million people—is undernourished," the UN Development Progam declared in a recent report. With food prices gyrating upward in recent years, the situation has reached a crisis. What's the answer?

According to President Obama and his fellow heads of state in the G-8 (US, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, Canada, and Russia), the solution lies in the private sector. At last weekend's G-8 summit at Camp David, the group launched "The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition," described as a "commitment by G-8 nations, African countries and private sector partners to lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through inclusive and sustained agricultural growth."

The "private-sector partners" in the alliance have pledged $3 billion in new investments in African ag over the next decade. And what are the companies that President Obama and his G-8 peers have tapped to lift Africa out of hunger? Their number (list here) turns out to include global agribiz giants Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, and Yara; and junk-food behemoths Unilever, Kraft, Hershey’s, and Mars.

Continue Reading »

Obama Taps Nuclear "Agnostic" for Top Regulatory Post

Kate Sheppard — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:13:13 +0000

Politico reports that President Obama will nominate Allison Macfarlane to serve as the new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The current chairman, Greg Jaczko, resigned on Monday under pressure from panel members more sympathetic to the nuclear industry.

Mcfarlane is an associate professor of Environmental Policy and Social Sciences at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. She has a PhD in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and wrote a book about the challenges of nuclear waste disposal, Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear Waste. She is currently a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the future of nuclear that Energy Secretary Steven Chu created in 2010.

Given the pressure put on Jaczko, one has to wonder if Macfarlane will make it through Senate confirmation. She's been highly critical of using Yucca Mountain to dispose of nuclear waste, a favorite issue for the industry and supporters in Congress. And she says she's an "agnostic" on nuclear energy, as she described on the Atomic Show podcast in 2007:

In terms of nuclear energy, I would describe myself as an agnostic. I'm neither pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I think nuclear has been doing a good job in the United states and some other industrial countries at providing a good, reliable energy, and they've been improving on that. At the same time, I think I think in terms of an expansion in nuclear power over the next 50 years or something, nuclear has lot of liabilities and I don't know if it can get over them.

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader (and vocal Yucca critic) Harry Reid indicated that he would seek to move her confirmation forward alongside the reconfirmation of current commissioner Kristine Svinicki. Reid has expressed "grave concerns" about reappointing Svinicki, but seemed to indicate that perhaps there could be agreement on moving the two forward together. "The nuclear industry has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to safety by supporting Dr. Macfarlane’s nomination," said Reid.

Feminists Defend Conservative Writer against Sexist Hustler "Parody"

Adam Serwer — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:09:42 +0000

Conservative writer S.E. Cupp was recently the target of a sexist "parody" in Hustler magazine that I won't describe here because it's a family blog. Feminists, in response, have denounced Hustler for essentially telling Cupp that her proper role is as the object of sexual exploitation rather than a source of political commentary. Notably, Sandra Fluke, who was called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh, tweeted that Hustler was trying to "limit [women] 2 being sexual figures & not more."

Zerlina Maxwell at Feministing writes:

While Hustler claims the picture is intended to be funny "satire," it simply is not funny. It's out of line, it's sexist, and it's an unacceptable form of misogyny. Women are under attack from all sides and no matter what political party you are in, I'm going to defend you from sexist attacks. I will not stand by in silence when a woman, any woman, is attacked in this way and belittled as nothing more than a sexual object. It's about disagreement over ideas; smearing and demeaning women should not part of the equation.

There isn't actually much difference between what Limbaugh was doing to Fluke and what Hustler did to Cupp. In both cases, the objective was to silence a women with contrary political views by insisting that they return to their proper place as objects of sexual desire for men. Conservatives objected to Limbaugh's use of coarse language, but many agreed with his underlying argument in referring to Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute."

That's not the only difference: As Digby points out, the forceful condemnations of Hustler from feminist circles stand in contrast to the responses from the right to the Limbaugh/Fluke incident, where mild denounciations were paired with adamant insistence that, whatever Limbaugh said about Fluke, conservative women have it much worse. Conservative writer Michelle Malkin, herself a frequent target of sexist and racist vitriol on Twitter from critics (which is sadly often a byproduct of being a woman who writes stuff on the Internet) pointed out that there were other names Limbaugh could have called Fluke:

I'll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a "slut." She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

The reason for the discrepancy here is rather simple: Whereas liberals view sexism as a societal problem that shapes how we live our lives, many conservatives view it as an issue of liberals using sexist rhetoric against conservative women. That's why Malkin, a disciple of the "I know you are but what am I" school of political rhetoric, came up with the "war on conservative women" meme in response to Democratic rhetoric about Republicans "waging a war on women" by opposing access to contraception and holding up legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. This reflects a disciplined commitment to the Bender theory of discrimination: "This is the worst kind of discrimination: The kind against ME!"

Where conservatives look at the Hustler "parody" as indicative of liberal contempt for conservative women, feminists see a larger problem about how women are treated that affects everything from health insurance to how much you take home on your paycheck. To have condemned Limbaugh for his sexism in the same unconditional manner would have been a distraction, because the real problem isn't sexism, it's liberals. For feminists, sexism is the problem, period.

Adam Serwer is filling in while Kevin is on vacation.

Are Flame Retardants Especially Toxic to Minority Kids?

David Tuller — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:34:35 +0000

Earlier this month, the Chicago Tribune published an eye-opening investigation of how the chemical industry, through a far-reaching disinformation campaign, has spent years undermining efforts to ban flame retardants. These chemicals have long been added to household items like furniture, clothes, toys, blankets, and TVs, but many have been linked to cancer, neurological and developmental problems, and other serious health risks.

The Tribune series sparked headlines across the country, as well as loud calls for greater scrutiny and regulation of the potentially hazardous chemicals. Now a study posted yesterday by Environmental Health Perspectives, a leading peer-reviewed journal, provides an effective reminder of just how widespread and tenacious the problem is. The researchers examined exposure to flame retardants commonly found in furniture and reported measurable levels in the blood of all 77 toddlers, in all samples of dust collected during home visits to their households, and on 98 percent of hand swipes taken from the children, all of whom were from North Carolina.

Continue Reading »

New Climate Threat to Critically Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles

Julia Whitty — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:12:56 +0000

Leatherback sea turtle hatchling: Florida Fish and Wildlife via FlickrA new paper in PLoS ONE reports that critically endangered leatherback sea turtles nesting in Costa Rica—a stronghold of the surviving population—are severely affected by the warmer and drier climate that accompanies El Niño cycles.

Unfortunately, a warmer and drier climate is also exactly what's forecast for Costa Rica in a warming world in the coming century, according to IPCC projections... a whopping 3°C (5.4°F) warmer and 25 percent drier on the Pacific coast.

As the authors note, leatherback turtles are already critically in danger of extinction from egg poaching and bycatch in fisheries. Now climate change threatens them further. From the paper:

Egg-burying reptiles need relatively stable temperature and humidity in the substrate surrounding their eggs for successful development and hatchling emergence. Here we show that egg and hatchling mortality of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in northwest Costa Rica were affected by climatic variability (precipitation and air temperature) driven by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Drier and warmer conditions associated with El Niño increased egg and hatchling mortality... Using projections from an ensemble of global climate models contributed to the IPCC report, we project that egg and hatchling survival will rapidly decline in the region over the next 100 years by ~50–60%, due to warming and drying in northwestern Costa Rica, threatening the survival of leatherback turtles. Warming and drying trends may also threaten the survival of sea turtles in other areas affected by similar climate changes.

Hatching success and emergence rate projections of leatherback nests in 100 years of climate change: Pilar Santidrián Tomillo, et al. PLoS ONE. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0037602

In the graphs above you can see the authors' projections of both hatching success (the percentage of eggs within a clutch that develop completely) and emergence rate (the percentage of hatchlings that successfully emerge from the nest within two nights of the initial emergence event). From the paper:

Our model projected that both hatching success and emergence rate would significantly decrease between years 2001 and 2100 due to a warming and drying of the area encompassing northwest Costa Rica. Of the 17 IPCC models used here, 13 of them projected a decrease in precipitation while all models projected an increase in air temperature. Our projections indicated that hatching success would decrease from a 10-year moving average ~0.42 to ~0.18 from the beginning to the end of the 21st century, and emergence rate from ~0.76 to ~0.29.

Leatherback sea turtle hatchling: Ken Clifton | algaedoc via Wikimedia Commons

As the IUCN Red List notes, the decline in nesting of leatherback turtles has been far greater than 80 percent in most Pacific populations, the species' major stronghold. Global adult female populations have fallen by more than 70 percent in less than one turtle generation. Current annual nesting mortality for females is estimated at ~30 percent.

That means adult females stand a nearly one-in-three chance of dying every year.

Add to that the increasing rates of nesting failure in a warming world and you get the fast-track to extinction for a species that's survived 110 million years of pre-human challenges.

The paper:

Santidrián Tomillo P, Saba VS, Blanco GS, Stock CA, Paladino FV, et al. (2012) Climate Driven Egg and Hatchling Mortality Threatens Survival of Eastern Pacific Leatherback Turtles. PLoS ONE 7(5): e37602. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037602

Polluters Ran Amok Under Romney, Says Watchdog

Kate Sheppard — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:49:00 +0000

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney made a number of decisions that significantly limited the state's ability to crack down on environmental crimes, according to the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

On Thursday, the group released a recap of Romney's efforts to cut and reorganize the state's enforcement agencies. His time as governor was marked by budget cuts, understaffed and underfunded agencies, and lax enforcement, PEER said.

Just weeks after taking office in 2003, he announced a plan to centralize the state's legal services and lay off as many as half of its attorneys, including many within the Department of Environmental Protection. In rolling out the plan, Romney's chief legal counsel Daniel Winslow singled out environmental positions as a target for cuts in an interview with Lawyers Weekly. Critics said the move would limit the state's ability to prosecute environmental crimes, as the DEP was already "chronically understaffed" and would likely have to drop some cases. In the end, Romney's reorganization plan was stymied by opposition from enviros, unions, and residents.

His administration also cut the DEP's budget by almost a third, and temporarily closed its Northeastern Regional Office in Wilmington, Mass. An internal DEP memo that the Boston Globe obtained noted that these cuts were hurting the state. "Over the long term ... these budget and staffing cuts cannot be sustained without significantly increasing risks to public health and the environment and increasing serious operational and service delivery problems for the agency," it said.

In 2004, Romney's administration was accused of suppressing a report that detailed problems within the Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP), which enforces laws related to pollution, wildlife and marine safety. The report, which was conducted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, found that the police staffing was "inadequate," the programs were "grossly under-funded," and that the department had "weak leadership and management." Just 105 of the 130 full-time posts were filled, and the pay for environmental enforcement officers was far lower than other law enforcement in the state.

PEER later conducted its own survey of MEP staff, and found that 97 percent of respondents felt that the police force was not sufficiently funded "to fulfill its environmental mission." Ninety-nine percent felt it wasn't sufficiently staffed. Nearly three-quarters disagreed with the statement that they had "confidence in the professionalism" of the MEP managers they report to. Staff confidence in the state's enforcement agency was pretty abysmal.

New England PEER Director Kyla Bennett says this history is indicative of Romney's disregard for enforcing the state's environmental laws. "Romney's approach to enforcement was to use it as a last resort, and to be as friendly to business as possible," she said. "I shudder to think what it would be like if he implemented those policies nationwide."

Heartland Institute in Financial Crisis After Billboard Controversy

Suzanne Goldenberg — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:43:07 +0000

This story first appeared on the Guardian website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The ultra-conservative Heartland Institute admitted it was in financial crisis on Wednesday, with the flight of corporate donors making it difficult to pay staff or cover the costs of its annual conference aimed at debunking climate science.

In a speech at the close of this year's climate conference, Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, acknowledged that a provocative ad campaign comparing believers in man-made climate change to psychopaths had exacted a heavy cost.

However, Bast also attributed Heartland's current problems to his weakness in financial management.

Continue Reading »

National Review Still Wrong on Civil Rights History

Adam Serwer — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:39:48 +0000

Jonathan Chait, Jonathan Bernstein and myself have all weighed in on Kevin D. Williamson's rather ahistorical take on conservatives being the real heroes of the civil rights movement in National Review.

Among Williamson's odd omissions was not mentioning the misty eyed defense of white supremacy National Review founder William F. Buckley penned in 1957. (He also ignores Buckley's view that the Civil Rights Act was "artificially deduced from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or from the 14th Amendment.") That many liberal Republicans supported civil rights, and many racist Democrats didn't, doesn't alter the fact that the modern conservative movement really begins with a man who campaigned on opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Williamson hasn't responded to any of his critics at National Review, but he did offer this up on Twitter:

"WFB's views have been endlessly documented. I have nothing to add."

Williamson has "nothing to add" to the historical evidence that debunks his argument. I supposed I wouldn't have "anything to add" either, but I'm wondering how that conversation went with National Review's editors.

NR Editor: Do you think maybe in this piece about conservatives being awesome at the time we should acknowledge what was actually written in this magazine in the 1950s and 60s?

Williamson: Well what do we have to add?

Williamson did offer a valiant Chewbacca defense of his piece as well:

Chait: "Why not get behind the next civil rights idea (gay marriage) now?" How about an all-African-American national referendum on that?

Man, listen: The expiration date on that "joke" is rapidly approaching.

Adam Serwer is filling in while Kevin is on vacation.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 24, 2012

Thu, 24 May 2012 16:21:57 +0000

US Army Pvt. Richard Mitchell, Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul, visits with children of a village in northern Qalat on May 16, 2012. The children of the village received humanitarian aid from the PRT during the US and Romanian's visit to assess security and irrigation in the village. US Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Turner.