Making States More Green

cross-posted from Sum of Change

The question on how states and local level governments can assist the green wave is commonly considered, especially when discussing the current job market and nation’s economy. Michael Fedor, the Pennsylvania state director for Repower America, and Adam Graber, PennEnvironment, bring up various ways to support this process.

The following clips were filmed at the 2010 PA Progressive Summit, held this last January in Harrisburg, PA. In the first video, Fedor and Garber answer a question regarding the Maglev System (a budding green friendly train system appropriate for state wide and city commuting) and how to gain federal funding for a project such as this. In the final video, Garber and Fedor specifically address plans to decrease coal dependency in Pennsylvania, another solution to help states become greener.

For more info on the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit and it's organizer, Keystone progress, please go to paprogressivesummit.org and keystoneprogress.org

"We're Not Out Of The Woods Yet"

cross-posted from Sum of Change

History repeats itself. It is 1948. Not literally of course, but we are about to relive a moment of U.S. history. A moment in history when our government, with the President leading the charge, took steps to remove a form of bigotry from our armed forces. For several years leading up to that point, the government had experimented with integrated units, providing black soldiers with a chance to serve in the normal people's army (kind of).

As the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (the homosexual's equivalent to experimental desegregation) takes center stage amidst reports of a potential deal, the folks from Get Equal are cautioning people not to celebrate too quickly.

This language shifts responsibility for repeal from Congress to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- two-thirds of whom were not elected by a supportive American public.[1] Repeal hinges on a subjective study to ensure that our presence in the military won't have a negative impact on the military, there is no date given to end military discharges of LGBT servicemembers, there is no change to the DADT law right now, and there is no guarantee that repeal will happen -- whether or not the conditions on the amendment are met.

We're happy that Congress may take the first step this week in repealing this discriminatory legislation -- but we're not out of the woods yet.

If there is one thing we have learned from recent fights, the Republican party is going to use every available avenue to derail this legislation. This debate is just beginning and the debate will be ugly. We know the debate will be ugly because we have lived through this before.

We have seen how the conservatives react when liberals attempt to use the armed services as a vehicle to drive a radical, social experiment.

They told us that "To change would destroy morale and impair preparations for national defense...no experiments should be tried . . . at this critical time."

They told us that "Experiments to solve social problems would be 'fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale'."

These were the rational arguments they made the last time the nation took steps to remove bigotry from our military. Those calmly stated arguments in favor of bigotry were matched by lone wolf attacks on black service members and their families.

So, while Democratic leaders may be getting giddy over a possible deal, I have to agree that "we're not out of the woods yet." But for the first time since this President has taken office, I am confident that we are going to have the chance to really have this fight. And for the first time, I am confident that we are going to see an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell, a major step forward for the LGBT community.

Jean du Preez on the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty

cross-posted from Sum of Change

Back in April, we spoke with Dr. Peter Wilk of Physicians for Social Responsibility about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). That treaty has been hailed as a major step forward in the interest of arms reduction. Yet arms reduction is just the tip of the iceberg. To deal with this issue, we need to not only reduce armaments but conceptually rethink our entire policy regarding nuclear arms.

There are many aspects of nuclear non-proliferation where action is seriously needed. We are going to delve into some of these areas, but today I would like to talk specifically about the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. This treaty was signed in 1996, but the United States Senate failed to ratify it. President Obama has pledged to work aggressively getting it ratified by 2011.

For more context, and a little bit of looking forward, check out this interview with Jean du Preez:

You can find a lot more information about nuclear non-proliferation from the good folks at NPT TV, a student run operation to shed light on these issues.

Ex-Presidents and Former Presidents

I get emails from all kinds of folks. I make it a point to get emails from both liberal and conservative groups, and I make it a point to actually read as many of them as possible. So, there was nothing strange about me scanning over the roundup of "headlines" from LifeNews.com. I got distracted right away when I saw them refer to President Clinton as "ex-President Bill Clinton."

I thought it interesting that they used the word "ex" instead of "former." My immediate thought was, they are trying to attach a bad connotation to him. It implies that his exit was... well... not-so-nice. I would love to say that the petty word tricks like this do not work, that it is usually best to ignore it. But they do matter. The Republican National News Network, you know, Fox, understood that calling it the "government option" instead of the "public option" would have an affect on its popularity (ultimately, they were a little late to the game and the term "public option" was far too ingrained into common rhetoric to simply be replaced because some news anchor wanted it so).

Back to LifeNews.com. I decided to employ the awesomeness of google and do a little analysis of their use of the terms "ex-President" and "Former President." The latter was used almost exactly the same number of times to describe Republicans and Democrats. Nothing really to note about that. Yet their use of the term "ex-President" tells a different story.

That term has, as far as google knows, only been used thirteen times at LifeNews.com. Once, was quoting FORMER President Jimmy Carter speaking about himself. Every other time, they are speaking about FORMER President Clinton.

I am sure that the partisan nature of the anti-choice movement has nothing to do with this. It is simply a coincidence that while LifeNews.com more often than not refers to past U.S. Presidents as "former President," 100% of the times they have used the term "ex-President" it has been in reference to a Democrat who served two full terms and remains popular to this day.

PA-Sen Primary Eve: Recap from PA Progressive Summit

cross-posted from Sum of Change

As Pennsylvania gets ready to vote in, arguably, the most-watched primary of the year, we thought folks might appreciate one last look at the two candidates, Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak, back-to-back on the issues. (Videos from the PA Progressive Summit)

--Question 1- What Do You Think of a Partial Spending Freeze?

--Question 2- What Would You Do To Increase Manufacturing Jobs in the US?

--Question 3- What is Your Opinion of Same-Sex Marriage?

--Question 4- Will You Vote For The Employee Free Choice Act With Card Check?

--Question 5- What Are you Going to do About the Trade Deficit?

--Question 6- Do You Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

--Question 7- What Should We Do About the Filibuster?

Video from K Street Protest

cross-posted from Sum of Change

Today, despite the persistant rain, thousands of people showed up on K Street in Washington, DC to protest the actions and lobbying efforts of big banks and to demand economic justice. The Washington Post is comparing the anger to what we have seen at Teaparty protests.

--Mark Freeman, foreclosure victim and SEIU member

--Kia Alvarez, member of Alliance to Develop Power

--Trenda Kennedy, Illinois People's Action

--Al Marshall, SEIU Local 1021

Interview with Neil Franklin of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

cross-posted from Sum of Change

On Friday, May 14th 2010, I got the chance to sit down with Neill Franklin, the Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). (Full interview at the bottom)

Neill Franklin, LEAP's incoming executive director, is a 32-year law enforcement veteran who spent more than two decades with the Maryland State Police (leading the drug division's education and training) and then moved to Baltimore PD. Like a character from HBO's "The Wire," Neill could tell you stories of colleagues being gunned down in the line of fire, as he did in this Washington Post op-ed.

--Neill Franklin Shares His Story

To sum up: Mr Franklin is a 32-year law enforcement veteran. Many things he experienced doing that work led him to speak out against drug prohibition, but there were two events that really changed him. First off, he served on Mayor Kurt Schmoke's Board for Needle Exchange in Baltimore. Mayor Schmoke was an advocate for rethinking our policies regarding the war on drugs. But it was not until 2000 when he lost a good friend named Edward Totely. Mr Totely was assassinated while making an undercover drug buy. That is when Mr Franklin began to examine the negative consequences of the war on drugs.

--On the Obama Administration's Drug Policy

To sum up: Mr Franklin feels that President Obama's "balanced new approach" is balanced in rhetoric only because two thirds of the money goes to enforcement (not including the costs of incarceration).

--On the Gateway Drug Theory

To sum up: Mr Franklin feels it is a fallacy and that cigarettes and alcohol are greater gateway drugs yet remain legal.

--Drug Laws and the Fourth Amendment

To sum up: Mr Franklin argues that the laws surrounding drugs create an environment where police are under pressure to search for drugs, which leads many officers to unintentionally push the limits of the law.

--The CA Ballot Initiative and the Federal Response

To sum up: Mr Franklin congratulates the people of California for putting this issue on the ballot, and encourages people to get involved with that campaign. As for the federal response, he has some concern that the federal government may try to "flex their muscles and go into California and start arresting people." He says the federal government should allow that state to go ahead with control and regulation. "They should be bringing smart people together to figure out what the future policies will look like."

--Law Enforcement Reaction to Franklin's Work

To sum up: Mr Franklin finds that most law enforcement officials respond positively to his position.

Full, Unedited Interview