Politics Plus

You can expect some major howling from Republicans and Blue Dogs over an EPA decision to forbid the largest mountaintop removal mine in WV history.  At the same time it is cause for celebration by environmentalists, tired of seeing government look the other way criminal corporations despoil our planet and threaten the health and quality of life of Americans within range.

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed the largest mountaintop removal mining permit in the history of West Virginia, and one that has been at the heart of these new coalfield wars for a decade.

As usual, Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette is the go-to guy here:

 

The move is part of an Obama administration crackdown aimed at reducing the effects of mountaintop removal coal-mining on the environment and on coalfield communities in Appalachian — impacts that scientists are increasingly finding to be pervasive and irreversible…

…EPA officials this morning were alerting West Virginia’s congressional delegation to their action, and undoubtedly preparing for a huge backlash from the mining industry and its friends among coalfield political leaders.

In making its decision to veto the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of the 2,300-acre mine proposed for the Blair area of Logan County, EPA noted that it reviewed more than 50,000 public comments and held a major public hearing in West Virginia. EPA officials said their agency is "acting under the law and using the best science available to protect water quality, wildlife and Appalachian communities who rely on clean waters for drinking, fishing and swimming."

The site is called the Spruce Mine, which became controversial in 1999 when the late federal district judge Chuck Haden, a Republican, issued an injunction that blocked mining there on environmental grounds. Readers with ridiculously sharp memories will recall that I knew Chuck pretty well – he and my father were close friends, and he was one of the eulogists at Dad’s funeral.

What seems to have happened here, according to Ward, is this. After Haden’s ruling, Arch, the operator, scaled the site back by 700 acres (the current 2,300 acres is still about the size of downtown Pittsburgh) and got a new permit from the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. The Obama administration came in and signaled its intention to review the matter. A full year was spent in negotiation between the EPA and the company trying to find a compromise that would let the mining go ahead but with stronger safeguards, according to Ward. But no deal could be reached.

This is a big big deal, folks. It’s the first time the EPA has ever vetoed a project that was previously granted a permit… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Guardian>

Major kudos to the EPA.  May this be just the beginning!

Franklin Delano Roosevelt changed the face of America.  In 1944, he composed an economic bill of rights for America.  He was able it institute part of it, and Republicans opposed it then and have worked to dismantle it ever since.  Roosevelt understood the needs of Main Street Americans 67 years ago.  Listening to the clip below, it struck me that we have forgotten the lessons of the 1920s and 1930s and are reliving them in 2000s and 2010s.  But where is FDR when we need him?

On Jan. 11, 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave an historic State of the Union address. In it he outlined an economic Bill of Rights…

…Many progressives have argued that it’s time to move on, that the FDR era and its supposedly moth-eaten legacy, ideas and ideals are no match for a 21st Century dominated by globalization and multinational oligarchy. In fact, the New Deal itself was a modest affair and all those rights Roosevelt spoke of 67 years ago are still unattained. But are they not worth seeking still?

We live in a time when the successors of the rightist plot to overthrow Roosevelt seek to pulverize the gem of his presidency, Social Security. Shamefully, they have allies for their efforts within FDR’s own party. In terms of inequality of wealth and income, we are worse off than we were in ’44. Higher education, decent housing, adequate health care and, of course, a "useful and remunerative" job are beyond the reach of far too many Americans. Should we not look upon those facts with shame and horror?

With a little tweaking – some mention of a sustainable environment, for instance – the excerpt from Roosevelt’s speech would make a fine addition to any State of the Union address today… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

The roadmap is right there.  FDR spelled out exactly want we need to do to make our nation equal in practice the beacon on the hill that our founders intended it to be.  The Republican Party stands in the way.  Obama must become the leader who will fight for this reality, or we must find one who will.

It took four days for Sarah Palin’s handlers to teach Palin the speech she gave in response to the criticism she has rightfully received over her own violent speech and her targeting Gabriel Giffords with gun sight crosshairs.  While responsible people on the left are not saying that Jared Loughner is one of her followers, or anything other that a very sick mind, we have said that Palin and others of her ilk contributed to a culture of violence, specifically gun violence, that may have contributed to this tragedy and has already resulted in other deaths.  Not only has Palin denied accountability for her part in that culture, but also, has accused us of manufacturing a “blood libel”.  According to Wikipedia, a blood libel is the false claim that religious minorities, most commonly Jews, murder children to use their blood in religious ritual.  That false claim was then used as an excuse for European persecution of Jews and violence against them.  In short, Palin is accusing us of using a vile false claim to make her a target for violence.

Sarah Palin’s Facebook page essay [Bullseye Bimbo delinked] and video in response to the Tucson shootings – a tragedy in which she found herself the centerpiece of a debate over civility in political discourse – was crafted as both a defense of her own actions as part of the grand tradition of "our exceptional nation," and a strike against her critics.

That she waited four days and then issued such a delicately calibrated and polished statement also displayed a trait not normally associated with the former Alaska governor: discipline.

In Palin’s version of events, her controversial actions represented common cause with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who a few days before being critically wounded in the mass shooting had read the First Amendment on the House floor.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin said in the statement. "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

Palin’s statement contained an instance of provocative religious imagery that might be missed by more secular voters who read her statement, but which likely will be recognized by the religious conservatives who constitute such an important part of her following.

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," she wrote. "That is reprehensible."

"Blood libel" is a phrase that refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander – the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals – that has been used as an excuse for persecution. The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal [Murdoch delinked] and has been picked up by others on the right.

Palin’s defensiveness was apparent in the indirect reference to criticism of a map on Palin’s Web site during the midterm elections that showed districts of congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat marked with crosshairs.

Giffords, whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Palin claims to have received assassination threats.  That may or may not be true, as claiming threats against them has been a common practice used by a variety of Republicans when called on their own statements encouraging violence.  If there have been, I hope you will join me in denouncing threats of violence against Palin.  Threats of violence are a Republican tactic, not fit for civilized people to use.

That said, Palin is portraying her as a victim.  She is not.  The manner in which she has chosen to defend herself makes her deserving of vilification, ridicule and distain, but not violence.

Off topic:  Check out today’s open thread for a great pic.