This week in progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching. Inclusion of a diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement or endorsement of its contents.
At Juanita Jean’s of Texas, Primo writes—You think you know better than the Pope?
The Godfather Part III is terribly underrated, I think, because most of us just can’t get past Sofia Coppola. One of my favorite double easter eggs in it is the character of Michael Corleone’s press agent. His name is Dominic Abbandando and he is the grandson of Don Vito Corleone’s oldest friend and first consiglieri, Genco Abbandando. That’s one egg. But the actor who plays him is Don Novello, better known as Father Guido Sarducci from SNL. I find it engagingly priceless – and nostalgic – when he spits out the line, “You think you know better than the Pope?”
Don Hairleone thinks he does.
The Donald intends to join all the other great wall builders of history – like Chinese Emperors and East German Communists – in order to Make America Great Again.
But how great is America if we have to cower behind a wall? That’s not greatness. That’s cowardice.
And, according to the Pope, that’s not Christian, either.
At Blog for Arizona, Bob Lord writes—There’s Always a Defender, Even for Madeleine Albright:
We’re almost two weeks out from the Gloria Steinem/Madeleine Albright moment, when women under 30 who weren’t supporting Hillary were labeled as sex-crazed dimwits headed for a special place in hell.
Even though Albright herself issued a grudging apology in a NY Times op-ed, she still has her defenders, I learned. Check out this conversation on Facebook between two women with opposing views on the subject, who I’ve renamed Bernadette and Chelsea.
The impetus was a Salon article by a writer named Sarah Lazare, who had taken Albright to task.
Bernadette: This: “The good news is that more and more of us are ready to change the whole system, and fewer and fewer are willing to believe that imperial feminism is the best we can do,”
Chelsea: Bernadette, your statement is proof to what Madeleine Albright is talking about. What your statement proves is not that more women are willing to make changes, because the real change would be to break the glass ceiling of power, but it is just the opposite. What you are claiming is thinking freely is just the opposite. [...]
At HorsesAss.org of Washington, Carl Ballard writes—3 Strikes:
I’m a big believer in parole over just locking people up. It incentivizes people to fix their shit in prison. And while it should be tough to get out of prison early for people who’ve committed serious crimes, it should be possible. I’m also not sure 3 strikes legislation, or in Washington’s case initiative, is a particularly helpful in reducing crime. It might make sense to go with something more grounded in crime prevention than sports metaphors. So, I’m glad that the Washington Sentencing Commission is proposing this, even if it has approximately 0 chance of passing the GOP Senate:
Three-strikes offenders serving life in prison without the possibility of parole should get a “second look.” That’s the position of Washington’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
It voted Friday to recommend a new review process for these prison inmates.
This is a non-binding proposal to the Washington Legislature. It basically says three-strikes inmates should be able to petition for early release after 20 years behind bars. Aggravated murderers would not qualify. A special “Second Look Review Board” would consider the petitions.
It has been over 2 decades since Washington passed the 3 strikes law. Even with the state becoming more liberal, I don’t imagine it would have much trouble passing again. Certainly, there will be victims who don’t want this sort of thing, and I’m not here to tell them how to feel.
Still, I hope the Legislature takes a good look at giving people another chance. It’s not even just for the criminals who should get another chance, or the cost of keeping reformed people behind bars. It’s as much about the kind of society we want to build. I’d like to build one where people can genuinely get out of prison.
At Calitics, Steve Smith writes—Pulaski: Congress Must Reject Job-Killing TPP:
On Monday, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, representing a fake astroturf group called the “Progressive Coalition for American Jobs,” penned a misleading op-ed in the Sacramento Bee in support of the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cabaldon used a study from the Peterson Institute to help make his case that the TPP is good for jobs. Unfortunately for Cabaldon, he must not have actually read the study he cited because it actually says the flawed deal wouldn’t create any jobs AND it would lead to fewer good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Today, California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski set the record straight with his own op-ed in the Bee, pointing out the many harmful effects of the deal.
Like every other recent trade pact, the TPP is chock-full of goodies for corporate special interests while woefully inadequate on labor and environmental safeguards. The chief problem that plagued deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement is that labor standards were weak or unenforceable, encouraging corporate CEOs to move their operations to countries that pay meager wages in comparison to U.S. wages. NAFTA led to 700,000 jobs shipped overseas. [...]
Anyone who thinks this rotten deal will help address inequality in America clearly isn’t paying attention (or even worse, they’re drinking the corporate Kool-Aid). Bottom line, progressives like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are rejecting the deal. Conservatives are also blasting it, including Republican congressional candidate Scott Jones, who’s running against Rep. Ami Bera, who sold-out workers on last year’s fast track vote. The notion that Cabaldon and his bogus “progressive” coalition are supporting workers is laughable. Real progressives (as well as many other folks across the political spectrum) oppose the TPP and know from experience this deal will further gut out the middle class.
At Montana Cowgirl, Justin Robbins writes—Of Wolves And Sheep:
The conclusion of the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon was simultaneously disturbing, fascinating and anti-climactic. The last hold-outs abandoned their post on Thursday morning, February 11, 2016, in a largely un-reported, yet live-streamed surrender to the FBI. In addition to an apparent near suicide, the spectacle contained some entirely shameless, should-not-be-forgotten performances by the likes of frightened bible owner and name holder Franklin Graham, conservative fringe mouthpiece Gavin Seim, Nevada Assemblywoman and Kardashian wannabe Michele Fiore, and creative Constitutional interpreter Kris Anne Hall.
For a fantastic analysis of the entire show, and all the players, treat yourself to this great essay by Hal Herring. Mr. Herring actually traveled to the refuge to lend his initially sympathetic ear and pen to what he saw as “the cause”. He came away with a very measured, insightful perspective about the true origins of the wind beneath wings of the Malheur Cuckoos.
Making a noteworthy appearance in Herring’s wonderful piece is Montana Senator Jennifer Fielder, the Thompson Falls Republican, and new Chief Executive Officer of the American Lands Council (ALC); a Utah-based organization dedicated to positioning now public lands for purchase by, among other entities, the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (LDS)). I’ll preemptively acknowledge this accusation is ever so slightly conspiratorial…but, hear me out.
I’ve previously made mention of the fact the instigators of the Malheur circus claimed they were essentially sent by God on a divine mission of reclaiming for the states, that which the states never owned. As more is researched and written about the people involved, it has become apparent the actual depth of the corresponding religious undercurrents has been greatly overlooked.
At Blowing in the Wyoming Wind, Rodger McDaniel writes—Legislators endanger Wyoming's future:
The JAC budget is a huge victory for the philosophy like-mindless conservatives. When they finished their work, champagne bottles were uncorked at the Liberty Group offices just as in the Denver Bronco’s locker room of Broncos following the Super Bowl. But if you’re a low-wage working family in need of healthcare, hoping your child receives a quality education, or if a loved one requires emergency mental health services, your team just got blown out.
Governor Mead’s proposal exhibited concern for the state’s current fiscal predicament and a vision for the future. The Governor deals with these matters on a fulltime basis. Part time legislators tinker with them on occasion, substituting their pseudo-knowledge for the Governor’s working knowledge.
In the process, legislators endanger the future of the people of Wyoming. Hopefully, their colleagues will take a more considered approach.
It starts with the decision not to expand Medicaid. Doing so saves taxpayers $33 million. Having made their ill-conceived choice, legislators had to mine the Governor’s budget for cuts to make up the difference.
They ripped millions of dollars from the K-12 school fund. Wyoming politicians like to think the world will return of the fossil fuels based economy. It won’t. The world is going on without coal. If the state is to make a successful shift to a new economy, a continuing commitment to quality education is vital. The JAC doesn’t see it that way.
The Committee cut $4 million from the tax rebate program providing help to elderly and disabled citizens for years. They eliminated nearly $12 million required to meet the needs of mentally ill persons who pose such a risk to themselves and others that they must involuntarily hospitalized. They ended a literacy program altogether.
At Bold Nebraska, Ben Gotschall writes—Made In The Neb: Promoting Nebraska’s Bold Businesses + Clean Energy Production:
Bold Nebraska is excited to announce the launch of a new project to support small and local:“Bold Business: Made In The Neb.”
The “Made In the Neb” project is a web-based interactive map that will help promote small, local businesses who are working to keep Nebraska a great place to live and visit alongside Nebraskans who are building clean energy on their farms, ranches, homes and businesses. The map will launch in April 2016!
The map will show Bold Businesses and small clean energy projects so Nebraskans can see where to shop but also see it is possible to build local energy!
Additionally, the Bold Businesses will serve as a collective voice when good or bad bills come up in the Nebraska Legislature when too often lobbyists and big corporations run the show.
What sets Bold farms, homes with solar panels, restaurants, breweries, venues and stores on the “Made In the Neb” map apart from other websites and listings will be their bold commitment to a future Nebraska that has clean air, land and water as well as a strong local economy and thriving communities.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—Iowa Democratic Party to consider caucus improvements, but not real change:
In an e-mail newsletter to supporters on February 12, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Andy McGuire hailed the "awe-inspiring," "historic," and "extraordinary" happenings at nearly 1,700 precinct caucuses on February 1, adding,
For all the positives that came from caucus night, we are also aware of the concerns that came from some of our precincts. We are listening. We are always looking for ways to make the caucus process better and this year will be no different. That’s why we will be forming a committee to start the process of innovating and improving, while keeping in place what makes the caucus process so special.
As a Democrat with a longstanding interest in making the caucuses more inclusive and a better reflection of Iowa voters’ preferences, I immediately sought further details about the committee, in particular whether its members will consider major reforms such as absentee ballots, proxy voting, or a GOP-style straw poll caucus.
McGuire has not responded to my questions, but Iowa Democratic Party communications director Samuel Lau answered by e-mail, "This committee is still in the very beginning phases of planning, but it will be developed in partnership with our State Central Committee, our partners and our allies. The party has always made it a priority to listen to the concerns of Iowans in order to improve our caucus process, and no discussion topics will be ‘off the table.’"
Comments by various party insiders to the Des Moines Register’s Jason Noble tell a different story. Party leaders are open to ideas for running the precinct caucuses more smoothly but not to broader changes in how the Iowa caucuses work.
At Appalachian Voices, Hannah Wiegard writes—Virginia's Clean Power Plan approach unchanged after court’s action:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court made a disappointing decision by issuing a “stay” of the Clean Power Plan. But that doesn’t mean what polluters and their allies would have you believe it does – and the opportunity is as great as ever for Virginia to develop a truly bold plan.
The day after the high court’s decision, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe stated that Virginia will “stay the course” and continue working to reach our goals to cut back on carbon pollution:
“Over the last several months my administration has been working with a diverse group of Virginia stakeholders that includes members of the environmental, business, and energy communities to develop a strong, viable path forward to comply with the Clean Power Plan. As this court case moves forward, we will stay on course and continue to develop the elements for a Virginia plan to reduce carbon emissions and stimulate our clean energy economy.”
For a state like Virginia, which began engaging stakeholders last fall and has a state planning process in full swing, this stay might have been taken as a reason to slow or halt our process by signaling to leaders unfamiliar with the legal foundations of the Clean Power Plan that it might be overturned.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already upheld the EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution, as Virginia’s leaders know. A solid grounding in existing law — namely the Clean Air Act — increases the likelihood that the Clean Power Plan will survive. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit must now consider briefs and arguments, and has agreed to an expedited timeframe for this work, with arguments expected in early June.
At Blue Virginia, Lowell Field writes—“In 2016, the line between ‘blogger’ and ‘journalist’ is no longer meaningful”:
I couldn’t agree more with that quote by Waldo Jaquith in this new Style Weekly article by Peter Galuszka. Here’s an excerpt, followed by a few thoughts by yours truly. [...]
“In 2016, the line between ‘blogger’ and ‘journalist’ is no longer meaningful,” Jaquith says. “The Capitol press corps has withered to almost nothing over the past decade. They’re a pale imitation of what they once.”…
…Jim Hoeft, editor in chief of the conservative blog Bearing Drift, says he worked to get bloggers credentialed for years. “We feel that we’re treated like second-class citizens by the press,” he says, “but we’re actually citizens who give a shit.”
…“Protecting their membership from new media might have made sense 10 years ago,” Jaquith says, “but at this point the Capitol press corps is a club so exclusive that there’s a plausible future in which it has no members.”…
…Lowell Feld, editor of the progressive Blue Virginia blog, says that many bloggers are political veterans with just as keen of an understanding of the issues as anyone else.
To elaborate just a bit on my comment, I’d say that since I started covering Virginia politics in 2005, if I’ve seen any difference in quality between “the bloggers” and the “corporate media,” it’s mostly just a matter of style, with “the bloggers” much more honest about their opinions, snarkier, etc. But as far as raw knowledge of the subject material, depth and breadth of coverage of Virginia politics, insights into what’s really going on, etc., I’d actually give the edge to “the bloggers,” both progressive and conservative, with a few exceptions in the corporate media like the incomparable Jeff Schapiro and top-notch reporters like Jenna Portnoy of the Washington Post (and former Virginian-Pilot reporter Julian Walker).
At Blue Oklahoma, DocHoc writes—Epic State Budget Disaster Creates Tax Incentive Conflict:
Don’t take away tax breaks for Oklahoma’s businesses. Take them away from Oklahoma’s working families instead. [...]
That’s the message Republican Gov. Mary Fallin sent this week in response to a bill that in its introduced form would make steep reductions in tax-credit programs for working families and lower-income residents while suggesting more modest cuts to some tax-break programs that would affect certain businesses. [...]
The basic philosophical idea behind doling out tax breaks and subsidies for businesses is that they eventually impact the economy in positive ways by helping to create jobs and other economic development and, if such tax breaks are not offered, then these businesses will simply locate to another state.
It might make sense in limited cases to offer tax breaks to particular businesses for the overall public good in a specific, defined and well-publicized manner, but the overall logic behind giving tax breaks or public subsidies to corporations undermines the basic purity test when it comes to free-market ideology. If the market alone can’t sustain a business at some pre-determined profit level, then why does it exist? Conservatives want and get it both ways. They hold themselves up sanctimoniously as the great guardians of capitalism and the free market while forcing ordinary citizens to pay tax dollars to make businesses sustainable and profitable.
At Left in Alabama, countrycat writes—Carrier Leaving USA To Pay Mexican Workers $6/Hour. Senator Shelby Helped Make This Possible:
In 2014, Senators Walsh & Stabenow introduced the Bring Jobs Home Act, which eliminated tax breaks for American companies that ship American jobs and factories overseas. In typical Senate fashion, the bill couldn’t even get a vote on the Senate floor.
Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.