HomeBernie Sanders10/5 News – Sanders, Democrats Rip GOP For $5 Trillion in Cuts, Bernie Calls For A ‘Bump Stock’ Ban & More
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Yay for some good news! Not in this country unfortunately, but close enough. Plus, this pipeline would have had a negative effect, due to the placement of the planned terminals, on Maine for example. Environmental damage doesn’t stop at the borders.

TransCanada kills controversial Energy East Pipeline project

TransCanada Corp. has pulled the plug on its controversial $15.7-billion Energy East pipeline proposal, after slowing oil sands growth and heightened environmental scrutiny raised doubts about the viability of the project.

In a terse statement Thursday morning, TransCanada said it has reviewed the “changed circumstances” and would be informing the National Energy Board that it would no longer proceed with the project, including the related Eastern Mainline, a natural gas pipeline that complemented the crude-carrying Energy East.

The west-to-east pipeline was planned to deliver 1.1-million barrels per day of western Canadian crude to refineries in Quebec and Saint John, N.B. as well as an export terminal in New Brunswick which was to be built by Irving Oil Ltd.

It would have increased tanker traffic in the Bay of Fundy which would’ve had all sorts of negative impacts.

The project was strongly supported by governments in Alberta and New Brunswick – as well as federal Conservative politicians – who touted it as a means for increasing crude exports, replacing imported oil in Eastern Canada and created thousands of short-term construction jobs. However, it drew fierce opposition from municipalities and Indigenous leaders in Quebec, and from environmentalists


How come “and from environmentalists….” isn’t in bold?


Cuz I was in a hurry and had to get to work! lol.

Sorry, I can’t change it now.

Blessed are the environmentalists! 😀

I’ve considered myself an environmentalist forever. (You probably heard my story about giving my poor dad mucho grief at the dinner table when he worked for a paper company)

But so often us environmentalists fight the battles by ourselves. So much more effective when there are other groups to ally with! Pow!!


Seems like once again, it’s up to Bernie. Hopefully CNN et al will host a debate on this.



As the Republican Party and President Donald Trump gear up to slash over five trillion dollars from crucial safety net programs in order ram through exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a majority of House Democrats on Wednesday voted in favor of the People’s Budget (pdf), an ambitious alternative to GOP’s “pathetic” proposals that would invest trillions in education, infrastructure, and healthcare while cutting the

“Today’s vote on the People’s Budget marks the closest Congress has come to passing a budget that was truly designed to represent the values and needs of the American people,” Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement following Wednesday’s vote. “With over half the Democrats voting for the People’s Budget it’s clear the party supports smart reductions in Pentagon bloat and wise investments in diplomacy which will make Americans safer. All members of Congress who voted for the People’s Budget deserve the thanks of their constituents.”

First introduced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) in May, the current version of the People’s Budget was conceived as an attempt by progressive Democrats to move beyond their defensive posture and offer a positive vision of the future—one they hope can translate into electoral victories in 2018 and beyond.

Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) contrasted the GOP’s vision with the agenda outlined by the Progressive Caucus.

“The Republican budget says we should invest millions of dollars into tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and the largest corporations,” Jayapal said. “The Progressive Caucus budget says we want to invest in people. We believe in working families across this country who want to have a decent life and want to build a better future. I choose investing in the people.”



Voters in Columbus — Ohio’s largest city — will head to the polls this November to choose between a group of Democratic Party-endorsed incumbents for city council and the school board and a slate of progressive challengers backed by the Working Families Party. The challengers, running under the banner of “Yes We Can,” were inspired by the Bernie Sanders campaign and seek to unsettle a narrative that claims “Columbus Is Already Great.”

By many measures, Columbus is doing pretty well. It’s the fastest-growing city in the Midwest, it recently won a $50 million competitive grant from the U.S Department of Transportation to revamp its transportation systems, and it’s one of the few cities in the nation to boast a AAA bond rating, a signal of its strong financial position. Its Democratic mayor, Andrew Ginther, has taken to calling Columbus “America’s Opportunity City,” an epithet reiterated recently by national publications.

“Columbus is a great place to live, we are a very diverse city, and we have maintained a strong economic base,” Mike Sexton, chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party, said to The Intercept. “I think people are pretty happy with the direction that Columbus is going in.”

Will Petrik, a Yes We Can candidate running for city council, doesn’t think so. “We’re here to say no, we actually have mass income inequality, one of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, and a drug crisis that’s tearing apart families and communities,” he said. “Saying everything is awesome doesn’t reflect the experience of all Columbus residents, [and] we need to be honest in order to develop real solutions to improve people’s lives.”

Despite the city’s booming aura, it’s true that sharp disparities exist in Columbus. The Brookings Institution released a report this year that found that 42 percent of jobs created in the Columbus region between 2010 and 2015 were low wage. Richard Florida, an urban policy professor at the University of Toronto, found that among all U.S. metropolitan areas with over 1 million people, Columbus ranks second in terms of economic segregation.

The races in Columbus are emblematic of a question the Democratic Party is grappling with nationwide: Does the future belong to the populist left à la Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders, or will more moderate Democrats continue to dominate the party? Progressive candidates have been finding success in municipal elections. For instance, Christine Pellegrino, who was a Sanders delegate at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, was elected to the New York State Assembly this year, and Edie DesMarais became the first Democrat to win a state House seat in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. Just this week, populist Randall Woodfin, supported by the Sanders-backed campaign group Our Revolution, was elected mayor of Birmingham, Alabama.


Sorry jcitybone! I didn’t see your post before I posted mine. Hopefully our two posts will complement each other. 😉


Ohio came up, up above, I did some digging & stumbled upon this:

Progressive Candidates Seek to Upend the Democratic Establishment in Upcoming Ohio Elections

Voters in Columbus — Ohio’s largest city — will head to the polls this November to choose between a group of Democratic Party-endorsed incumbents for city council and the school board and a slate of progressive challengers backed by the Working Families Party. The challengers, running under the banner of “Yes We Can,” were inspired by the Bernie Sanders campaign and seek to unsettle a narrative that claims “Columbus Is Already Great.”

The races in Columbus are emblematic of a question the Democratic Party is grappling with nationwide: Does the future belong to the populist left à la Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders, or will more moderate Democrats continue to dominate the party?

The Democratic Party in Franklin County isn’t so thrilled about these new challengers in the nonpartisan elections.

Jen House, who chaired Franklin County’s most recent Democratic endorsement process, was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch in May as saying that Yes We Can was trying to undermine the work of the local Democratic Party. When The Intercept asked for further clarification, House expressed frustration at those “who call themselves Democrats standing out there and refusing to acknowledge” the good things that Democrats are doing. And “being constantly negative,” she added, fuels a feeling in Columbus and throughout the state that government can’t do anything right. “It’s really easy to stand on the sideline and throw rocks, but it’s a whole different ballgame when you’re forced to govern,” she said.


I also came upon this, posted on August 17, 2017:

Did Democratic Party strong-arm black group on Columbus council endorsements?

Four members of the Central Ohio Young Black Democrats have resigned from the organization’s executive committee after they say the Franklin County Democratic Party tried to strong-arm the group’s endorsements.

The Young Black Democrats’ executive committee wanted to endorse Jasmine Ayres, who is running on the Yes We Can ticket in the Columbus City Council race, instead of incumbent Democratic Councilman Mitchell Brown, the city’s former public safety director.

But the county party already endorsed the full slate of Democratic incumbents, including Brown, and members have been at odds with Yes We Can, a group of Democrats that won seats on the county party’s central committee in 2015.

The party tried to convince the Young Black Democrats to not endorse at all rather than endorse Ayres, but the executive committee members still intended to move forward with the plan.

That’s when members who resigned say they started receiving “messages of intimidation,” according to a press release.

In some instances, those messages were “pertaining to questioning the legitimacy of the organization’s endorsement process, the organization falling to the bottom in standing if it chose to continue down this path, the ability for the organization to participate in future events with the local party, and that the organization was in violation of rules to endorse outside of the local party’s endorsement,” according to a press release.

More at the link.


Our county org (DPLC) endorsed the establishment guy, but our Occupy sister won anyway!

And iirc we got something passed that says the dplc has to endorse every candidate (exceptions provided for–like if someone is clearlly


clearly unfit for office.


Ummm, seems like it’s the establishment standing throwing rocks. We’re out there changing our local government, rallying for MFA, etc.


If you believe this headline. I have a bridge to sell you!

Don midwest
Don midwest

Glenn Greenwald on the ongoing animal rights battle against corporations which is supported by the government.

The FBI’s Hunt for Two Missing Piglets Reveals the Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

Glenn mentions philosophical and ethical issues

In general, the core moral and philosophical question at the heart of animal rights activism is now being seriously debated: Namely, what gives humans the right or justification to abuse, exploit, and torture non-human species? If there comes a day when some other species (broadly defined) — such as machines — surpass humans in intellect and cognitive complexity, will they have a valid moral claim to treat humans as commodities whose suffering and death can be assigned no value?

And as I usually do, I looked up Bruno Latour

This essay is intended as an experiment or exercise in sensitization and desensitization, in the immunological sense of those terms. To follow this experiment, the reader must agree to suspend belief in any a priori division between beings capable and beings incapable of obliging us to respond to their call. For a definition of what we mean by response, the reader will need to consider the etymology of respondeo: I become responsible by responding, in word or deed, to the call of someone or something.3 If this game rule is accepted, the reader will think it normal to focus on extension and reduction in the class of beings for which one feels (according to one’s capacity to understand their call) more or less responsible. One may become sensitive or increasingly insensitive to the call of certain beings, whether human or nonhuman: that is indeed an everyday experience.

In the schema we have devised for this exercise, the reader will be able to register a number of variations within two dimensions that we need to learn to distinguish from each other. The first dimension entails varying the distribution of beings that are capable of interpellating us, in accordance with the familiar division between humans and nonhumans. The second dimension entails varying the intensity of the interpellation required to produce a response, whatever the type of being under consideration. Through this exercise, we should be able to see that the two dimensions are too often confused with each other and that a text taking a high moral stand from the first perspective (because it maintains a distinction between moral subjects and mere objects) may seem quite different from the second (because the text is insensitive to scruple). Such disparity is found often in the literary genre of “moral reflection,” which presupposes that the only beings whose call we must answer—whose shattering visage, encountered face to face, was Lévinas’s inexhaustible subject—are human beings. In this genre, to be moral is, crucially and definitively, not to compromise on the boundary between humans and nonhumans; and we are urged not to get caught up in the wild imaginings of ecologists who want to reopen the question of the range of beings to which we might be led to respond

An Exercise in Sensitization


So if we vary the intensity of interpellation (giving an identity to, in the dictionary) we can give more animals a more vibrant identity, one we respond to with the same “morals” as we do humans. (although even the number of humans worthy of a moral response is dropping, according to neolibcon theory).

I guess varying the distribution would mean something like we recognize “neighing or braying” animals, but not those that “oink”?

As always, I agree that he is brilliant and that if we included more beings as on the level of how we treat humans, the world would be a much better place, although again, we don’t treat a lot of humans much better.

I sure wish he’d write a few things using more street language, but I imagine these are meant for an academic audience. Perhaps someone in that audience can be called upon to do a further translation, approved by Latour, so that his brilliant and compassionate thoughts can be more easily understood by more people. Hmmmm. 😉


An interesting article by Nick Turse on the relationships between reporters who cover violence in other countries and the local people who they rely heavily on. A good book review of sorts, too.

The Journalist and the Fixer: Who Makes the Story Possible?

A taste:

In a profession typified by countless anxieties, fear for your fixer (or driver or source) is a special one that may manifest itself in an acidic churn deep in your gut or racing thoughts that you can’t slow down as you stare up through your mosquito net at a wobbling ceiling fan. Have you endangered the people who devoted themselves to helping you do your job? Have you potentially sacrificed their welfare, perhaps their lives, for a story? As Campbell puts it:

“I could accept the knowledge that nothing I wrote or would ever write would change a thing and that the world would continue to create and destroy and create and destroy as it always did. I could accept living without a relationship. I would still be okay. What I could not accept was Ahlam being gone. It was unthinkable that she had been missing for almost seven weeks. Unthinkable that she could be lost and never heard from again. Unthinkable that I could do nothing.


I pulled this out of NC’s Water Cooler. Not entirely sure what it means, but, as always, our machines are hinky.

“Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month. Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662” [Detroit News]. “According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand. [Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit] blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day.” Hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public. About as cheap as you can get.


Did I miss this?


woo hoo! You rock, GM!

Well, perhaps not as jolting, er volting(?) as the headline:

“General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.”

Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles

Still, good news:

AFTER MORE THAN a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future. That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023.

But I wish they’d offer everything they offer to other countries that they offer to us:

GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million).


Skip to toolbar