Van Jones resignation

I need to get my thoughts together before I write a full post on the whole Van Jones situation, because frankly, I don't want my words and actions to be misconstrued against me like Mr. Jones' were.

Personally, as a black environmentalist, this is one of the most discouraging things I have seen in a while. I really looked up to this guy. I recommend that everyone read his book. I plan to write to Mr. Jones and offer my strong support.

WP:

The resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones has revealed a lapse in the administration's vetting procedures that, nearly eight months into his tenure, delivered President Obama with an unwelcome distraction as he begins an important week on behalf of his health-care reform initiative.

Jones's resignation late Saturday came as calls for his ouster increased from Republican leaders, who have been critical of past statements and associations that have also taken the White House by surprise. His departure as a top adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality leaves Obama's push to create "green" jobs, which he has called an essential element of the more stable economy he is trying to build, without a leader.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Sunday explained the resignation on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," saying Jones "decided that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual." Obama does not endorse Jones's past statements and actions, Gibbs said, "but he thanks him for his service."

Jones, a towering figure in the environmental movement, had issued two public apologies in recent days. One was for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether officials in President George W. Bush's administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war," and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

His involvement with the now-defunct Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, also emerged as an issue. And on Saturday, his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of fatally shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to further deepen the controversy. A White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter, said Sunday that Jones's past was not studied as intensively as that of other advisers because of his relatively low rank.

While some conservatives tried to portray Jones as one of Obama's many issue czars, he was not. Nancy Sutley, head of the White House environmental council, hired him as her "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" in mid-March, and he reported to her rather than to Obama. Because Jones's position did not require Senate confirmation, he avoided the kind of vetting that Cabinet officials were subjected to. "He was not as thoroughly vetted as other administration officials," the official said. "It's fair to say there were unknowns."

Those procedures were tightened during the transition after a history of unpaid taxes emerged during the confirmation hearings of two high-profile nominees -- Timothy F. Geithner and Thomas A. Daschle. Geithner was later confirmed as Treasury secretary, but Daschle withdrew from consideration as secretary of Health and Human Services.

Jones's skill in conveying how clean energy could provide economic opportunities for Americans across social strata earned him a prominent place in the green movement. In his six months at the CEQ, he delivered about two dozen speeches nationwide, as varied as an address in Indianapolis to trainees for a weatherization drive and a talk at a sustainability event in Philadelphia.

Kate Gordon, who serves as both a senior policy adviser for the Apollo Alliance and vice president of energy policy at the Center for American Progress, said Jones managed to make the idea of embarking on "a new industrial revolution . . . really compelling." He served as a senior fellow at the CAP, a liberal think tank, and as a board member of the Apollo Alliance, a clean energy coalition.

"He really transformed it from an idea to a movement," Gordon said. "He was very much in a spokesperson role. Van himself would say he's not a policy wonk."

Jones, who wrote the best-selling 2008 book "The Green Collar Economy" and graduated from Yale Law School, drew the attention of administration officials for his ability to forge alliances between people of color and a variety of groups such as labor unions to corporations.

"It didn't take work to find him," said Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the CAP. "If you actually look at the substance of this [clean energy work], it's Chamber of Commerce stuff."

Jones informed Sutley on Saturday night that he was stepping down; the formal announcement came minutes after midnight Sunday morning. In a written statement, Jones said: "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide." He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck began the drive against Jones. Beck's campaign grew more vitriolic after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against his show to protest Beck's assertion that Obama is a racist. Republican calls for Jones to step down grew over the weekend. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called on Jones to resign Friday, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Environmentalists said they hope Obama will press for the clean energy priorities Jones championed.

David Axelrod, an Obama senior adviser, suggested on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the president would continue to do so. "The political environment is rough, and so these things get magnified," he said. "But the bottom line is that he showed his commitment to the cause of creating green jobs in this country by removing himself as an issue, and I think that took a great deal of commitment on his part."

The Words Behind the Controversy

Monday, September 7, 2009

THE STATEMENT: Van Jones was listed as a signatory on a petition released by 911Truth.org on Oct. 26, 2004. It called "for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war," an investigation by then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and congressional hearings into failings prior to the attacks.

THE WALK-BACK: "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration -- some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever," Jones said in a Sept. 3 statement issued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality after the petition was unearthed by blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit.

STATEMENT: After a Feb. 11, 2009, a speech in Berkeley, Calif., Jones was asked by an audience member how Republicans were able to achieve greater legislative success with a smaller congressional majority than Democrats now have.

"The answer to that is: They're a--holes," Jones said to laughter in remarks posted on YouTube on Sept. 1 by supporters of Glenn Beck. "That's a technical political science term. And Barack Obama's not an a--hole. So, now, I will say this, I can be an a--hole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are gonna have to start getting a little bit uppity."

THE WALK-BACK: The comments were "clearly inappropriate," Jones said in a statement. "I apologize for the offensive words I chose to use during that speech. They do not reflect the views of this administration, which has made every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion, and they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the administration."

Republicans flinging bullsh!t at the Climate Bill

Functioning infant Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) had this to say about the draft climate bill now being heard in Congress:

This is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress. We’ve seen two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above.

He went on to say that global warming is God's will:



From Grist.org

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) chimed in with his own analysis: “Adapting is a common natural way for people to adapt to their environment ... I believe that the earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons,” he said. “And I think mankind has been adopting, or adapting to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay.”

(And if you think that’s bad, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC on Sunday that “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. ... Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”)

The witness skepticism program

The witnesses Republicans bring to hearings are just as out of touch with climate science.

Democrats, who control Congress and thus chair its committees, schedule hearings on topics of their choosing and invite witnesses. A committee chair isn’t required to grant the minority party their pick of witnesses, but if the minority objects to the panel, they can request a second day of the hearing for which they pick all the witnesses. To avoid that messiness, chairs tend to let the minority pick at least one or two panelists.

At the March 25 hearing, Democrats’ five witnesses included the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office, and leaders from the National Wildlife Federation, the National Council of Churches, and Oxfam America.

The NOAA representative, Tom Karl, presented on the trends toward increased droughts and forest fires, and an uptick in the frequency and severity of coastal storms that the agency forecasts. John Stephenson from the GAO talked about the “growing understanding” at his agency that the costs of inaction could be greater than the costs of mitigating climate change. Even the witnesses who don’t work in climate science or government stuck to the topic at hand—adapting to a warmed world—without claiming expertise they don’t possess. Bishop Callon Holloway of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, speaking on behalf of the National Council of Churches, testified about the “call to be good stewards of the earth,” reflecting on the values of “stewardship and justice” that should compel us to protect the poor who would be affected by climate change.

In stark contrast, the Republicans’ witnesses challenged the very idea of climate change, and thus the whole basis for the hearing. First up was E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, who warned that “fear of catastrophic, man-made global warming is a mistake,” and argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God,” humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate. Going further, he warned that restricting the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere would harm the poor, and that Americans are “morally obligated to provide access for the poor to affordable, abundant fossil fuels.”

The minority’s second witness was Lord Christopher Monckton, aka the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British hereditary peer who’s become a minor star in the climate-skeptic world. “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing,” he told the panel. He readily agreed with Rep. Shimkus: “We are a carbon-starved planet.”

Monckton argued that if Congress moved to address climate change, it would “create green jobs by the thousands and eliminate real jobs by the millions ... Green jobs are the new euphemism for vast unemployment.”

He also contended that aggressive environmental regulation in California has prompted a vast exodus from the state. “Everyone with the means to get up and go is getting up and going, and unlike their robotic governor, they won’t be back,” Monckton said—though he offered no evidence of a mass migration. (In reality, the state’s overall population continues to grow, even though the number of people moving out of California has slightly surpassed the number moving in.)

Monckton has a colorful history—journalist by training, advisor to Margaret Thatcher, business consultant, and developer of the high-selling Eternity puzzle—but no background in climate science. Nonetheless, he’s touted by climate deniers as an “expert” on the topic, and serves as chief policy adviser to the Science & Public Policy Institute, a climate-skeptic group. Republicans also trotted Monckton out as a witness at a Ways and Means Committee hearing on climate change in February, and he appeared at the climate skeptics summit sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute in early March. (See George Monbiot, DeSmogBlog, and Deltoid for more on Monckton.)

“This was a serious hearing on a serious issue,” an aide to the Energy and Commerce Committee told Grist of the March 25 panel. “We gave the other side advance notice on the kinds of witnesses [Democratic leaders] were choosing. They chose to invite Monckton. ... If this is the witness that they want to choose, even though he’s contradicted by U.S. government scientists, then we’re going to move forward.”

Will the GOP play ball or throw sand?

Climate legislation will be highly complex, with society-wide ramifications. So far this year, there have been 11 hearings on the topic in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee alone, and there will be a number of additional hearings over the coming weeks focusing specifically on the draft climate plan from Markey and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Markey has said they left many specifics out of their draft because they “want to hear from all affected parties” on, for instance, how to minimize impacts on citizens and help energy-intensive businesses adapt to a new regulatory scheme.

But instead of inviting witnesses who could speak to these critical concerns, the Republican committee members have thus far preferred to invite climate skeptics.

Asked about the prospects for meaningful Republican participation in crafting a climate bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged recently that there might not be much, if any. “We would hope to have Republican votes as we go forward on this,” she said. “Will I not put it forth unless I do? No. There’s an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold its first four hearings on the Waxman-Markey bill this week, starting on Tuesday. Democratic leaders aim to pass the legislation out of committee by Memorial Day, and out of the full House by July. If you want to know how seriously Republicans are taking the process, keep an eye on these hearings.

How are these really our elected officials?

Boehner: It's 'comical' to say carbon dioxide is dangerous

I hate to be partisan, but Jesus H. Christ............republicans..........

The video speaks for itself. Transcript below.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you then about energy. We showed your statement on the president's decision through the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Also, you've come out against the president's proposal to cap-and-trade carbon emissions.

So what is the Republican answer to climate change? Is it a problem? Do you have a plan to address it?

BOEHNER: George, we believe that our -- all of the above energy strategy from last year continues to be the right approach on energy. That we ought to make sure that we have new sources of energy, green energy, but we need nuclear energy, we need other types of alternatives, and, yes, we need American-made oil and gas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that doesn't do anything when it comes to emissions, sir.

BOEHNER: When it comes to the issue of climate change, George, it's pretty clear that if we don't work with other industrialized nations around the world, what's going to happen is that we're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas. We have to deal with this in a responsible way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what is the responsible way? That's my question. What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?

BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

BOEHNER: ... we've had climate change over the last 100 years -- listen, it's clear we've had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.

DCist: Teabaggers Denied Their Hilarious Metaphor at Lafayette Park

This year's most double entendre-rich protest movement arrived in front of the White House this morning without the benefit of the objects of ridicule themselves. As the Post reported earlier, the so-called Tea Party protesters were greeted with bad news while they set up for planned protests at Lafayette Square and the U.S. Treasury building today: they didn't have permission to dump a million tea bags in the park, and they lacked a permit to demonstrate in front of Treasury. No massive public teabagging allowed, after all.

Still, the Lafayette Square event began on time, drawing at least 500 people in the first hour, despite the rain. DCist stopped by to survey the scene, which took on the tone of an anti-Obama, pro-capitalism protest, with relatively few actual teabags in sight. The rally is planned to continue until 3 p.m., but it's an awfully cold and wet day for teabagging outside, so we'll have to check back later to see how long the protesters make it. In our experience, teabagging isn't an activity many people can keep up all day.





The hypocrisy of the right astounds me.

Obama will be speaking live today at Georgetown at 11:30 AM about the Economy

http://www.cnn.com/live/