The DLC convention in Nashville this weekend featured a keynote address by Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen and ended with remarks from President Bill Clinton.

Coverage of the speeches can be found at the The Commercial Appeal, the Knoxville News Sentinel, and the Nashville Tennessean.

None of the current Democratic presidential candidates, who were all were invited to attend, made it to the conference. The conventional wisdom is that they are campaigning hard to the left during the primaries to appeal to the base, and will come courting the middle in the general election.

The DLC gets hammered a lot by the Democratic Circular Firing Squad for being "GOP-lite" on too many issues, and rightly so in many cases. Perhaps, though, the party as a whole should keep an open mind about moderate ideas, and keep an open dialog with moderate Democrats and Republicans to find common ground and educate one other as necessary.

For example, the DLC is considered business-friendly, but what's wrong with that? Capitalism drives America and our economy and makes us what we are. As Clinton said in his speech yesterday, "The last time I checked, the best anti-poverty program was a job," and "We're 4 percent of the world's people; we have about 25 percent of its annual income. In order to keep that, we've got to sell something to the other 96 percent of the world." It's hard to argue with that.

There's a dark side to capitalism, though, and its praticioners have gained too much power and influence while more responsible and thoughtful people argue about how much regulation is enough and whether "free markets" are really free. And free trade is great, but it has to be fair trade and too many of our "free trade" deals are one-sided and we don't enforce even the meager human rights and environmental provisions, as Clinton also noted.

Clinton points to his success with welfare reform, which is widely criticized by more socially liberal Democrats. But who would disagree with the notion that anyone able to work should work and if you work you shouldn't live in poverty? On the other hand, the idea is better than the execution. "Able to work" means more than just mentally and physically able. It also means being ready to work with the right education, skills and training. It means a social support structure for single parents and two-earner families. It means affordable housing and transportation. It means available jobs and a strong economy.

There's plenty of other happy rhetoric in the DLC agenda, such as "We believe government must combat discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation; defend civil liberties; and stay out of our private lives." Who could argue with that? But actions speak louder than words, and DLC/Blue Dog Democrat candidates who supported the anti-gay marriage amendment did not live up to that principle. And what about the Patriot Act, domestic spying programs, and other affronts to civil liberties?

Another DLC goal is "A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts." Yet the DLC/Blue Dog Democrats in Congress voted for a war in Iraq that has weakened our military and created destabilizing regional conflicts.

On the other hand, the DNC Democrats are still running on a 2006 anti-war platform that helped pick up a few seats in Congress. Almost everyone agrees that we need to end the occupation of Iraq. But that chapter of American history will close, hopefully sooner than later, and it will then be time to move on to the other problems that have been neglected for the past seven years. Mainstream/DNC Democrats are going to have to start offering up solutions pretty soon. Perhaps they could take some cues from he DLC playbook.

The list goes on and on, but Democrats of all stripes might do well to review the DLC Hyde Park Declaration to see if there isn't some common ground. The "Ideas" menu at the DLC website has hundreds of position papers on every important issue facing America, and there are some great ideas there.

If America can agree on worthwhile goals we can start working towards achieving them. If the Democratic Party can unite DLC Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Progressive Democrats, Social Democrats, and all the other brands of Democrats and the growing number of disenchanted moderate Republicans, they'll have a better shot at electing leaders who will promote progressive policies and actually start solving some of America's problems.

But first they have to agree on some principles, and then they have to make themselves accountable for upholding those principles. Progressives can find plenty of areas for agreement with the DLC Democrats, but the DLC Democrats must stand by their principles and not sell out the party or its principles just to get elected.

As for what those principles should be, perhaps it's time to get back to basics: "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Labels: Election 2008, Southern Politics

To find the dirtiest power plants in the United States, head south.

A majority of the nation's most heavily polluting power plants are located in Southern states, according to a report released last week by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit organization pushing for stronger enforcement of anti-pollution laws. Titled "Dirty Kilowatts: America's Most Polluting Power Plants," the report ranks the worst power plants on the basis of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury.

Of the 50 U.S. power plants emitting the largest amount of all the pollutants considered, the majority -- 31 facilities in all -- are located in the South. In fact, all of the nation's 11 top polluting power plants are located in just two Southern states: Alabama and Arkansas.

The heavily polluting Alabama plants are owned by the Southern Company, Southern Power, Alabama Power, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Alabama Electric Co-op. The Arkansas plants are owned by Entergy Arkansas and Southwestern Electric Power Co.

Of the dozen states with the heaviest concentrations of dirty plants in terms of carbon dioxide emitted, the majority are in the South. Texas has five (including two of the top 10 dirtiest plants); Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and West Virginia each have three; and Florida and Kentucky each have two.

EIP's revelations come as utility companies across the region are racing to build a new generation of coal-fired power plants that rely on conventional technologies responsible for emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases as well as health-damaging pollutants. Mercury, for example, is a potent nerve poison already present at health-endangering levels in many of the South's streams and lakes.

"This report not only highlights the threats from old power plants, but the future risk should utility customers be forced to pay for the expansion of this dirty form of energy," said Southern Alliance for Clean Energy spokesperson Valerie True. "Proposals for new coal-fired power plants are popping up across the nation. Given the imminent risks of global warming, the nation needs to take immediate action to clean up these old power plants and stop the construction of new coal-fired plants."

To learn more about the most polluting power plants in your state, visit EIP's "Dirty Kilowatts" database.

Labels: energy policy, environment, public health

by Jeffrey Buchanan
Guest Contributor

Hundreds will rally this Saturday morning in New Orleans for human rights and fair flood protection by doing something their government officials have failed to do: building a levee along the Orleans Parish side of the Monticello Canal. Instead of concrete, this levee will be made out of interlocking protesters demanding residents' right to equitable flood protection.

As they were being evacuated, New Orleans' citizens trusted their government to help them eventually return home and to protect their rights. Still, over and over during the recovery, officials at various levels of government have sided against repairing homes, against rebuilding necessary infrastructure and against restoring lives.

Recovery officials have neglected their obligation to break down the barriers that keep displaced people from returning home. The fear of another flood and inadequate flood protection in their neighborhoods has kept many people from returning to New Orleans. Nearly two years after the breakdown of New Orleans' flood control system, the government still has not done its job to create an equitable and adequate flood control system.

Now the Chicago Tribune reports that as the Army Corps of Engineers are making their work plans for New Orleans flood protection public, African-American working-class neighborhoods will still carry the majority of the risk in the event of a new storm. According to the Tribune,

...[W]hat work has been completed so far benefits some of the city's wealthier and predominantly white neighborhoods more than its poorer and mostly black areas, according to an extensive set of flood-prediction maps released last month by the Army Corps."

Even before Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans flood protection system did not protect every neighborhood equally. The Monticello Canal stands as a glaring example.

Despite the levee and floodwall reaching 8 to 12 feet high along the Jefferson Parish side of the Monticello Canal, there is virtually no flood protection on the Orleans Parish side. This leaves Carrollton-Hollygrove residents vulnerable to flooding in the event of a storm. Additionally, more water is pumped into the Monticello Canal by the city canal drainage system than is pumped out, pushing flood waters into these unprotected New Orleans neighborhoods.

"This neighborhood has always flooded during heavy rains," said longtime Carrollton-Hollygrove resident and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now member Joe Sherman. "Our community is left vulnerable while the state, the Corps of Engineers and the Water and Sewerage Board keep pointing fingers at each other."

At 10 a.m. Saturday, protesters including ACORN members, their neighbors and supporters from the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights -- including Robert F. Kennedy's daughter Kerry Kennedy, Huffington Post contributor and noted rights advocate -- will protest this injustice by forming a human levee across the unprotected portion of the Monticello Canal.

During the neighborhood-based recovery planning process of the Unified New Orleans Plan, residents placed equitable flood protection for Carrollton-Hollygrove as a top priority. When the final plan was released, it was only a mid-term priority, not to be addressed for five years or more.

Despite warnings from noted hurricane experts like Dr. Ivor van Heerden of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center as well as residents, the Sewerage and Water Board has stated publicly it has no current plans to protect the neighborhood.

"The risks increase for these residents because there is protection on one side, and no protection on the other," Stephen Bradberry, Louisiana ACORN head organizer and 2005 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award winner, recently told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "How can you say the community is not at risk when you have protected one half and not the other? This is unacceptable."

While many of New Orleans' displaced residents want to return to their homes, they fear the risks of the city's inadequate response to creating equitable flood protection. This lack of respect for the rights of residents highlights the city's attitude towards those returning to low- to moderate-income neighborhoods. Orleans Parish residents will continue to demand immediate action to increase flood protection.

"The internally displaced persons of Orleans Parish have the right under international law to demand that the United States government protect them from ongoing threats by building the necessary levees and flood walls to protect their communities from future hurricanes and floods," said Kerry Kennedy, founder of the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights. "All U.S. citizens have a responsibility -- even an obligation -- to demand action that will ensure protection to all our sisters and brothers in New Orleans without regard to race, creed, economic status, or community."

If you're in the New Orleans area, we invite you to join the Human Levee for Human Rights at 10 a.m. this Saturday, July 28, between Claiborne Avenue and Airline Highway along the Monticello Canal. If you have questions, please call Ben Turner with ACORN at 504-943-0044 ext.162. Jeffrey Buchanan is the information officer with the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, new orleans

Earlier this week we brought you an update on the Jena 6, a case involving six black teens who are facing lengthy prison sentences for standing up to racism at their small-town Louisiana high school. We reported that sentencing for Mychal Bell -- one of the defendants who was convicted last month by an all-white jury of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery -- was scheduled for July 31.

It turns out that Bell's sentencing has been rescheduled to Sept. 20. However, a mass protest over the case is still set to take place on July 31. To learn more about the protest, to sign another petition for justice, and/or to contribute to the defense committee, click here.

Donations for the defense may also be sent via regular mail to Jena 6 Defense Committee, PO BOX 2798, Jena, LA 71342. For more information on the case and to receive regular updates, e-mail jena6defense [at] gmail.com.

Labels: criminal justice, louisiana, race and racism

Though a special grand jury this week declined to indict Dr. Anna Pou on charges that she oversaw the killing of nine patients at a New Orleans' hospital in the horrific days following Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti does not intend to let the case rest quietly.

Foti yesterday asked a judge to unseal documents that his office compiled during its investigation into the sedative-related deaths at Memorial Medical Center (now Ochsner Baptist Medical Center), the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

The attorney general is seeking the release of search warrants and subpoenas his office issued in the case, all of which were sealed by the court in January 2006 as Foti's investigators were working on the case, which at that time centered around Pou, a head and neck surgeon, and nurses Lori Budo and Cheri Landry. All three rode out the storm working at Memorial when Katrina hit the city on Aug. 29, 2005.

Attorneys for Pou and the nurses -- who were originally charged with murder but later given immunity in return for their grand jury testimony -- are fighting the request. A hearing has been set for Aug. 6 before Criminal District Court Judge Calvin Johnson.

Pou still faces four civil suits in connection with the deaths.

At least 34 patients at Memorial died in the days following Katrina. Floodwaters unleashed by the city's failed levee system swamped the hospital's basement generator, cutting power to the building and sending temperatures inside soaring to 110 degrees. The nine patients whose deaths were investigated by the AG reportedly died of overdoses of morphine and/or Versed, a sedative.

No word on whether Foti plans to pursue charges against the hospital executives and government planners who failed to make appropriate preparations for the vulnerable sick and their desperate caregivers in the event of such an oft-predicted disaster.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, health care, Hurricane Katrina

Now that the cloak of secrecy has been removed, more information is coming out about problems at the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. facility in Erwin, Tennessee.

As we discussed here previously, all of the facility's incident reporting to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had been withheld from public view on order of the Department of Energy. The reasoning was that operations there, which involve manufacture of fuel for nuclear submarines and commercial nuclear reactors, involve sensitive information related to national security.

Only when the NRC issued a required annual report to Congress was it revealed that a potentially deadly spill of highly enriched uranium had occurred at the facility, and that it was "only a matter of luck" that the incident wasn't more serious. In addition, a change to NFS's license related to safety violations at the facility would have prompted a public hearing had the NRC actions been made public, but no notifications were made public under the DOE policy. Further inquiry resulted in Congress directing the NRC to review the "official use only" classification policy.

After reviewing the policy, NRC recently released several documents that reveal numerous problems at the facility, going back long before the highly enriched uranium spill that occurred in March of 2006. The NRC also published the previously classified "confirmatory order" regarding the uranium spill, opening the door for a full public hearing.

In a License Performance Review issued in December of 2006 (document ID ML071930522), the NRC advised NFS:

All of the areas needing improvement are repetitive of areas identified in the last LPR. Two of these resurfaced primarily from the Blended Low Enriched Uranium Preparation Facility (BPF) event of March 6, 2006. These areas are verification and implementation of equipment and controls identified in nuclear criticality safety analyses, and utilization of the problem identification and corrective action program. The other areas needing improvement are control of strategic special nuclear material, and engineering design, verification, and configuration control.

We have met several times in the past to discuss your progress in improving these areas, and we believe that continued improvements are warranted. Given the number, significance, and repetitiveness of these issues, the confidence normally provided through a robust safety program is not evident, indicating that actions are still necessary to provide additional assurance that facility operations will be conducted safely. These issues are also indicative that further action to improve your safety culture is warranted.

[..]

As a result of our review of your performance, the NRC will continue heightened oversight of your licensed operations through inspections beyond those specified by the NRC’s core inspection program. Also, the NRC may conduct the next LPR before the end of the normal 12- month period. By this time, NRC plans to have formed an oversight review panel for safety culture improvements at your facility that will play a key role in determining the appropriate LPR frequency.

Regarding the "official use only" classification of NFS reports to the NRC, the NRC held a security hearing to follow up on safety and security measures being implemented at NFS. Here is an excerpt from the hearing regarding the "official use only" policy:

COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:You mentioned earlier that the list of actions that you’ve taken - the enhanced oversight, the management meetings, escalated enforcement and whatnot, are information that we have not revealed publicly because of an agreement that we have with the Navy under the auspices of DOE.

I don’t understand that. Why is that the case? What about this is Official Use Only that we’re taking these - I get it that the processes obviously are things that we need to ensure aren’t disclosed. I don’t think it’s a national secret that NFS provides fuel services to the Navy. So what justifies the use of Official Use Only regarding our process? I hope someone can explain it to me because as a Commissioner I think that goes against the openness policies that we have in our strategic plan.

The Knoxville News Sentinel has background on these latest developments and more info on other safety and security problems at the facility.

Labels: nuclear power, regulatory oversight

Facing South contributor Bill Quigley recently brought us the shocking story of a group of African-American teens who are facing harsh criminal penalties for lashing out against racist terrorism in Jena, La.

The trouble began last December when white students hung three nooses from a tree where Jena High School's white students gathered after several blacks dared to sit under it. The white students who hung the nooses received only a three-day suspension, which led to an escalation of racial tensions at the school. After a white student allegedly taunted blacks with the "N" word, he was beaten up by black students, six of whom were arrested.

One of those arrested -- 16-year-old Mychal Bell -- was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery for his role in the beating. Bell's public defender called no witnesses and failed to challenge the makeup of the jury pool. With his sentencing set for July 31, Bell faces the possibility of up to 22 years in prison.

The NAACP, which is involved in Bell's defense, is now collecting signatures on a petition to Louisiana's governor and attorney general calling for a new trial for Bell and justice for the six arrested teens. To add your name to it, click here.

Labels: criminal justice, louisiana, race and racism

Yesterday we reported on a rally held at the North Carolina General Assembly by environmental groups angered by energy interests' hijacking of what started out as legislation to promote renewable energy.

We mentioned the unusual role played by state Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg), who guided the bill through the legislative process. We noted that Clodfelter was one of the legislature's two biggest recipients of energy companies' campaign contributions, holds stock in those companies, and works for a law firm that represents those companies.

Well, today's Winston-Salem Journal has an article that examines in detail Clodfelter's work on the bill and his apparent conflicts of interest. The article also reports on the lack of openness surrounding the legislation's crafting:

Critics say that the process meant that the bill was designed without public scrutiny or debate. The meetings were open, but no minutes were kept.

Instead of being done through an open democratic process, the changes to the bill were made by an ad-hoc group of lawyers and lobbyists representing Duke Energy and Progress Energy who revamped the legislation before it was formally considered by lawmakers, according to the paper.

The appearance of various conflicts of interest aside, however, Clodfelter rejects any charges that he's carrying water for the energy companies:

"I'm disappointed if folks have to stoop to that kind of stuff," he said.

Labels: campaign finance, energy policy, north carolina

A broad coalition of environmental advocacy groups held a rally today outside the North Carolina General Assembly to vent their anger over big utilities' hijacking of legislation originally drafted to promote a more sustainable energy future for the state.

When it was first introduced by state Sen. Charlie Albertson (D-Duplin), Senate Bill 3 won broad support from environmentalists for requiring the state's utilities to increase power generation from less polluting sources. But as the bill made its way through the legislative process, controversial provisions were added that shift financial risks for the expensive new coal and nuclear plants that utilities want to rate payers. Other changes reverse a long-planned phase-out of hog waste lagoons, instead allowing industrial hog operations to keep the lagoons in exchange for capturing methane gas emissions for energy production.

At the rally, Gary Grant of Concerned Citizens of Tillery -- an environmental justice group based in eastern North Carolina where the state's industrial hog industry is concentrated -- noted that most waste lagoons are located in poor and predominantly African-American communities. Gases emitted by the lagoons have been associated with a host of negative health effects including respiratory problems and diarrhea.

"If these things were in white communities, there would have been a law against them passed a long time ago," Grant said. "Now our next generation of children is going to have to grow up smelling hog shit. It's not right."

The rally came one day after Democracy North Carolina released a report (PDF) documenting extensive financial ties between the state's two big utilities -- Duke Energy and Progress Energy -- and state lawmakers. Over the past four years, the two companies spent a total of $1.7 million on lobbyists and political contributions to state lawmakers, an average investment of about $10,000 per legislator.

The watchdog group also reviewed legislators' financial disclosure reports, finding that at least seven of the state's 50 senators hold stock valued at $10,000 or more in Duke or Progress. In addition, at least six are employed by law firms that work on behalf of energy companies.

They include state Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg), who played an unusual role as the legislation's manager. Besides having received $36,000 from the utilities over the past two election cycles (more than any other lawmaker except Sen. Tony Rand, a Cumberland County Democrat who received the same amount), Clodfelter is also among those lawmakers who own utility stock. In addition, Clodfelter works for the Carolinas-based law firm of Moore & Van Allen, which has an extensive energy and project finance practice and also specializes in lobbying on behalf of energy interests.

"We don't have a representative government here," Don Webb of the Alliance for a Responsible Swine Industry told the rally. "We have a corporate power government. They only listen to money, money, money!"

Among the other organizations opposing the North Carolina legislation are the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Canary Coalition, Clean Water for North Carolina, N.C. Fair Share, N.C. Interfaith Power & Light, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network and every riverkeeper group in the state.

The only environmental groups supporting the legislation in its current form are Environmental Defense and the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association. ED, which has historically fought to eliminate hog waste lagoons, also recently played a controversial role in brokering a deal to allow the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Texas despite the opposition of local leaders and other environmental groups.

Labels: campaign finance, energy policy, north carolina

A government audit has found that the federal Small Business Administration improperly canceled almost 8,000 loans it had promised to homeowners along the Gulf Coast after the 2005 hurricanes, according to the New York Times.

The story (by Institute for Southern Studies alum Ron Nixon) reports that the homeowners eventually received letters saying that had voluntarily given up the loans -- even though many told auditors with the SBA's Inspector General that they needed the money:

The loans were canceled last year, after the agency had come under fire for being slow to give out rebuilding money, according to the audit. Former agency employees have complained that they were pressured to withdraw the loans to cut the number of applicants whose loans had been approved but not paid out.

The SBA provides various types of loans for homeowners and renters in the event of a disaster. Earlier audits of the agency documented a backlog of hundreds of thousands of loan applications from Gulf Coast residents that was attributed to poor planning, insufficient staff levels and computer system problems.

The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing today to discuss the improper cancellations. To view the hearing, click here.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, housing, Hurricane Katrina

During the highly publicized "CNN/YouTube Debate" last night, a couple of guys from Tennessee asked via YouTube video if any of the candidates' feelings were hurt because the media seems more interested in whether Al Gore will run than in them.

This prompted Sen. Joe Biden to respond "I think the people of Tennessee just had their feelings hurt."

I think Sen. Biden is not familiar with the Red State Report, starring Jackie Broyles and Dunlap out of Murfreesboro, TN. Memo to Sen. Biden: it's an act. We're not really like that down here. Well, not all of us, anyway.

See their CNN/YouTube Al Gore question here. See their other questions (which weren't aired) here.

Labels: Election 2008, humor

Thousands of workers in Mississippi got a pay raise today. No, the state did not pass a new minimum wage law. Nor did Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, or Louisiana. Instead, Congress made good on one of their "first 100 hours" pledges, and the new federal minimum wage of $5.85 per hour goes into effect as of today.

This means that minimum wage workers in the five states with no minimum wage laws, all of them in the South, finally get a small increase of $28 per week after waiting nearly a decade.

Minimum wage workers in Kentucky and Virginia, where the state minimum wage is tied to the federal minimum, will also get a raise.

These workers will now make $234 per week, or $12,168 per year (before taxes and other deductions) if they work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. The federal poverty level for a family of three is $17,170.

North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia had already done the right thing and raised their state minimum higher than the federal.

Minimum wage workers in Georgia who are covered by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act will also get a raise, but others are left behind.

Labels: economic justice, poverty

When Facing South read the news that Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) went ballistic on a Capitol police officer last week, it reminded us of the media frenzy that greeted another member of Congress last year, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

You may not have heard about the Shays episode -- the media has largely ignored it, despite what was clearly a tense altercation between Shays and the Capitol police. According to CQ.com:

[Shays confronted the officer] "in a profanity-laced tirade ... He delivered a tongue-lashing, including several instances of the ‘F-word,’ to the officer before grabbing the name tag on the front of his uniform."

According to reports, Shays -- who happens to be a European-American male -- delivered this verbal assault because the officer declined to make a call on his cell phone (they can't while on duty) to help Shays meet some constituents.

How does this compare to the Rep. McKinney episode? As was eagerly reported by major media, in spring 2006 McKinney was stopped by a Capitol Hill policeman, who put his arm on her shoulder to stop her from entering the building; he said he didn't recognize her. McKinney turned around and pushed her cell phone into the officer's chest.

Rep. McKinney, who happens to be African American and female, was widely vilified by the national media, with Fox News leading the charge. Blogger Michelle Malkin implicated all Democrats, calling them "The Party of Police Haters." The Capitol Hill police launched a legal investigation and McKinney faced arrest. Many credit the media hoopla around the event as a big part of what caused McKinney to lose her re-election bid in 2006.

So what about Shays? After his bitter run-in, Shays is surely facing a similar storm of controversy and legal adversity, no? Well, no:

"After personally meeting with the officer, Chief of Police Phillip D. Morse, Sr. and Assistant Chief of Police Dan Nichols discussed the matter with Congressman Shays who acknowledged he acted inappropriately in the heat of the moment and took full responsibility for his actions.

"The Congressman stated his full support and admiration for the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police and offered his apologies."

And Fox News and Michelle Malkin haven't said a word.

Goldrick at DailyKos has more ...

Labels: race and racism

The People's Hurricane Relief Fund and Oversight Committee held a press conference this morning in front of their New Orleans office to protest the alleged withholding of funds from Hurricane Katrina victims by the American Red Cross.

PHRF charges that the humanitarian aid organization is concealing money available through the Means to Recovery program, which is part of its third-phase recovery efforts for people who suffered losses in Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The first phase was emergency response, sheltering and feeding, while the second phase was financial assistance.

According to PHRF, the Means to Recovery program

is supposed to allocate a maximum of $20,000 per family to cover occupational costs, housing, furnishing, personal living needs and health costs. This could cover anything from eyeglasses to a used vehicle to education costs.

Haven't heard of it? Neither have most Katrina-Rita victims who need the assistance. The same agency that spends millions of advertising dollars begging for money won't provide free public service announcements to alert struggling hurricane survivor families that relief is available.

Red Cross is trying its best to keep the program a secret and discourage the survivors who find out about it. ARC chapters in areas such as Jackson, Mississippi have lied to survivors, denied the existence of such a program and is attempting to penalize recipients who tell others about it. In other areas, people are routinely denied assistance based on the whims of case managers who arbitrarily decide if a person will get assistance or how much of their needs will be addressed.

To say the Red Cross is "hiding" the program isn't exactly true, however. A June 8 article in the Biloxi Sun Herald newspaper reported on the Means to Recovery program as well as Access to Care, which provides mental health care to storm victims:

"The thing we do best is normally right after a disaster occurs, providing food, water and basic supplies," said Pat Rimmer, senior public affairs associate for the Southeast Service Area Headquarters of the Red Cross. "But we decided we wanted to do something more long term for those affected by the 2005 hurricanes, mainly Katrina, Rita and Wilma."

The Sun Herald article noted that the aid isn't given to the individual or family but to the vendor from whom the needed items are purchased.

The Means to Recovery program was also the subject of an Oct. 26, 2006 Newhouse News Service report that described it as providing "help for victims unable to have needs met in a traditional forum." The program, it said, "sets case managers to work with clients to develop a long-term recovery plan for families."

PHRF links the Red Cross's failure to widely publicize the program to a more general "mean-spiritedness" in the way the congressionally-chartered charity has treated hurricane survivors, particularly people of color. It is calling on the Red Cross to:

Immediately and aggressively notify the public about the "Means to Recovery" program

Disburse the funds to Katrina-Rita Survivors within 90 days

Account for all funds received for "Means to Recovery"

Account for all funds disbursed on a dollars-to-demographics neighborhoods basis

Begin to treat Black Survivors with dignity, compassion and respect

The Red Cross's widely criticized post-Katrina performance was the target of an investigation led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). In May, President Bush signed into law legislation sponsored by Grassley and others that overhauls Red Cross governance and creates the new position of ombudsman, who will have access to all aspects of the organization's operations and provide annual reports to Congress.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, Hurricane Katrina

Former Georgia Rep. Newt Gingrich (R) has admitted to one reason he's vacillating about entering the 2008 presidential contest: the possibility that fellow Southerner Sen. Fred Thompson from Tennessee will throw his hat in the ring. The AP reports:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that a White House bid by fellow Southerner Fred Thompson would make him less likely to join the race.

"If Fred Thompson runs and he does well, then I think that makes it easier for me to not run," Gingrich said in a telephone interview.

None of the GOP hopefuls have stirred much interest in the South, in part reflected by the low fundraising totals they've collected from Southern states.

But even on this question, Gingrich is equivocal:

"On the other hand, just given what you've seen with (John) McCain the last few months, how can you predict?"

Labels: Election 2008, Southern Politics

The latest issue of the Facing South e-newsletter just went out -- where you on the list? If you were, you were treated to a heaping helping of unique Southern news and views delivered to your inbox, like:

* What's the REAL Sen. Vitter scandal?
* Major election reform in North Carolina
* Is another politics possible?
* Who's getting Dixie's campaign dollars?
* Shocking injustice in Jena, Louisiana

and much more!

Not getting the newsletter yet? Go to that box in the upper right hand corner and sign up today -- it's informative, it's free, and we'll never share your name with another list.

Labels: facing south, institute for southern studies

Sen. John Edwards wrapped up his Poverty Tour this week, which started in New Orleans, ended in two Kentucky communities visited by Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago. The question for many observers: with rival candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama grabbing media headlines, money and better poll numbers, is Edwards' message having impact?

Edwards may be having a bigger impact than the horse race suggests, argues the Wall Street Journal today. In fact, it may be Edwards who is driving the 2008 Democratic agenda:

John Edwards may be stuck in third place in the polls and fund raising in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. But the populist seems to be playing an outsized role in driving the terms of the party's debate -- generally to the left -- on everything from Iraq to health care. [...]

It is the essence of Mr. Edwards's strategy for winning the nomination: to come from the left, and win over the party activists who tend to dominate the early primaries and caucuses. Other candidates, notably front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, have tended to take a more cautious tack, in an attempt to preserve their ability to appeal to the middle should they ultimately win the nomination. But with little to lose, Mr. Edwards seems to feel freer to address issues that might alienate the party and business establishment. Just as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean pushed the Democrats toward more staunch opposition of the Iraq war four years ago, Mr. Edwards seems to be having a big impact on forcing the pack to follow his agenda.

UPDATE: For another interesting take on Edwards' role in the 2008 elections, read this piece by Bob Geary, political reporter par excellence for the Durham, NC-based Independent Weekly. Short version: "John Edwards' message is strong, but his campaign's stuck." Although, a lot of people thought another Southern Democrat's campaign was "stuck" in 1991 ...

[Hat tip to Political Wire]

Labels: Election 2008, Southern Politics

At a hearing held today by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, investigators released internal Federal Emergency Management Agency e-mails documenting that FEMA attorneys rejected environmental testing of trailers provided to people displaced by Katrina over concerns that the agency would be legally liable if health problems cropped up, the Washington Post reports:

FEMA's Office of General Counsel "has advised that we do not do testing," because this "would imply FEMA's ownership of this issue," wrote a FEMA logistics specialist on June 16, 2006, three months after news reports surfaced about the possible effects of the invisible cancer-causing compound and one month after the agency was sued.

Another FEMA attorney on June 15 advised, "[d]o not initiate any testing until we give the OK. . . . Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."

About 120,000 families displaced by Katrina lived in travel trailers and mobile homes after the storm, and about 75,000 still live in them today.

In May 2006, the Sierra Club reported finding unsafe levels of formaldehyde in 30 out of 32 trailers it tested along the Gulf Coast. But as recently as this past May, FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison told another Congressional committee that he was unaware the trailers posed any health threat. Paulison was among those who testified at today's hearing.

A chemical used in paint and adhesives, formaldehyde is classified as a "known carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Yesterday FEMA announced that it has asked the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to help in conducting a public health assessment of indoor air quality in its trailers.

The hearing featured disturbing testimony by people residing in FEMA trailers. They included Mrs. Lindsay Huckabee, a resident of Pass Christian, Miss. who has lived in a FEMA-provided mobile home since December 2005. She told the committee:

As we were moving into the trailer, we noticed that it has a very strong odor. We figured that is what a "new" trailer smelled like. Our whole family began to have sinus problems, our eyes would burn and water, and our throats were constantly sore. We seemed to catch every cold and virus going around, but we couldn't get rid of the illnesses. Three of our children began having severe nosebleeds, sometimes three or four times a week. I began having migraine headaches and pre-term labor. At the time, my doctor thought maybe my blood pressure was going up at home, causing the headaches.

After three weeks of pre-term labor stopped by medication, my youngest son Michael was delivered four weeks early on January 17, 2006. Each of my previous pregnancies was either full term or past due. Michael was healthy and came home on time. Within a few days of being home, his sinuses were congested. I was so scared. None of my children even had a cold until they were much older than he was at the time. I kept thinking he is so small and too young to be sick. He never had a fever though, which suggested that his sinuses were just irritated. I was so worried that he would choke on the phlegm he was coughing up that I stayed up most nights watching him sleep.

Huckabee went on to describe how her four-year-old daughter Lelah was affected the most, suffering from nosebleeds, ear infections and repeated bouts of pneumonia. At one point, the child saw an ear-nose-throat specialist, who said he has many patients living in FEMA trailers who were all showing the same symptoms. Said Huckabee:

I came home one afternoon to find my daughter covering her nose; her hands, arms and shirt were covered in blood. The surprising part is that I did not feel the need to rush to her and find out what was wrong. I did not think for a second that it was anything more than a bloody nose. Two years ago, I would have panicked trying to get to her. Later that night, I cried for hours. How had we gotten to the point where I was not surprised to see my child covered in blood?

She might also have asked how we as a nation had gotten to the point where we are not surprised to see this sort of ongoing ineptitude on FEMA's part. As a frustrated Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) said during the hearing:

It was almost like there were three disasters. There was a storm, there was the failure of the levees, and now there's been the government incompetence. ... We've got to fix this.

(Photo by Marvin Nauman/FEMA)

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, Hurricane Katrina, public health, regulatory oversight

Today the Institute released the findings of our first-ever regional analysis of 2008 presidential campaign contributions. We found that the top five Democratic and top five Republican campaigns have collected over $45 million from the South.

After some technical glitches (goodbye, new Dell laptop), we now have a handy PDF file with interesting charts about who is getting Dixie's money -- and who isn't getting support from the South.

The results may surprise you (for example: what does South Carolina have against Hillary?)

Check out the info here (pdf).

Labels: Election 2008, Southern Politics

In early 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offered a sweet deal to some decidedly not-so-sweet polluters: industrial-scale livestock farms.

In exchange for paying a small fee and agreeing to participate in an air quality data collection program, factory farms would essentially be exempt from Clean Air Act requirements for 30 months. About 2,600 farms -- most of them raising hogs -- signed up. The participating farms are located across the country, including North Carolina and Texas, the Associated Press reports.

But the deal angered environmental advocacy groups, who sued the EPA. This week, a federal appeals court issued its ruling in the case -- siding with the EPA against the environmentalists, according to the AP:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ... found in its 2-1 ruling that the EPA was exercising a valid use of the agency's enforcement discretion by entering into agreements with the farms.

Luke Cole of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment told the AP that his group was reviewing the decision to decide on the next course of action.

Labels: agriculture, environment, environmental justice

A new study by researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina has found elevated rates of leukemia among children and young people living near nuclear facilities.

The findings raise important questions about the push to expand the U.S. nuclear power industry. There are currently plans (PDF) to build new reactors across the nation and the South, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

The MUSC researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Germany and France. They found that leukemia death rates for children up to the age of 9 were elevated by between 5 and 24 percent, depending on their proximity to nuclear facilities, and by 2 to 18 percent in children and young people up to the age of 25. They also found that leukemia incidence rates were increased among those living near nuclear facilities by 14 to 21 percent in children up to age 9, and by 7 to 10 percent for those up to age 25.

"Childhood leukemia is a rare disease and nuclear sites are commonly found in rural areas, which means that sample sizes tend to be small," says lead author Dr. Peter J. Baker. "The advantage of carrying out a meta-analysis is that it enables us to draw together a number of studies that have employed common methods and draw wider conclusions."

Eight separate analyses were performed -- including unadjusted, random and fixed-effect models -- and the figures they produced showed considerable consistency.

"If the amount of exposure were too low to cause the excess risk, we would expect leukemia rates to remain consistent before and after the start-up of a nuclear facility," said Baker. "However, our meta-analysis consistently showed elevated illness and death rates for children and young people living near nuclear facilities."

Baker noted that many questions remain to be answered about why living near a nuclear reactor would increase leukemia rates. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain the phenomenon, including environmental radiation exposure and parental radiation exposure. In addition, cancer researcher Professor Leo Kinlen of Oxford University has offered the hypothesis that viral transmission caused by mixing populations in a new rural location could be a factor.

"It is clear that further research is needed into this important subject," Baker concluded.

The MUSC study appears in the July issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care.

Labels: energy policy, nuclear power, public health

The presidential money race is well under way, and moving faster than ever. According to campaign finance data released July 15, White House hopefuls are smashing all fundraising records, collecting over $265 million in contributions in the first six months of 2007 alone.

But what role is the South – one of the country’s fastest-growing regions, and home to 31% of the Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency – playing in the 2008 fundraising derby?

A new analysis of campaign records by the Institute for Southern Studies finds that the five top fundraising campaigns in each party have collected over $45 million from 13 Southern states.

It’s a staggering sum – but only 16% of the national total, revealing the South’s campaign contributions have yet to catch up with the region’s electoral clout.

Institute analysis reveals an interesting picture of who is – and who isn't – getting Dixie's dollars:

*** Two New York-based politicians have raked in the most campaign contributions from Southern states: Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton ($8.6 million) and Republican ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani ($7.3 million) top the list of 2008 presidential hopefuls in money coming from the South.

*** Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards – the leading Southerner in the race so far – has received the biggest share of his contributions from the region. Nearly a third (31%) of Edwards’ $23 million war chest has come from the South, making him the only candidate whose fundraising draw matches the region’s electoral significance.

*** All other candidates getting 20% or more of their contributions from Southern states are Republicans: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (22%), Giuliani and Sen. John McCain.

*** Those getting the lowest percentage of their campaign funds from the South are Sens. Barack Obama (12%), Christopher Dodd (8%) and Sam Brownback (8%) – a surprising result for Brownback, who has positioned himself as a voice for Christian conservatives, a strong political bloc in the South.

*** Florida – with its 27 Electoral College votes and position as one of the first two Southern states to hold a primary in 2008 – has been a top fundraising target for both parties. Sen. Clinton’s $3.4 million raised in the Sunshine State puts her far ahead of the pack, followed by Obama, Giuliani and Romney ($1.9 million each) and McCain ($1.4 million).

*** South Carolina – the other early primary state in the South – is more intriguing: Republican hopefuls McCain, Romney and Giuliani have all collected over $200,000 from the Palmetto State. This stands in stark contrast to Democrats, where only S.C. native John Edwards has raised that much. Obama ranks fifth in the 2008 field with $187,000 from South Carolina, and Sen. Clinton has attracted only $76,000 in contributions from the state.

The study draws on campaign finance records submitted by five Democratic and five Republican campaigns that reported raising the most in the first and second quarters of 2007. The Institute looked at contributions from 13 Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

Labels: campaign finance, Election 2008

Today the Institute was featured on 99.5 FM "The New Voice of New Orleans" -- a leading talk radio station in the Big Easy and Fox/Clear Channel affiliate -- to talk about the Institute's Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch project and how the post-Katrina recovery is going.

August will mark the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. President Bush points to over $110 billion allocated in recovery money -- but some estimates put the amount actually spent at only 20%. Lack of affordable housing, troubles with healthcare and schools, toxic health threats and dozens of other barriers are keeping much of the Gulf from coming back.

Why isn't the recovery going better? Where did the money go? If you missed today's show, you can listen to a podcast here to find out some of the answers. And for more information about what's happening in the Gulf, make sure and visit the Gulf Watch blog and read our special Gulf Watch reports.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

Two senior Army officials admitted in federal court yesterday that the VX nerve agent byproduct being shipped from the Newport Army Deport in Newport, Ind. to Port Arthur, Texas is not considered "destroyed" under the Chemical Weapons Convention, Environment News Service reports:

Four groups -- the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Sierra Club, Citizens Against Incineration at Newport, and the Community In Power Development Association in Port Arthur -- filed suit against the Army and its incineration contractor Veolia Environmental Services.

They allege that the transportation and incineration of the VX liquid byproduct, called hydrolysate, are putting communities at risk.

Judge Larry McKinney, chief federal district judge for the Southern District of Indiana, is hearing testimony on a motion for an injuction to halt shipments of the byproduct through eight states. Shipments are suspended until the judge rules.

The toxic by-product at issue is VX hydrolysate, caustic wastewater created when VX nerve agent is mixed with sodium hydroxide and water at the Newport Depot in an attempt to destroy the VX in accordance with the treaty.

"Until this material is destroyed under the treaty definition, it is considered a declared chemical weapon," said Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group.

The states along the transport route include Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

In April, the Army signed a contract to burn the material at the Veolia incinerator in the predominantly African-American community of Port Arthur after shipments were rejected by Ohio and New Jersey.

Earlier this month, the grassroots Community In-Power Development Association of Port Arthur delivered petitions to U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) calling for a permanent end to the shipments and incineration. In May, the association also delivered a citizens' letter to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) seeking his help in stopping the transports. The group is calling for treating the material on site in Indiana.

For more on the shipments and lawsuit, visit CWWG's Web site here.

(Photo from the Chemical Weapons Working Group Web site.)

Labels: environmental justice

A story that appears in today's Washington Post reveals the industry players who participated in Vice President Dick Cheney's controversial energy task force, and quite a number of South-based companies made the list:

In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny.

The Post obtained the list from a former White House official. The Southern-based energy companies on it include:

* Duke Energy, an electric generation company headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.;

* Enron, the now-bankrupt Houston-based energy giant;

* Entergy, an energy company with headquarters in New Orleans;

* Florida Power & Light of Juno Beach, Fla.;

* Southern Company, an electricity generator with central offices in Atlanta;

* TXU Corp., a Dallas-based energy company;

* Reliant Energy, an energy services company headquartered in Houston;

* the oil and gas division of Charlotte, N.C.-based Nucor;

* Exxon, the Irving, Texas-based petroleum giant;

* Mirant, a power-generation company with headquarters Atlanta;

* Fluor Corp., a petrochemical construction and maintenance company with main offices in Irving, Texas;

* Cabot Oil & Gas, an exploration and production company based in Houston;

* Tidelands Oil & Gas of San Antonio; and

* El Paso Corp., a natural gas pipeline and exploration company headquartered in Houston.

Some of the people who met with the task force's staff described their meetings as part of a normal review of major domestic policy and and said they were puzzled that the White House and Cheney tried to keep the deliberations secret, according to the paper.

The Post also reports that Cheney also met with a number of environmental advocacy organizations including Environmental Defense, Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth. However, by the time those meetings took place, the first draft of the task force report was "substantially complete" and President Bush had been briefed on its progress, according to the paper:

Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group said, "It was clear to us that they were just being nice to us."

As Chris mentioned here back in November, the State Children's Health Insurance Program sunsets this year unless Congress acts to reauthorize it.

There are bipartisan proposals to not only extend the program, but also to expand it to cover more children and some adults who can't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford insurance. Funding would come from an increase in the federal cigarette tax.

President Bush's advisers have recommended that he veto any such bill if it passes, because they believe it would encourage more people to drop private insurance and go on publicly funded programs.

Instead, they want Congress to enact Bush's voodoo tax scheme that would tax employer provided health insurance benefits but give back tax credits for health insurance premiums which would somehow encourage people to buy more private insurance, assuming they can understand the plan. The complicated plan was unveiled in Bush's State of the Union speech, but hasn't been heard from again.

At any rate, the Kaiser Family Foundation testified before the Senate Finance Committee in April of this year regarding the effectiveness of the SCHIP program:

SCHIP has successfully worked together with Medicaid to provide health coverage to millions of low-income children.

• SCHIP covers million children today, building on Medicaid’s coverage of million children.

• Over the past decade, SCHIP and Medicaid together have reduced the uninsured rate among low-income children by one-third.

• Without SCHIP, millions more children in low-income working families would be uninsured.

Effective outreach, expanded eligibility, and streamlined enrollment and renewal are key elements of SCHIP’s success.

• SCHIP established a new paradigm in which priority is given to finding and enrolling eligible children in SCHIP and Medicaid.

• Experience has shown that increasing eligibility, simplifying the enrollment process, and providing months of continuous eligibility boosts coverage of eligible children.

• Continuous outreach and broad messaging about the availability of health coverage create enthusiasm and spur enrollment in SCHIP.

Because of SCHIP, millions of children have better access to the care they need.

• SCHIP and Medicaid increase the likelihood that children will have a medical home and lead to improvements in children’s health, yielding benefits in school as well.

• Utilization of preventive and primary care services increases with SCHIP and Medicaid coverage to a level on par with private insurance. • SCHIP and Medicaid have helped to narrow racial and ethnic disparities in access to health care.

As Chris noted back in November, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina are all facing shortfalls in federal funding for their SCHIP programs. Chris also noted that Washington cut SCHIP funding by 26% between 2002 and 2004, and allowed more than $1 billion in unspent funds to expire and revert back to the Treasury.

Labels: health care, public health

According to figures reported by Political Insider, candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination raised about 73% more cash ($82 million) as compared to the GOP candidates ($47 million) in the second quarter.

Obama leads the way for Democrats with $32.8 million, followed by Clinton at $27 million followed by a big drop off to third place for Edwards at $8.9 million.

For Republicans, Giuliani leads with $17.3 million, followed by Romney at $13.7 million and McCain at $11.2 million.

According to Political Wire, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised more than twice as much cash ($17.6 million) as the National Republican Senatorial Committee ($8.6 million) in the second quarter.

Political Wire also has speculation that Thompson put off his announcement so he wouldn't have to file campaign finance disclosures for the second quarter. (UPDATE: The Crone has more interesting speculation as to the reason for the delay.)

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, a July National Journal poll showed that 73% of Democratic insiders predict Clinton will win the nomination, followed by 19% for Obama and 5% for Edwards. 36% of Republican insiders predict Giuliani and 35% predict Romney. Thompson come