[Editor: Indivisible continues to do a great job – creatively and persistently resisting the Trump administration and building toward a more progressive future. Find your local Indivisible group here. My local group is Vallejo-Benicia Indivisible (on Facebook). Contribute to Indivisible here. Download the Indivisible 2.0 Guide. More Benicia Independent coverage of Indivisible. – R.S.]
How we will beat Trump and save Democracy…
Indivisible’s 2-year plan to beat Trump and save Democracy – 6/6/2019
Close your eyes for a minute and imagine this: it’s 2021. Trump lost and an inspiring progressive takes office. Democrats held the House and retook the Senate.
On day one, the new Congress passes sweeping democracy reforms to roll back decades of Republican attacks on our democracy. We smash voter suppression and expand voter access, end gerrymandering, take on money in politics, admit new states, and take back the courts. In short, we unrig the rules and put democracy back in the hands of the people. Then we turn to a major progressive legislative agenda – immigration reform, climate change, health care, and more.
We can have the inclusive democracy and progressive change we’ve dreamed of. We’re so close. How do we get there?
Indivisible may have gotten started to resist Trump, but we know that the problem we’re facing is bigger than Trump. Everywhere we look, Republicans are trying to rig the rules to stay in power – and to lock the American people out. They know in a real representative democracy they’ll lose – so they’re breaking democracy.
That’s why we have to beat Trump, but we can’t stop there. We have to save our democracy. We can do both, but we have to start now.
How do we beat Trump?
Play defense and weaken Trump. Defend against Trump’s attacks, particularly those targeting immigrants – defunding hate in the upcoming budget in September is the biggest fight against Trump’s agenda of the year (more information here), and anti-immigrant attacks will be a key part of his strategy for 2020. We’ll also push back on Trump’s crimes – and ask Democrats in Congress to begin impeachment investigations.
A constructive primary. We have so many exciting and energizing candidates in the Democratic primary! Together we can ensure the primary candidates offer the strongest possible alternative vision to Trumpism, and that the ultimate nominee is a strong, well-vetted, progressive candidate. Indivisibles (and presidential candidates) across the country have already set the tone by signing the Indivisible Pledge commiting to a constructive primary and to support the ultimate nominee.
Take back the White House (and the Senate!) After the primary, we all need to come together to knock doors, make calls and register voters–if we do the work, together, we can beat Trump.
How do we save democracy?
Set the stage for democracy reform. The anti-Trump resistance must grow into a pro-democracy movement to build support for a game-changing reforms after Trump is gone. We need to get Democrats on the record to support bold reforms now, in 2019, so that they’re ready to move that agenda in 2021. We’ll start by focusing on eliminating the filibuster (see why here!).
Pass our democracy agenda on day one. If we win the White House, Senate and House, we finally have full agenda setting power. The new Democratic congress must eliminate the filibuster in order to get anything done. Then it should immediately pass other democracy reforms, including admitting new states, expanding voting rights, ending gerrymandering, and more.
Make long-term change. With a real representative democracy, we can finally enact other critical progressive legislation, from immigration reform to climate change to health care.
For more information on getting involved with this plan, you can reach out to your Indivisible Organizer here.
Oh, where to start? I’ve needed to write about this for a loooong time.
Back in 2007, I met City Councilmember Elizabeth Patterson, who had announced her candidacy for Mayor. She seemed bright, and I was looking for something to do in my recent retirement. So I volunteered to help.
Elizabeth is now a three-term mayor in Benicia, due in large part to her own energetic campaigning and exemplary leadership and service on the Council. But you can’t get to be Mayor three times all on your own. The community has risen to support her, volunteered, rallied, chipped in financially, and organized to get out the vote.
And yet, consistently over all these years, one very loud voice has publicly targeted and trashed our Mayor in the local newspaper and online media. The frequency of invective (definition: insulting, abusive, or highly critical language) on the Forum Page of our paper has caused any number of residents to unsubscribe. And one can only guess how many residents have chosen NOT to run for public office lest they be publicly and repeatedly abused.
That mean-spirited voice has not been entirely alone. The usual political spectrum of varying opinions, indeed the common dualism of right and left, has surfaced here. The variety is welcome, and mostly positive, but we have seen a number of disrespectful voices as well, some less subtle than others. Even some of the Mayor’s colleagues on Council have occasionally seemed to express distaste rather than simple opposing opinions of substance.
Why? It’s not all about this particular Benicia mayor.
Governing.com recently published a fascinating article, “Targeting the Mayor” which relies on a new study published in the journal State and Local Government Review. The study “finds that most mayors contend with verbal hostility or physical intimidation at rates above those of the general workforce.” And mayors who are women are abused more often than others.
“In all, 79 percent of mayors reported at least one form of “psychological abuse,” which the survey defined to include harassment, being demeaned or receiving threats. Disrespectful comments or images on social media were by far the most frequent means of abuse. Nearly half of mayors similarly experienced harassment, while 13 percent reported threats of violence directed toward them.
“…While it’s not at all surprising that mayors encounter negativity, some face much more frequent offenses than others. The only factor that predicted both psychological abuse and physical violence was gender, with women more than twice as likely to experience such incidents as men….”
Mayoral abuse may be common, but it’s not right. And gender bias may still motivate many, but it should have no place at City Hall or in our public discourse.
It is time that Benicians take on civility in our local politics as an issue to be faced openly and dealt with publicly and persistently.
The local newspaper must begin to assert it’s journalistic prerogative, taking responsibility to ban not only libelous content and trash talk, but also to specifically end the long-standing targeting of individuals.
Editorial responsibility is NOT censorship. Mary Susan Gast wrote a beautiful explanation of this in her 2018 letter to the Benicia Herald editor:
As individuals and groups we are free to speak our beliefs and opinions to anyone who will listen; that’s freedom of speech. Freedom of the press is freedom from interference by the government in reporting. Freedom of the press is not an author’s right to have his or her works published by other people. As the journalist A.J. Liebling has said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” Legal historian Lucas A. Powe offers further clarification: “Freedom of the press gives the printer or publisher exclusive control over what the publisher chooses to publish, including the right to refuse to print anything for any reason. If the author cannot reach a voluntary agreement with a publisher to produce the author’s work, then the author must turn to self-publishing.” [from The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America, 1991]
And it’s not just the newspaper and social media.
In 2020, Benicia will enter into another round of electoral campaigns. There was some trashy advertising by organized labor and Valero Benicia Refinery in our last election, repeatedly targeting one candidate. Benicia’s Open Government Commission has proposed strengthening the public campaign finance ordinances to help guard against undisclosed outside corporate interests influencing our elections.
Stronger city ordinances will help, but I doubt they will be enough. In an era dominated by a trash-talking President, how can we expect our neighbors — individuals or corporations — to exhibit civil behavior during a consequential election?
Well, we can. And we must. The candidates themselves can help. Each candidate in next year’s contest should highlight the need for civil discourse and respectful exploration of differences of opinion. Every candidate forum should begin with a moderator’s call to civil discourse and a shaming of trash politics. Churches, civic organizations and local political groups could weigh in. And yes, during campaign season, our local editors will need to be up to the challenge.
Let’s make Benicia a city with politics that make us proud!
[Editor: UPDATE ON 11 Sept – Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson petitioned her colleagues on the City Council to adopt a Climate Emergency Resolution. The first step was on Tuesday, September 3, when Council considered whether to approve adding a discussion on this to a future agenda. The Council chose to schedule a public WORKSHOP on the issue instead, date to be announced. BACKGROUND: see City Council Agenda, 9/3/2019. See the Mayor’s attachment Draft Climate Emergency Resolution(based on a resolution adopted by the City of Santa Cruz).
…FROM 27 AUG – the following article serves as a call to action for Benicia and Solano County, indeed for EVERY community. I challenge our local and County elected officials and staff to immediately set aside time to formulate and pass the necessary ordinances to commit to the goals outlined here by Santa Clara Supervisor Cortese. “Business as usual” must take a back seat to the crisis that is our climate emergency. – R.S.]
Why Santa Clara County should declare a climate emergency — A bold commitment would serve as a model for other communities
Mercury News, By Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese, August 27, 2019
Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese is pushing the county to serve as a model for other communities in the fight against climate change. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)
Our county, our country and our world are in the midst of an existential crisis.
In dire times, times that require our immediate attention and action, Santa Clara County has always been a leader. The crusade against climate change is no different.
The County Climate Coalition, a project spearheaded by my office in partnership with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, affirmed the county’s commitment to emission reductions deadlines and called on counties across the nation to achieve 100 percent renewable energy and commit to the goals set forth in the United Nations’ Paris Climate Agreement — an agreement that our science-denying presidential administration withdrew from in 2017.
At the center of this agreement is the ambitious, yet achievable, goal of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Surpassing the climate-reduction goals enacted by California last year, the county is on track to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity for county operations by the end of this year and will be 100 percent carbon-neutral by 2045.
We have stayed on the forefront of the battle against climate change not only because we sit on the San Francisco Bay Area and have much to lose but also because we have the brightest minds in the world leveraging investment capital, research, incentives and regulatory powers. The ardent support and partnerships we have made with grassroots environmental activists have pushed us toward bold action and concrete climate solutions.
Thanks to the support of environmental groups, business associations, labor unions, public health organizations and other community groups, the county has been able to pass aggressive sustainability policies and take bold action to quickly and safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere.
These actions have included pledging that 100 percent of our electrical power originates from clean renewable sources, that our public vehicles are electric, hybrid-electric or run on alternative fuel, that county buildings are LEED certified and energy efficient, that 100 percent of county waste is diverted from landfills and then converted to energy, and vowing to employ 20,000 blue- and white-collar “clean and green workforce” trainees regionally and in the county. This confluence of bright minds and bold activism has made it possible for us to push forth policies that are essential to sustaining human life and dignity.
At our Tuesday meeting, I will call on my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to continue our county’s history of ambitious climate action by voting in favor of a resolution to declare a countywide climate emergency: a partnership with local and global advocates demanding political collaboration and the immediate mobilization of resources at the county, state and worldwide level to combat this environmental crisis.
Our planet, our livelihoods and the livelihoods of generations to come are at stake. A declaration of a climate emergency is not only a commitment to transitioning away from greenhouse gasses, it also sets a powerful example for other communities and calls upon them to join our emergency mobilization effort.
We are at an important junction in our history where folks from all walks of life are uniting behind a global mission to restore the climate for future generations. It is imperative we, as a county, accomplish this goal for the health and well-being not only of our own community but also communities around the world.
Dave Cortese represents District 3 on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Rail Industry Publication Attacks New York Times Over Lac-Mégantic Oil Train Tragedy
DeSmog, By Justin Mikulka, August 26, 2019 (Read time: 7 mins)
Train burning in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Credit: Transportation Safety Board of Canada, via CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Six years after the oil train derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec — which claimed 47 lives and destroyed the downtown of this small lakeside town — The New York Times reviewed what progress has been made since the disaster, with a headline that noted “Deadly Cargo Still Rides the Rails.”
However, Railway Age, the leading rail industry publication, attacked The Times’ coverage in an incredibly flawed critique. The title of finance editor David Nahass’s take-down is “Clickbait Journalism at The New York Times.”
In reality, both stories miss the mark on oil train safety.
The New York Times makes a major error in the industry’s favor regarding rail safety, as well as serious omissions about the risks of moving flammable cargo by rail.
Nevertheless, Nahass claims that The New York Times “sadly exhumes and retreads the memories of those lost and the pain of those who suffered trauma in order to generate readership.”
Distorting Reality
Nahass did get one thing correct in his story, which comes across like rail industry propaganda: “The perception of progress on the rail safety front is not universally perceived.” It isn’t universally perceived because, for the transport of flammable materials by rail, progress hasn’t happened. Instead, the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back the few meaningful regulations that had been put in place in the U.S. since the 2013 disaster.
To support his claim, Nahass points to three areas that he says have seen improvements in rail safety: tank car design, positive train control (PTC), and train speed guidelines.
Nahass cites the new tank car designs, DOT-117R and DOT-117J, as an industry action to improve oil train safety. But that claim is based on the premise that these rail cars do not rupture during accidents. Three accidents involving the DOT-117R tank cars have occurred in recent years, two with oil trains and one with an ethanol train.
As DeSmog has reported, all three were major disasters.
In June of 2018, an oil train derailed in Doon, Iowa. Fourteen of the DOT-117R tank cars ruptured, spilling 230,000 gallons of oil into a flooded river. In February, another oil train of DOT-117R tank cars derailed in Canada, resulting in another major oil spill. In April, an ethanol train with DOT-117R tank cars derailed and exploded in Texas, leading to the local evacuation of a residential area and causing a large fire that burned a stable and killed three horses.
Three crashes with the new “safe” tank cars. Three major failures. Railway Age’s failure to mention these accidents can only be described as “an editorial issue” of the type Nahass accuses The New York Times as being guilty of.
The one glaring error in favor of the rail industry from the Times’ coverage is that the “effectiveness [of DOT-117 tank cars] in a real-world disaster remains to be seen.” Considering all three accidents involving these rail cars resulted in fires, spills, and evacuations, this statement is a huge error. The rail industry’s top trade magazine should have been thanking The Times instead of attacking them.
As for the claim that speed limits have improved rail safety, that claim, too, is without merit. Every major oil train accident after the Lac-Mégantic disaster has happened below the speed limits. DOT-117 tank cars appear unable to withstand derailments at low speeds, as evidenced by them failing in three out of three accidents.
The sheer audacity of Nahass claiming that the rail industry deserves credit for positive train control (PTC), a system for monitoring and controlling train movements, as a safety measure is stunning.
As documented on DeSmog, PTC was first recommended as a safety measure almost 50 years ago. The industry has fought against this critical safety technology for the ensuing five decades, has ignored a 2008 Congressional mandate to implement the technology by 2015, and continues to delay rolling out this proven safety measure. A top rail lobbyist was even given an award for his work in delaying its implementation.
Nahass says, “Avoidable death is a tragedy no one should have to bear.” Hundreds of people have died because the rail industry has been fighting PTC, which includes well-funded lobbying efforts. Avoidable deaths are not a tragedy for the rail industry but a by-product of successful lobbying and higher profits.
Meanwhile, neither The New York Times nor Railway Age mentions how new regulations to require modern braking systems on trains, which still use 19th century technology were repealed under the Trump administration.
Lac-Mégantic Was ‘a Corporate Crime Scene’
Shortly after the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, Martin Lukacs, columnist for The Guardian, wrote a prophetic statement: “The explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy. It is a corporate crime scene.”
At DeSmog — and in more detail in my book Bomb Trains: How Industry Greed and Regulatory Failure Put the Public at Risk— we have documented how this disaster was the result of lax regulation and corporate cost-cutting. Yet Nahass ignores all of that information when saying the accident was a result of three events, none of which were related to the root cause of the problems leading to the accident.
Even the Transportation Safety Board of Canada noted 18 factors that contributed to the deadly oil train accident. The fact that Nahass only listed three of these is another example of a blatant “editorial issue.”
Deregulation Caused Lac-Mégantic Deaths and Continues to Increase Risks
Nahass purports that the worst thing about The New York Times story was that “it highlights deregulation as a possible cause for the tragedy.” I have no doubt deregulation was the root cause of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.
The accident could have been avoided if a back-up braking system had been engaged. But this system wasn’t used because the rail company, Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic (MMA), wasn’t required to and instead explicitly instructed the train’s engineer not to engage it.
The train was also much heavier than allowed. MMA knew this but instructed the engineer to ignore that fact, a sign of weak regulatory oversight. Despite attempts to require two-persons crews, the train that destroyed downtown Lac-Mégantic was allowed to be operated with only a single crew member — another risk factor. No regulations required the oil in the tank cars to have been “stabilized,” removing its flammable vapors. At the time, modern braking systems were not mandatory for trains carrying flammable cargo, and while a rule changing that was put in place in 2015, the Trump administration has since repealed it.
That fateful night in Quebec in 2013, a train full of flammable material was parked on the top of a steep hill above a small town. It was left on the main tracks, with the engine running, and no safety measures were in place to address known causes of runaway trains — a problem that The Times correctly notes has gotten worse since 2013.
However, Railway Age defends deregulation as a way to improve safety, even after the recent deadly Boeing airline disastersthat also seem to have roots in industry deregulation.
At a November 2016 conference examining lessons from the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Brian Stevens, who at the time was National Rail Director for Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union, clearly cited deregulation as the root cause of the accident.
“Lac-Mégantic started in 1984. It was destined to happen,” said Stevens, referring to the start of a deregulatory era for rail that continues today in both the U.S. and Canada.
Even that freedom from regulation isn’t enough for the rail industry. Its main publication wants freedom from journalistic critique as well. The attack piece in Railway Age is not just an egregious editorial failure; it represents a basic moral failure of an industry that continues to put profit over safety.
You must be logged in to post a comment.