Earlier today, Gov. McAuliffe vetoed this bill by Sen. Chap Petersen (SB 965: “Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act; collection and use of personal information by law-enforcement agencies.”)Here’s Gov. McAuliffe’s veto statement, followed by Sen. Petersen’s response.
SB 965 (Statement is identical for HB 1673)
Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 965, which would significantly restrict the use of License Place Readers (LPRs) and lead to many unintended consequences affecting public safety, transportation and the efficient conduct of business in the Commonwealth.
Despite their proven success in locating stolen vehicles, identifying drivers involved in hit-and-run accidents, locating missing children and enhancing overall public safety, this bill would drastically limit the use of LPRs by law enforcement agencies. In order to use a LPR without a warrant under this legislation, agencies must prove the LPR is being used for “known relevance” data collected that are intended for prompt evaluation and that there is suspected criminal or terrorist activity. This provision is extremely narrow and could impede day-to-day operations.
This bill also sets a strict, seven day retention period for all data collected by LPRs. Many localities in Virginia retain this data for 60 days to two years. Seven days is a substantial reduction. Additionally, law enforcement agencies demonstrate that crimes are often not reported until several weeks later. Under this bill, essential data would not be available at the time of those reports. This is particularly concerning when considering implications for the National Capitol Region, where cross-state collaboration and information-sharing are essential to responding to potential criminal or terrorist activity occurring near Virginia’s borders.
Furthermore, defining vehicle license plate numbers as “personal information” could dramatically impact state and local agency operations and create public confusion. State law requires that license plates be attached to the front and rear of every vehicle, and license plates must be clearly visible and legible.
This new definition of personal information would likely prevent the live Internet transmission of video from VDOT’s traffic cameras as a violation of the state’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Act.
The bill could potentially cripple the use of innovative, electronically-managed tolling lanes that improve the quality of life for Virginians by reducing commute times and expediting the tolling process. These projects use cameras that record license plate numbers for billing purposes, saving travelers the time they would spend waiting in line at a toll booth. The billing mechanism could be in violation of this legislation, eliminating the use of these time-saving travel options.
It would be unwise for me to sign legislation that could limit the tools available for legitimate law enforcement purposes and negatively impact public safety, or derail major transportation projects and jeopardize time-saving technologies that are essential to our economy, our citizens, tourism and the efficient conduct of business. Accordingly, I veto this bill.
First of all, I like the Governor and support his policies on economic development, which have brought thousands of new jobs to Virginia. I also consider him a friend, and sometimes friends disagree, especially when they are both Democrats.
Having said that, I believe that he’s getting some very bad advice here, both legally and politically.
First of all, this bill was not “rushed through.” The issue has been pending since March 2013, when the Attorney General ruled that License Plate Readers could not be used, except in criminal investigations. Certain police departments refused to follow that opinion, which led to these bills.
Delegate Anderson and myself filed our legislation in January 2014, after a series of Washington Post articles on the unauthorized use of LPR’s. We continued our bills for a year so as to get the maximum possible input from all sides of the debate
We pre-filed our respective bills (again) before the 2015 session. There were at least four Committee hearings on our bills, as well as multiple floor debates. The final product of SB 965 was reached by a bipartisan conference committee and unanimously approved by the House and Senate in February — after a deliberative process of over a year.
Secondly, the bill is not “bad legislation.” It was carefully written to only impact “surveillance technologies” which scan and upload personal information. On its face, it applies to random data collection – not data collected pursuant to a specific investigation or from a specific encounter. Contrary to the exaggerated claims of opponents, it had no effect on cameras focused on government property or personnel.
There is no need for the Commonwealth to be collecting private information on its own citizens, without a warrant or investigation. It is time for that Patriot Act mentality to end.
Law enforcement in this state does a great job. I’m proud to support them. But they only have those powers delegated by the Constitution and state law. It is not unlimited.
This following press release came out this afternoon, almost simultaneously with the issuance of new safety rules for high-hazard flammable trains (e.g., those carrying oil) by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Regarding the latter, enviro groups are blasting the rules as far too lax, with a 10-year phaseout period instead of an immediate ban on these super-dangerous trains (see Lac-Mégantic rail disaster for an example of the horrible damage these things can do when they explode in populated communities). As for the Virginia report, it notes that oil train safety is mostly a federal responsibility: “Given the constitutional limitations on state governments to address the root causes of rail emergencies, the Task Force’s efforts were necessarily focused on opportunities to enhance response and recovery, with some limited prevention and safety-related activities conducted within the authorities delegated to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).” Strangely, the Virginia report also states: “the overall probability of such an incident remains relatively low compared to other types of transportation-related emergencies. The probability of life loss and significant property or environmental damage is lower still.” Perhaps so, but again, when these things DO explode – and they do so far too freqently – they are deadly and destructive. Yet another reason to get off dirty, dangerous fossil fuels and onto clean energy (last I checked, you don't get deadly explosions from energy efficiency, solar and wind power!).
RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe today announced the release of the Virginia Railroad Safety and Security Task Force’s Initial Report and Recommendations.
“I applaud the members of this task force for the work they have done over the past 11 months in bringing subject matter experts, environmental groups, industry representatives and members of the public together to act on immediate opportunities for enhancing railroad safety and security in our Commonwealth,” said Governor McAuliffe. “This group has also done a great job producing a set of longer-term recommendations to help guide future preparedness initiatives. I look forward to reviewing and implementing these recommendations with my public safety and transportation teams so that we can ensure the safety of these rail lines that are essential to our economic growth.”
Governor McAuliffe formed the Railroad Safety and Security Task Force on May 9, 2014 after a derailment and explosion of crude oil rail cars in Lynchburg. Since it was formed, the agencies comprising the Task Force have increased the frequency of rail inspections on high-hazard routes, delivered crude oil response training across Virginia, and developed additional hazardous materials response capability in concert with local jurisdictions.
“I am proud of the steps this Task Force has taken and the future actions we have recommended to enhance the safety of our Commonwealth’s rail lines and the communities they serve,” said Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne, a Task Force co-chair, “While the Task Force was necessarily focused on what we can do at the state level to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazardous materials incidents along rail lines in the Commonwealth, the regulation of interstate commerce is almost exclusively reserved to the federal government. We strongly urge our federal partners to swiftly operationalize the new regulations announced today and provide states with additional funding to address the challenges posed by high-hazard flammable trains.”
The Task Force has met four times since June 2014 to receive briefings from: Railroad officials; industry experts; federal agencies; and state agencies that support first responders and hazardous materials response and recovery missions.
“This Task Force report will serve as a blueprint for our continued efforts to protect life, property, and the environment from all hazards facing Virginia,” said Task Force co-chair, Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security Brian Moran. “We are also looking forward to the anticipated release of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation on the Lynchburg derailment that occurred one year ago today.”
Yesterday, we saw a particularly heinous example of the Washington Post’s fatal shortcomings, as they completely botched a major story, uncritically regurgitating outrageous disnformation from an obviously biased source, strongly implying that Freddie Gray somehow severed his own spine, while shackled in a police van. I mean, let’s just say, anyone who believed that Big Lie should never be listened to about anything, ever again.
Anyway, here’s the Washington (Com)Post today, with the REAL story of what happened (obvoius to anyone with half a brain for a long time now).
Now, where’s the front-page, above-the-fold call by the Post for heads to roll among reporters and editors who had the Freddie-Gray-severed-his-own-spine story up all day yesterday? You know, like when the Post went ape**** on Rolling Stone for their journalistic malpractice in the UVA “gang rape” story, or when the Post went ape**** over Brian Williams (but not Bill O’LIElly) for making stuff up, etc. Hmmmm…perhaps the (Com)Post’s new motto should be: “We often f*** up but we never OWN up?”
P.S. Fox, CNN and others also fit that motto, except that with Fox (and to an extent CNN), I would never expect truth or accuracy. I had hoped for better from the Post, but apparently they’re no better than Fox, CNN, etc.
On April 8, I sent Blue Virginia interview questions to all five Democratic candidates running for the 45th House of Delegates district (Alexandria, south Arlington) seat being vacated by Del. Rob Krupicka. The candidates are Larry Altenburg, Craig Fifer, Julie Jakopic, Mark Levine and Clarence Tong. I told the candidates that I’d post their interviews in the order I received them. The first one I received back, on April 13, was from Larry Altenburg. On April 16, I received responses from Clarence Tong, and on April 21 from Julie Jakopic. Earlier this week, I received responses from Mark Levine. Last night, I received answers from the remaining candidate (Craig Fifer) – thanks! Finally, please note that the primary for this nomination will take place on June 9, so if you’re a Democrat who lives in the 45th, make sure you vote!
1. Tell us a bit about yourself, and specifically, what in your background and/or temperament makes you the best qualified of the Democratic candidates to represent the 45th House of Delegates district in Richmond.
My entire career has been devoted to public service. For over 20 years, I’ve been honored to serve the people of Virginia professionally and through non-profit and political advocacy. As a local government communications director, e-government manager, and instructional technology trainer, I’ve brought the services of government to the people it serves. I’ve worked hard to make government more transparent, responsive, and accessible, and to help those in every part of our society have a voice and a vote.
I’ve been an active volunteer in human services and my faith community, having served on the United Way regional council and many other non-profit boards ranging from the Virginia Society for Technology in Education to the Harrison Museum of African American Culture. As a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), I have been a tireless advocate for children who are victims of abuse and neglect.
I’ve faithfully served our Party and our values time and again whenever needed, in positions ranging from precinct captain and parliamentarian to Young Democrats convention chair and DNC national convention delegate. I’ve served as Chair of the Sixth Congressional District Democratic Committee and a member of the Eighth District Committee; as President of the Virginia Young Democrats and Vice President for Development of Young Democrats of America; and as Vice Chair for Technology and Communications for the Democratic Party of Virginia. Of course, the most important Party role I’ve played is as grassroots volunteer — knocking on doors, making phone calls, stuffing envelopes, and doing whatever else is needed to elect Democrats. It’s humbling and exciting to put these skills into practice again as I canvass on my own behalf.
If I were running to join a Democratic majority in the House of Delegates, I would stop there. But the next delegate from the 45th District will have to pass legislation in a hostile and highly partisan environment. I have a proven track record of standing up for progressive values while working with others from all perspectives. As the Northern Virginia chair of the bipartisan Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership and a graduate of the Political Leaders Program Class of 2003, I am part of an extensive network of Virginians from all political persuasions who share a common vision of effective and ethical government. I’ve used these connections many times to advance issues and legislation that should not face partisan barriers.
There are five great Democrats in this race, but this isn’t an abstract competition. I’m the best choice for delegate because I have a proven track record of championing our progressive values while getting results. To learn more or get involved with my campaign, please visit www.fiferfordelegate.com.
2. What three issues are you most passionate about and why? What specifically have you done to further those issues? What would be the first bill you’d introduce in the House of Delegates?
My campaign focuses on three big ideas:
Dignity and Opportunity: I will work to invest in early education, nutrition, and child protection programs to give kids a strong start to life; ensure women can make their own health care decisions; expand Medicaid and mental health services to provide a high quality of life for everyone; work to eliminate the wage gap by ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work; and fight for social and economic equality regardless of who you are, where you came from, or who you love.
As a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for children who are victims of abuse or neglect, I have worked firsthand to effect meaningful improvements in children’s lives. As a Party leader, I have championed our Democratic values of equality and opportunity while helping elect progressive candidates who will put those values into practice. As a delegate myself, I will be able to effect change statewide via the policy process and through budget investments.
Effective and Transparent Government: I have been a leader in increasing the public’s access to government services, records, and data. I will apply this expertise at the state level to improve cooperation between state and local agencies to make government work better; fight for real ethics reform and non-partisan redistricting to make government more honest; and apply proven best practices to decision-making to make government more responsive.
I’m a frequent public speaker on topics related to communications, technology, ethics, and law. I’ve produced and delivered formal ethics training for audiences of hundreds, ranging from high school students and teachers to professional firefighters and government communicators. As an appointee of Governors Warner and Kaine to the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council for eight years and the current President of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, I’m an expert on government transparency and a sought-after presenter. I have the substance to put together persuasive arguments and the communications skills to deliver them.
Safe and Sustainable Communities: I know that a high quality of life depends on communities free from threats like crime, traffic, and pollution. I will work to support Virginia’s first responders to keep us safe; invest in scalable transportation systems to keep us moving; and promote sustainable energy choices to protect our environment.
As a local government communications director, I work every day to advance initiatives in public safety, transit, and environmental protection by ensuring that the public has access to accurate, timely, and persuasive information in support of progressive initiatives like the Potomac Yard Metrorail Station and Bus Rapid Transit, and in opposition to steps backwards like power lines through neighborhoods and risky industrial facilities.
Legislative Priorities: While delegates obviously file and carry many bills at a time, my top priority will be bills related to making sure every child gets a safe and healthy start to life. One of the clearest returns on investment in this area is quality preschool, which provides kids with meaningful education and socialization in a supportive and safe environment. The increase in positive outcomes and decrease in negative outcomes for kids and for society mean that every dollar invested yields seven to eight dollars in benefits. Still, providing quality education is expensive. The Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) is an important state program that helps fund local preschool opportunities for at-risk children who are not served by Head Start. At the same time, it requires a local match based on each locality’s ability to pay as determined by a state formula. Alexandria, for example, must pay $7,000 per VPI slot in local match dollars and the cost to operate preschool classrooms. This burden places some or all VPI slots out of reach for many localities, and comes on top of the state’s chronic underfunding of K-12 costs and all the budget challenges localities face in the first place. I will introduce legislation and a budget amendment to repeal the local match requirement for VPI, so that kids get the preschool they need while the state fulfills its obligation to localities to properly fund public education.
3. How would you describe yourself ideologically – “progressive,” “moderate,” “liberal,” or something else? How does your record of votes, endorsements, employment, and other activities reflect your political ideology?
I’m a progressive. I’ve been a longtime Democratic activist, working in Party leadership positions and with shoe rubber to help elect progressive candidates and make our Party stronger and more effective. I also view my 20-year career in public service as evidence of my progressive values. My employment in local government and public education demonstrates my belief that government can be a tool for good when we are willing to help each other.
4. Who is your favorite and who is your least favorite current Virginia politician and why?
I will work with anyone who participates in good faith to get results for Virginia. While I have been blessed to learn from and work with many great politicians over the last two decades, and while I certainly have strong opinions about the shortcomings of some others, I also believe that politics should be about ideas and not about personalities.
5. If you had been in the House of Delegates at the time, would you have voted for a) HB 2313, the comprehensive transportation package passed in 2013; b) repeal of Virginia’s estate tax, which is costing our state around $130 million a year in order to benefit a few hundred of the wealthiest Virginians; c) the 2011 redistricting bill HB 5001, which gerrymandered the state and helped to lock in a Republican majority in the House of Delegates for the rest of the decade; or d) the 2014 and 2015 ethics reform packages, which many (myself included) have criticized as extremely weak, possibly even a step backwards in the case of the most recent “reforms.”
a) I would have voted for HB2313 in 2013, which provides crucial revenue to support our infrastructure commitments and transportation needs. That said, I would have strenuously objected to the nonsensical fee on hybrid vehicles and actively worked to remove it from the bill. I also would have worked to shift more of the new revenue towards sustainable and scalable transportation alternatives like rail and telework, rather than so much emphasis on roads.
b) I would not have voted for repeal of the estate tax, which was a contrived political debate that preyed on people’s dreams of striking it rich and their detestation of taxes. As you noted, this was tax relief for those who needed it least, at the expense of millions of others for whom the Commonwealth could fund fewer services and facilities.
c) I would not have voted for HB5001 in 2011, or for any other redistricting bill that put partisanship above democracy. Our elected officials should represent genuine communities of interest, not figments of creative cartography. I’m a member of OneVirginia2021: Virginians for Fair Redistricting, which advocates for districts to be drawn by an independent, impartial commission using objective and transparent criteria.
d) I would not have voted for any ethics bills that loosened the relatively few rules we already
have in place. There’s no reason why ethics requirements must be watered down. Practically all Virginia demands of elected officials is that they disclose their potential sources of influence, and even that seems too great a burden for some. I will continue the fight for real ethics reform, including strict and meaningful limits on gifts, full reporting, and recorded votes.
6. What is your vision for Virginia’s energy future? Do you support any of the following: offshore oil drilling, natural gas “fracking,” new natural gas pipelines (e.g., Mountain Valley Pipeline, Atlantic Coast Pipeline) uranium mining, new coal-fired power plants, mountaintop removal coal mining? If not, what will you do to fight against these things, and to fight for a healthy environment, energy efficiency, and renewable power?
I grew up in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia and enjoyed daily reminders of our abundant natural blessings. At the same time, I saw the importance of coal and cargo trucking to the state’s economy. We need an energy future that preserves both nature and jobs, and my vision is a transition from the dirty and dangerous energy jobs of yesterday to clean and safe jobs in renewable energy fields like wind and solar.
I do not support any of the short-sighted, unsustainable energy approaches listed in the question. They provide instant gratification without long-term reliability, and often sacrifice safety and environmental integrity in the process. Virginia is blessed with an incredible diversity of wildlife, forests, waterways, and other natural amenities. We owe it to our planet and to future generations to preserve these gifts. We can’t afford to gamble with the Potomac River, the Chesapeake Bay, the Appalachian Mountains, or the Shenandoah National Forest.
I have a long record of vocal support for investments in public transit, which help keep Virginia moving while limiting pollution and other environmental impacts. In my personal life, I make environmental protection a daily priority. I deliberatively chose to live close enough to walk to work, and when I have to travel further I drive a hybrid electric vehicle. As an avid runner and cyclist, I’ve even chosen hobbies that leverage my own personal energy and the 45th District’s tremendous natural amenities.
7. Yes or no answers. Do you support:
a) a strongly progressive tax system, including a reasonable estate tax on the wealthy;
Yes. All Virginians deserve the opportunity to work hard and pass the fruits of their labor to their heirs, and the state shouldn’t use estates as easy targets for taxation. At the same time, wealthy estates have often benefited from tax shelters throughout the decedents’ lives, and it is fair and appropriate for estates to be taxed in proportion to all other taxes on wealth.
b) “Dream Act” for Virginia;
Yes. Children should never be punished for the circumstances of their births, and those who grow up in Virginia and work hard in school should have equal opportunity to a college education. Not only is this fair to kids, but it makes economic sense for us all.
c) allowing gay couples to adopt;
Yes. It is a double tragedy that a child already in need would be denied a loving home due to meanspirited discrimination. There is no rational reason to deny anyone’s equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
d) closing the “gun show loophole” and taking other commonsense gun measures;
Yes. Controlling access by criminals to some guns and not others just doesn’t make sense when the United States has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths of any country in the world.
e) raising the gas tax and/or instituting a carbon tax (revenue-neutral or otherwise)?
Yes. We made tremendous progress in 2013 by replacing the flat, unindexed gas tax with a percentage-based one. Still, a higher gas tax with personal and work-related deductions would discourage single-occupancy private vehicles in favor of shared rides and public transit. It’s also important to ensure that a large proportion of gas tax revenue goes to alternative transportation like transit and telework, and not just to build more roads.
8. Given that the 45th House of Delegates district is a solid “blue” district, and thus a “safe seat,” it is crucial that whoever is elected has a plan to help elect Democrats – preferably progressives – across Virginia. That includes fundraising, organizing volunteers, and maximizing turnout in the 45th district for statewide and Congressional elections. Do you agree with this vision for the Delegate from the 45th district, and if so, what exactly is your plan to accomplish it?
As I have done my entire career, I will continue to help to elect progressive, Democratic candidates throughout Virginia and beyond. I agree that delegates from safe districts have a special duty to help those in competitive areas. I’ve organized Democratic support ranging from solitary door-knocking to a 13-state Young Democrats “campaign invasion,” and I’ve raised tens of thousands of dollars for Democrats (not including my current campaign). I will help the Democratic caucus wherever needed, and maintain a visible profile in the 45th District in order to encourage participation in Democratic events and elections.
9. Do you agree or disagree that Richmond is broken – for instance, the tremendous influence of money, lobbyists and corporations (e.g., Dominion Virginia Power, car title/payday lenders) on legislation – and needs major ethics reform? More broadly, if elected to the House of Delegates, would your general attitude be more “go along, get along” with this system or to “shake things up?” Please be as specific as possible in your answer. For instance, would you support campaign finance reform that sharply curtails the power of corporations, lobbyists, and special interests?
I agree that Virginia needs major ethics reform. As a local government and public education professional for 20 years, I’ve worked alongside thousands of elected and non-elected public servants who follow the rules and do their best to serve with honor and integrity. The very few who break the rules undermine the public’s trust in government and harm the reputation of those who serve ethically.
Virginia’s approach to campaign finance is that candidates may accept contributions of any amounts and sources, as long as they are properly reported. This provides a false sense of transparency, since many forms of influence occur in other ways. Some members of the General Assembly have come to expect a lifestyle of gifts and trips that is perfectly legal but still unacceptable. The 2015 ethics reform package, such as it was, only serves to give the impression that Virginia isn’t serious about change.
Meanwhile, legislators are faced with the extraordinarily challenge of considering thousands of bills during a session short enough to make understanding legislation difficult but long enough to interfere with most meaningful employment. This creates what I have long called “the myth of the citizen legislature,” in which members are expected to represent mainstream occupations but few can actually afford to do so. The result is a quality of government less than the people of Virginia deserve. Delegates must raise money constantly since they are always running for re-election, which encourages relationships with those who have money to give. Without time to read and understand all the legislation they’re considering, delegates must rely on lobbyists to be subject-matter experts. And with a less-than-part-time salary, delegates must find other employment that still allows them months off at a time, and are tempted by anything that offers perks with monetary value.
My proposal is to lengthen the General Assembly to six months with breaks. I would raise the salary to an amount that’s not particularly attractive, but would give members a choice about whether to hold a second job. The longer session, combined with caps on the number of bills permitted, would permit members the time to actually read and understand the bills on which they vote, and to research questions via a variety of sources without relying as much on lobbyists. It would also provide for a more deliberate pace, and more opportunities for public attendance at committee and subcommittee meetings and engagement with members.
I have a proven track record of working to improve the integrity of our government. As an appointee of Governors Warner and Kaine to the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council for eight years and the current President of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, I’ve drafted successful legislation to improve access to government while protecting personal privacy.
After playing a key role in drafting and passing legislation to require the State Board of Elections to promulgate uniform statewide residency requirements for all Virginia voters (rather than allowing each local registrar to apply different subjective standards), I served as the representative of the Democratic Party of Virginia on the SBE task force that wrote the regulations and I played a lead role in drafting them. These regulations protect the voting rights of military servicemembers, college students, people who are homeless, people with long work assignments out of town, and many other voters who are frequently disenfranchised.
10. Please tell us how you would stand up to party leadership, and even to a Democratic
governor, if you believed that they were wrong about an issue and/or that it would hurt the 45th district.
I’ve never been a pushover. I add value to the organizations in which I’m involved, often by challenging leadership when I think there’s a better way to achieve results. In Party leadership positions, I have been unafraid to speak up when some have tried to marginalize dissent. I have earned widespread respect for being fair and objective, and working to reach solutions regardless of personalities.
As the Delegate from the 45th District, I will have a fair amount of freedom to speak and vote our progressive values without political repercussions. This will give me some rein to push back without fear of reprisals. The best way to influence outcomes is to build relationships, and I will work to have the kind of relationships with leadership on both sides of the aisle that will enable me to interact freely and candidly.
Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, May 1.
*Krugman: Ideology and Integrity (“I still think this election should turn almost entirely on the issues. But if we must talk about character, let’s talk about what matters, namely intellectual integrity.”)
*The Character Assassination Of Freddie Gray (Sound familiar? A black man is killed, the right-wing media immediately starts smearing him in order to excuse the killing. Rinse and repeat.)
*Iran bill a mess after Cotton, Rubio try to force votes (They’re trying to blow up any diplomatic solution with Iran, which would increase the chances of: a) Iran racing ahead with a nuclear weapons program; b) war to stop it. Great, huh?)
*How Rand Paul blew it on Baltimore (“The Kentucky senator tried to present himself as a different kind of Republican. Then the riots happened.”)
*Evidence fight points to secret redistricting talks in Virginia (“Virginia House Republicans are fighting to keep hundreds of pages of documents secret as attorneys for Democratic groups push for full access, hoping to find something useful in an ongoing lawsuit over state election maps.”)
*In battle of Manassas, a fight over abortion (Very, very strange editorial by the Republican Times-Disgrace. That’s right, the decision by right-wingnut Manassas City Mayor Hal Parrish and company to effectively restrict abortion options in their city is somehow the fault of…wait for it…”liberals and progressives!” Amazing.)
*Start pedaling on regional bike trail (“A mile or two at a time, South Hampton Roads’ cities are building a recreational trail that could one day connect downtown Suffolk with Virginia Beach’s Oceanfront. The plan is more than a decade old and still too many years from completion. But by next fall, 5.3 miles on the western part of the 41-mile path are expected to be finished.”)
The Washington Post, which according to rightwingers is part of the mythical “liberal media,” has hit many lows over the years. For instance, as we’ve discussed her ad nauseum, the Post routinely prints columns from people who deny climate science, who have advocated for torture, you name it pretty much. Possibly even more insidious, the paper’s “reporting” routinely commits one or more of the following grave mistakes: 1) false equivalency; 2) acting as little more than court stenographers; 3) refusal to properly credit, link, and attribute other people’s work; 4) giving far too much attention to topics that aren’t important, while almost completely ignoring topics that are extremely important (e.g., climate change); 5) barely covering local politics at all; etc.
Having said all that, today the Post hit a new low, even by its already abysmal/non-existent standards. I’m talking, of course, about the Post’s top headline all day on its website:
The problems with this story are so legion, it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s go with the video, in which WBAL reporter Jayne Miller completely demolishes the stinking pile of rotting trash.
1. “The medical evidence does not suggest at all that he was able to injure himself. The force of this injury, akin to have the force involved in a car accident, with all that momentum going, that is much more force than you would get trying to bang your head against the wall of the van.”
2. “According to our sources…at that stop, when that prisoner is loaded, Gray is unresponsive, not ABLE to bang his head against the wall of the van.” 3. “If you watch the video of that stop, what you see are several police officers opening the door – the back door of the van and the inside door – and peering in. Now, if you’ve got a prisoner in there that he’s so irate that he’s banging his head against the wall, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing you do…open the door and give him the chance to escape.”
4. “You have to have other injuries. You can’t bang your head against the van, to injure yourself in a fatal way…There is just no information that would corroborate that.”
Right, this all makes perfect sense. Yet the Washington Post, acting as court stenographer, mostly just repeats the laughable story – by an anonymous prisoner, credibility completely unknown – that a handcuffed/shackled Freddie Gray was somehow able to sever his own spine in the police van on the way to the station. As Media Matters explains, although the Post wrote that it’s “not clear whether any additional evidence backs up the prisoner’s version,” there actually IS “available, credible information that contradicts the other prisoner’s account, which the Post could have included before the story was uncritically repeated in other mainstream outlets.”
But they didn’t. Why not? My guess is that it’s a combination of several factors. First, they wanted the “scoop,” and didn’t want to take the time to get the story right. Second, they want “clicks,” “eyeballs,” etc. on their newspaper, at whatever cost. Third, they just don’t care about getting the facts right in their “news” stories (we’ve seen this time and time again, on issue after issue, including Virginia politics). Yet, ironically, this same paper lambasted Brian Williams for making s*** up, and also skewered Rolling Stone (see The LAST People Who Should Be Criticizing Rolling Stone) for the same sins their own paper commits on a daily basis, including today’s “news” story on how Freddie Gray died.
P.S. The comments section at the Post is the predictable cesspool of right-wingnuttery, bigotry, racism…but I repeat myself.
The graphic is courtesy of Climate Hawks Vote’s “first scorecard measuring leadership by Senate Democrats on climate and clean energy.” According to Climate Hawks Vote, “Unlike other groups’ scorecards measuring how Senators voted, we track how Senators lead” on climate and clean energy.
We began by asking: how can one lead in today’s polarized Congress? Climate hawks lead by engaging the public on climate change. They give floor speeches and hold press conferences. They headline community town halls and environmental rallies. They author and cosponsor bills because some good bills make it into budget bills and others will be revived when Dems retake the Senate. They caucus to coordinate their work. Their websites clearly state their position on climate change. They write op-eds for newspapers both national and local. When hurricanes and droughts affect their districts, they publicly connect the climate change dots. They write press releases on noteworthy events such as President Obama’s June 2013 climate speech, EPA Clean Power Plan, and reports from IPCC and NCA. They do all this without detaching from other issues.
To come up with ratings, Climate Hawks Vote “analyzed the public records of all current Senate Democrats (and a few voted out in 2014) beginning in 2011, scoring them on public engagement; bills authored; bills cosponsored; press releases (yes, Sherrod Brown staffers, we did read over 200 pages of press releases), working caucuses joined and led; and websites. We’ve ranked 100-plus introduced bills each session from core to peripheral and awarded more points to authors, less to cosponsors. We’ve weighted public engagement far more than any of our other factors.”
So how did Virginia’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, score on the group’s +100 to -100 scale (where a negative score means the Senator “leads backward” by speaking out for dirty energy projects like Keystone XL, while the more positive the score, the better)?
Tim Kaine: +28 in the 113th Congress (January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015); +2 in the current, 114th Congress. That’s a pretty good rating in the 113th Congress, although in relative terms, Kaine ranks in the bottom third of Senate Democrats for that Congress. As for the current Congress, Kaine seems to have backslid a bit: although he’s still (barely) in positive territory at +2, he now ranks below Republican Susan Collins of Maine and just above Republian Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, while among Democratic Senators he’s eighth from the bottom (just above Bob Casey of Pennsylvania). In contrast, the top-rated climate/clean energy leaders in the current Senate are Sheldon Whitehouse of RI (+71), Brian Schatz of HI (+65) and Ed Markey of MA (+65). The worst-rated Democrats in the current Senate are Claire McCaskill of MO (-29), Joe Manchin of WV (-26), Heidi Heitkamp of ND (-23), Joe Donnelly of IN (-17), Jon Tester of MT (-16), and…
Mark Warner: Yes, our own Senator Mark Warner clocks in at a lame minus 7, sixth worst among Senate Democrats in the current Congress. Maybe this was a fluke, you say? Well, no. In fact, in the previous Congress, Warner was eighth from the bottom, with a minus 1 rating; and in the 112th Congress, he was even worse, fourth from the bottom, with an utterly abysmal minus 20 climate/clean energy rating.
In sum, when it comes to climate and clean energy leadership (or lack thereof), Mark Warner is simply not leading at all on this absolutely criticial, existential issue, while Tim Kaine is doing ok but needs to crank it up a few notches. Why do I say this? Two reasons: 1) as Climate Hawks Votes correctly puts it, “climate change is the greatest challenge facing the next few generations of humanity, not just another Democratic issue;” and 2) a clean energy transition would be a huge plus economically and environmentally for Virginia, a state in which fossil fuel extraction accounts for a miniscule percent of employment and economic output, while potential for energy efficiency, offshore wind and rooftop solar (distributed energy) is enormous. This is, to be blunt, an utter “no brainer;” now we just need our leaders to actually lead.
P.S. One rating that jumps out at me that should be a LOT lower is climate science denier Chuck Grassley.
Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, April 30. Also, check out Jon Stewart skewering Wolf Blitzer and other corporate media morons’ coverage of Baltimore.
*State should accept defeat (“A Virginia Beach couple should finally be enjoying retirement after a six-year fight to win fair compensation for land taken by the Virginia Department of Transportation.”)
The following videos are from Del. Alfonso Lopez’s 2015 campaign kickoff and straw poll, held at Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse earlier this evening. The videos are of Del. Lopez welcoming everyone (including Delegates Marcus Simon and Kathleen Murphy, Senator Adam Ebbin, House of Delegates candidate Rod Hall, and Arlington County Board member Walter Tejada. As soon as I get the straw poll results, I’ll post them.
In this installment, we have Gov. McAuliffe complaining that although he “fully” supports the Clean Power Plan, Virginia supposedly “gets no credit” for “doing the right thing” – namely, our supposedly wonderful (actually super-expensive, heavily-subsidized behemoths), non-carbon-emitting nuclear plants. In fact, that’s totally, almost 180-degrees untrue, as Walton Shepherd’s of NRDC recently explained.
Virginia’s existing lower-carbon power fleet is rewarded by the Clean Power Plan:
Some have mistakenly claimed that the Clean Power Plan is somehow “unfair” to Virginia. PJM’s analysis confirms the exact opposite: Virginia has already balanced its high-carbon coal with lower-carbon gas and nuclear plants, so each addition of zero-carbon renewables and energy efficiency hits a smaller pool of carbon and is thus more effective at displacing more of the pollutant. Compare that to our neighboring state of West Virginia, which PJM concluded would have the highest carbon price of all the PJM states, due to a reliance on coal that is triple Virginia’s. As a result, in addition to making smart investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, the next-cheapest compliance option for West Virginia could be to purchase allowances from Virginia or other neighbors – generating additional revenue for the Commonwealth while the Mountain State achieves compliance more cheaply! Because Virginia’s cleaner fleet is rewarded in this way by the Clean Power Plan (as currently proposed), Governor McAuliffe should be gunning for aggressive clean energy gains in his state plan for the CPP: right out of the gate in 2020, Virginia could sell the carbon reductions across state lines.
And yes, I’d listen to an energy and environmental expert like Walton Shephard, “born and raised in the hills of West Virginia,” than to Terry McAuliffe, who clearly knows very little about this topic. On that latter point, note that McAuliffe can’t answer any of the questions posed to him about specifics – fuel mix, power prices, distributed power, you name it. He also gets a myriad of things wrong, from the cost of transmitting power from nuclear plants vs. renewable energy facilities to the economics and environmental impact of fracked natural gas to the economics of renewable energy to…you name it, pretty much. At one point, the interviewer exclaims in exasperation, “numbers are important in discussions like this” – to no avail. Instead, McAuliffe hems and haws, tries to change the subject, says there are “commissions” that determine this stuff, argues that “you’ve got to talk to Dominion” (ha!!!), that he’s not going to be “held to a number here today…that’s not my job.” Uhhhhh…alrighty then!
So, here’s what’s truly “unfair” about this situation: that the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries have powerful proponents in their bought-and-paid-for state legislature, while the governor who we, the people elected says he’s powerless to do much of anything, mostly just regurgitates Dominion et al’s anti-clean-energy talking points and whines about how “unfair” things are. For someone who claims he’s had a “passion” for renewable energy for years, something simply isn’t adding up here.
