(For starters, they might want to quit watching Faux Right-Wing Propaganda and Lies “News.” – promoted by lowkell)

On the website “Like the Dew” — a site that describes itself as offering “a progressive Southern perspective on politics, news, opinion and culture”– the piece I posted here yesterday (“Think Horses, Not Unicorns”) elicited a supportive comment from a woman who wondered about the self-centeredness of the Republican supporters who buy the Republican line that climate change is a “hoax.” Didn’t they care about their grandchildren’s future?

I responded to this with my way of understanding how decent people, like my neighbors in the Shenandoah Valley, come to deny what science says about climate change.

“I am not sure how much ‘self-centered’ relates to the problem,” I wrote.  “Judging at least from what I think I know about my neighbors in the Shenandoah Valley, they’d likely be quick to sign up to go and put their lives on the line for their country in the event of a war.  Not self-centered in that context.  

“Some other qualities make them vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by lies that are as improbable as unicorns.  

“1) Their culture inculcates a good deal of “believe what the authorities you’ve been taught to trust tell you.”  That goes from the Bible on down to the political party that’s persuaded them that it represents their values.

“2) They have a mind-set that’s cast in the form of traditional beliefs, which are strongly fortified, a mind-set that is correspondingly resistant to the intrusion of ideas that would break out of established patterns.  The idea that the well-being of one’s grandchildren might require a person to fight and die against a foreign enemy is an ancient one. So they’re ready for that. The idea that one’s grandchildren might need for one, and one’s nation, to sacrifice to reduce one’s impact on the biosphere is a new idea. Indeed, I’m old enough to remember when such an idea –that we might have to limit ourselves, and change our ways, to protect the planet– emerged into American culture.  

“3) Among the ideas that their exploitative political leaders have drummed into their minds is “market+good, government regulation=bad. Another is, national sovereignty = good, international law = bad. Clearly, climate change is something that the market is incapable of perceiving or dealing with; it requires collective, government measures.  Clearly also, this is a crisis that must be dealt with globally, as no single nation can protect itself from the climate-changing effects of what other nations might spew into the earth’s atmosphere.  

“So the idea of climate change would require revision of a simplistic worldview, and complexity and nuance are not the hallmarks of the kind of thinking these people are taught to value. Denial of the reality to which the climate scientists are pointing, therefore, serves to maintain both the corporatist ideology their plutocratic leaders have instilled, and the comforting notion that the truth — especially the moral truth — can be adequately captured by simple and unambiguous propositions.”

A Virginia Democratic staffer emailed me the other day with some interesting information I thought worth passing on.  What prompted the email was the Supreme Court striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, as well as this quote in the Richmond Times Dispatch by the Executive Director of the Virginia ACLU:

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, called the court’s decision a potential “death blow” to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

"By doing so, the Court has blocked the single most effective instrument of fairness in place since 1965,” she said.Gastañaga said that the preclearance process blocked 15 discriminatory voting laws in Virginia between 1982 and 2006, including a $45 fee that the Republican Party proposed to impose on convention delegates in 1994 – a practice overturned as a poll tax.

What were those 15 discriminatory voting laws blocked by "preclearance?" A March 2006 report report lists instances where Section 5 of the VRA prevented voter disenfranchisement in Virginia. Note that much of the intervention stemmed from Republican plans to pack black voters into districts, much in the same way that they tried during the last session of the Virginia General Assembly.

Also note that most of Virginia’s Section 5 objections since 1982 have involved redistricting. Officials have consistently attempted to limit African-American voters’ political influence by “packing” them into a few districts or dispersing them among several majority-white districts to limit their ability to elect candidates of choice. This form of “vote dilution” is designed to cabin minority voting power, and is indeed “old poison in new bottles.” Moreover, changes made during redistricting usually have an impact for a decade or even beyond. Section 5’s role in ensuring that the political opportunities of African Americans are not further limited during redistricting has likely protected the rights of innumerable African-American voters.

•March 1982. The Petersburg City Council proposed an ordinance (Ordinance No. 8191) to realign the voting districts and change voting precinct boundaries and polling places for the City of Petersburg. The DOJ objected, finding that the proposed redistricting plan would lower the black proportions in the First District from 69.9 percent to 61.5 percent and in the Fourth District from 71.2 percent to 61.6 percent. According to the DOJ, such a diminution was intended by the majority-white city council to increase white voting strength in those districts and would, likewise, diminish the opportunity of African- American voters to elect candidates of choice and lead to a decline in African-American representation.

•March 1982. The DOJ objected to portions of the 1981 reapportionment of the Virginia House of Delegates. Specifically, the DOJ noted that the city of Norfolk was retained as a large multi-member district, whereas a fairly apportioned plan of single-member districts would have provided for two districts with substantial black majorities. The multi-member district plan had the inevitable effect of limiting the potential of African Americans to elect their candidates of choice. Further, the DOJ rejected the stated rationale for the plan—that the city of Norfolk had a large population that did not vote locally—finding that this rationale was not applied uniformly throughout the state. The DOJ also objected to the packing of African-American populations in Hampton and Newport News into one 75 percent African-American district. The remainder of the African-American population was divided among three other districts, all of which had substantial white majorities. According to the DOJ, a fairly drawn plan in this area would have two districts with a substantial African- American majority. Finally, the DOJ found that although District 90 contained a sizeable African-American majority, it was so contorted as to likely confuse voters and candidates, exacerbating financial and other disadvantages experienced by many African-American candidates.
•November 1982. Greensville County proposed a redistricting ordinance to change four single-member districts into two double-member districts and to add a fifth member to be elected at-large. The DOJ objected because the plan attempted to merge districts with politically active black voters with districts that were politically inactive, thereby reducing the electoral capability of African-American voters. According to the DOJ, because the current four single-member districts provided an opportunity for African Americans to elect their candidates of choice, the plan presented a clear retrogression of African-American voting strength.

•March 1986. The city of Franklin proposed three annexations that would have reduced the city’s African-American population by 3.7 percent – from 55.4 percent to 51.7 percent – causing the city’s voting-age population to shift from a black majority (51.9 percent) to a white majority (51.7 percent). The DOJ objected, finding that under the city’s at-large election system, African-American candidates had limited success because of racial bloc voting. The proposed annexations would have perpetuated and enhanced the existing restrictions on the ability of African Americans to realize their voting potential.

•July 1991. The DOJ objected to a portion of the 1991 reapportionment of the Virginia House of Delegates. The DOJ found that the proposed configuration of district boundary lines appeared to have been drawn in such a way as to minimize black voting strength in Charles City County, James City County, and the Richmond/Henrico County areas. Specifically, there were large concentrations of African Americans placed in majority- white districts. The legislature rejected available alternatives that would have recognized this concentration of voters by drawing them into a district with African-American voters in the Richmond area. Such a configuration likely would have resulted in an additional district, providing African-American voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. The DOJ noted that the protection of incumbents, which the state explained was the reason for this districting, was not in itself inappropriate, but it could not be done at the expense of minority voting rights.

•November 1991. The DOJ objected to the proposed redistricting of supervisor districts and precinct realignment in Powhatan County. The DOJ found that although the county had a 21.4 percent African-American population, no African American ever had been elected county supervisor. The county’s African American population was concentrated in such a manner that available alternatives would have allowed African-American voters an opportunity to elect candidates of choice in one of the five supervisor districts. This result was avoided, however, through the division of the county’s African-American population between Districts Three and Five. Even though District Three had a majority African-American total population, it was only 38 percent when the non-voting population of the Powhatan Correctional Center was excluded. The county rejected a plan that would have created a district that combined the African- American population in the northern portion of the county in one district, which could recognize better the voting potential of African American citizens. Again, the DOJ noted that the county’s actions may have been motivated in large part by the desire to maintain districts conducive to the re-election of the incumbent supervisors who were all white, which was not per se improper. The protection of incumbents, however, could not be achieved at the expense of minority voting potential.

•April 2002. Pittsylvania County proposed a redistricting plan for its board of supervisors and school board members which would have reduced the African- American population in the only majority-minority district in the county (Bannister District). The DOJ objected, finding the proposed reduction was retrogressive. In fact, according to the DOJ, even a minute reduction would have greatly impaired African-American voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice. Furthermore, the existence of alternative plans that actually ameliorated minority voters’ ability to elect their choice candidates underscored the DOJ’s objection.

•July 2002. The DOJ objected to Cumberland County’s proposed redistricting plan for its board of supervisors. The DOJ found that District 3 was the only district in which African Americans constitute a majority (55.9 percent) of the population. The proposed plan would have reduced that majority to 55.3 percent and reduced the voting-age African-American population from 55.7 percent to 55.2 percent.

•Sept. 2001, May 2003 & Oct. 2003. Northampton County proposed a change in the method of electing the board of supervisors by collapsing six districts into three larger districts. The DOJ objected, finding that three of the six districts were majority-minority districts in which African-American voters regularly elected their candidates of choice. The new plan would have diluted the minority-majorities and caused them to completely disappear in two of the three new districts—clearly having retrogressive effects. Two years later, the county provided a new six-district plan, which had the same retrogressive effects of the three-district plan. The DOJ objected and provided a model non- retrogressive, six-district plan, which has yet to be followed by the county.

Anyone who thinks this problem is only in the past is delusional. Attempts at voter suppression, overwhelmingly by Republicans against African Americans, Latinos and young people – not coincidentally, all overwhelmingly Democratic voters – is alive and well in America today. That’s why Congress needs to act, ASAP, to come up with a new VRA formula. But will it?  Unlikely, given that Teapublicans control the House of Representatives, and that it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. Which means we’re going to have to fight this out by turning out in droves at the polls, election after election, until justice is done. Don’t take your eye off the ball; this could take years of hard work. Then again, that’s what it took to get the Voting Rights Act – and an end to Jim Crow – in the first place!

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, June 28. Also, see the video of President Obama’s visit to Goree Island in Senegal – the point of departure for the slave trade.

*Senate approves comprehensive bill to overhaul immigration (Note unanimous Democratic approval, a divided Republican Party, and possible death of this bill in the Teahadist House…)

*Voting Rights Act needs swift repairs (Yes, this is as much the fault of Republicans in Congress as it is of the conservative-controlled Supreme Court.)

*How Congress Can Undo The Supreme Court’s Attack On Workers’ Rights (Speaking of the pressing need to change both Congress and the anti-worker Supreme Court…)

*Paula Deen’s slurs are a bitter pill to swallow (I hate even hearing about this despicable woman; she represents just about every bad/dark side of this country.)

*Democrats see gay marriage decision as energizer for 2013 races (Actually, it’s the Voting Rights Act case which should REALLY motivate Democrats to flock to the polls this November, and every November, until the Supreme Court is a much different place…)

*McDonnell acknowledges nothing on unreported gifts

*Goodlatte criticizes Senate immigration bill (Yet another example of why I call him BADlatte…)

*Gay marriage ruling another rift in governor’s race (The whole issue of LGBT equality – not just the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling – is a “rift” between the 2013 Virginia Democratic and Republican tickets.)

*New scooter law, other driving regulations begin Monday (Including the absurd tax on hybrids. When Terry McAuliffe’s elected next year, he should try to persuade the General Assembly to repeal that one.)

*Warner, Kaine push to repeal DOMA entirely (Excellent.)

*Cuccinelli standing athwart history (“The partial victory for gays and lesbians at the Supreme Court on Wednesday only places Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Cuccinelli further on the political fringe. And he’s happy to be there.”)

*The Evolution Of Ken Cuccinelli (From an unabashed extremist to a mildly toned-down extremist for the campaign season.)

*E.W. Jackson says he’s not the extreme candidate in race for Va. lieutenant governor (He’s right, to the extent that actually Ken Kookinelli is far more dangerous and just as extreme as Jackson…)

*House Speaker: $1.8 million in legislative savings returned to Va. (In a multi-billion-dollar budget, this is NOT a big deal, to put it mildly.)

*Virginia Zoo has some work to do before September hearing

*Norfolk 911 dispatcher suspended over Facebook post

*Koi heist: 400 fish stolen from Virginia pond (I really hope they “net” these guys!)

*Forecast looks muggy, hazy and wet

*In NBA draft, Washington Wizards select Otto Porter Jr.; Alex Len goes to Phoenix Suns

Great stuff, thanks to Sen. Kaine (see his statement below; also see the video of Kaine speaking, in Spanish, on June 11) and Sen. Warner (see his statements in the comments section) for supporting comprehensive immigration reform!

KAINE STATEMENT ON FINAL PASSAGE OF COMMONSENSE IMMIGRATION REFORM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine released the following statement today after final Senate passage of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act by a vote of 68 to 32. Kaine has discussed the need for immigration reform at events across Virginia, including in Roanoke, Leesburg, and Reston, and in remarks he delivered in Spanish on the Senate floor:  

“Today the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation with significant bipartisan support – the clearest signal yet that regardless of party, our nation is ready to fix our broken immigration system. This bill improves border security, updates our visa system to attract the talent needed to grow our economy, and creates a fair and rigorous path to legalization that includes the DREAMers who have only known this country as home. For these young people, this legislation will mean a chance to finally feel protected as they pursue an education, join the military, or search for their first job.

“With passage of this important legislation, I’m proud that we’re continuing in the tradition of the English settlers who helped begin our nation’s great history as an immigrant nation when they landed at Jamestown in 1607. Immigrants continue to contribute greatly to the richness of our Commonwealth and our country, and today we have demonstrated that while we are a nation of laws, we are also a nation of fairness and equality. As this bill moves to the House, I am hopeful that today’s vote sends a clear message that this is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, but a strong bipartisan bill – one that’s good for our economy and serves the interests of the entire nation.”

###

DECLARACIÓN DEL SENADOR KAINE SOBRE LA APROBACIÓN DEL PROYECTO DE LEY PARA LOGRAR UNA REFORMA MIGRATORIA INTEGRAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hoy el senador Tim Kaine emitió la siguiente declaración después de que el senado aprobó el proyecto de ley denominado “Proyecto de Ley 2013 para la Seguridad Fronteriza, Oportunidad Económica y Modernización Migratoria”después de 68 votos a favor y 32 votos en contra. Kaine ha hablado sobre la necesidad de aprovar una reforma migratoria en eventos a lo largo de Virginia, incluyendo Roanoke, Leesburg y Reston, como también en la cámara del senado.

“Hoy el senado aprobó el proyecto de ley para lograr una reforma migratoria integral con gran apoyo bipartidista  – la señal más clara que demuestra que independientemente del partido político nuestra nación está lista para reformar nuestro sistema de inmigración. Esta legislación mejora la seguridad fronteriza, actualiza nuestro sistema de visas para atraer el talento necesario para que nuestra economía crezca y crea un camino justo y riguroso a la legalización que incluye a los “DREAMers” quienes consideran a este país como su único hogar. Para estos jóvenes, esta legislación significará el tener la oportunidad de finalmente sentirse protegidos mientras adquieren una educación, se enlistan en el ejército, o buscan su primer trabajo.

“Con la aprobación de esta importante legislación, estoy orgulloso de que estamos continuando la tradición de los pobladores ingleses quien ayudaron a dar inicio a la gran historia de nuestra nación como una nación de inmigrantes cuando llegaron a Jamestown en 1607. Inmigrantes siguen contribuyendo enormemente a la riqueza de nuestro estado de Virginia y de nuestro país, y el día de hoy hemos demostrado que no solo somos una nación de leyes, sino también una nación de justicia e igualdad. Ahora que esta legislación pasa a la cámara de representantes, tengo la esperanza de que el voto de hoy manda un mensaje claro de que este proyecto de ley no es republicano o demócrata, sino bipartidista – una legislación que es buena para nuestra economía y fortalece los intereses de toda la nación.”

Tuesday evening, the Leesburg Town Council deferred consideration of a resolution opposing the North-South Corridor until July 23rd.  At the meeting, a controversial email chain came to light in which Bob Chase, Randy Minchew and other local figures were planning their defense of the corridor.

The North-South Corridor is not an adequate solution to our community's traffic problem.  Independent studies show that 32 times as many Loudoun residents commute east to west as they do north to south and that the Corridor will not help congestion.  In fact, most sources indicate that it will increase congestion around Leesburg.  We need to focus on improving our current roads, increasing bus access, and completing the Silver Line to help Loudoun residents get out of traffic.

I'm also disgusted by the email chain in which Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance President Bob Chase threatens that Leesburg will be deprived of transportation funding for all priority projects if the Council opposes the Corridor.

Intimidation is no way to make public policy.  I'm confident that, whatever the result, the Council will act in the best interests of Leesburg residents.  Randy Minchew's comments on the thread are both ridiculous and unworthy of a public servant.  Anyone who's seen Mayor Umstattd and Councilor Burk working in the community knows that their focus is on how to best serve the people of Leesburg.

Monte Johnson

 Monte Johnson is the Democratic nominee for Delegate in the 10th House District.
To learn more about Monte, please visit monteforvirginia.com and don't forget to follow him on Facebook and Twitter!

For anyone claiming there’s been a “war on coal” in the Obama administration, I refer you to the following three graphs. Graph #1 (click to “embiggen”) shows coal mining employment in Virginia is actually UP a bit from the George W. Bush years. Graph #2 (on the “flip”) shows an even bigger increase in coal mining employment in West Virginia during the Obama administration, compared to the George W. Bush administration. Finally, Graph #3 shows the long decline of coal mining employment in Central Appalachia, a large chunk of which occurred under Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush (the trend continued under Bill Clinton, then reversed a bit under George W. Bush and Barack Obama).

Regardless, the reasons for the decline in coal mining employment have essentially nothing to do with a “war on coal.” What HAS caused a decline in coal mining employment over the years: 1) mechanization, which has made the industry far more capital intensive and far less labor intensive than it used to be; 2) a migration of coal mining from places where it used to be mined by humans, operating in coal mines, to highly-mechanized Western and/or mountaintop removal operations; and 3) cheap and abundant natural gas, as well as much cheaper (and inexhaustible) wind and solar power. Put that all together, and what do you get? A decline in coal mining employment in the U.S. over many, many decades. For the true believers in a “war on coal,” I guess what they’re arguing is that this “war” has been waged all those decades, by both Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses, etc. Is that plausible? Well, no, but many of these are the same people who deny climate science, after all, so were you expecting logic or something?

Source: Growth of U.S. Coal Jobs report