Texas Agency Censors Climate Change References In Key Scientific Report

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) doesn’t want to say who’s responsible for deleting all mentions of climate change from part of a forthcoming scientific report, and that’s got at least one scientist hopping mad.

Dr. John B. Anderson (pictured, left), an oceanographer at Rice University, told Raw Story that his report on the Galveston Bay estuary, and the effects of rising sea levels on its fragile ecosystem, was censored for purely “political” reasons.

“This is a clear-cut case of censorship,” he said in an exclusive interview. “It’s not scientific editing. It was strictly deletion of virtually any information that related to global change.”

“This is the TCEQ’s report which we contracted with Houston Advance Research Center to publish regarding the State of Galveston Bay,” the [TCEQ] agency said in its prepared statement. “It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it. And here, information was included in a report that we disagree with.”

“That chapter that was censored was actually a summary of scientific literature,” Anderson told Raw Story. “There’s no new data that was actually presented in that chapter. [...] One of those statements was even lifted out of Science Magazine, which last I heard was an acceptable scientific journal. So, I was rather shocked that their response was they did not accept some of those viewpoints.”

“To say you don’t accept it, when it’s been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, usually means that you need some kind of a counter argument to say that there’s also evidence published in peer-reviewed literature that would refute that,” he added. “But [they offered] nothing of that sort...."

“We scientists commonly are criticized for not going the extra step in education, and this was my way of doing that outreach, to write an article that is not directed at the scientific community,” Anderson concluded. “To then have those very policymakers turn around and say we refuse to accept any of this… is quite discouraging. I refer to Texas as a state of denial, and I don’t think we’re the only coastal state that’s in denial.”

“These people have a responsibility to look out for, not just the voters, but the future voters,” he said. “There the ones who are going to have to pay the tab. As long as we live in the state of denial, we’re just passing the check to our grandkids to deal with.”

To see what was censored in Anderson’s article, which is no longer part of the TCEQ’s “The State of the Bay 2010″ report, click to the Raw Story article.

‘Occupy Wall Street’ A Turning Point For The Left

Dorian Warren, assistant professor of political science and public affairs at Columbia University, appeared Monday on Democracy Now to discuss the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests in Manhattan and other cities across the United States.

Watch video, courtesy of Democracy Now

“This is an incredibly significant moment, I think, in U.S. history,” he told Amy Goodman. “In fact, it might be a turning point, because this is the first time we’ve seen the emergence of a populist movement on the left since the 1930s.”

“So I think when you think about that long stretch of time, especially in this moment where we’ve been growing more unequal as a country for the last 30, 40 years, the fact that this movement has emerged at this moment, I think, is quite significant.”

Warren explained that starting in the 1950s, conservatives began to co-opt the label of populist and eventually changed the entire political discourse of the United States.

The new sort of populism that has emerged with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement does not only criticize large corporations and powerful banks, but the U.S. political system as well, he said.

11 Facts You Need to Know About the Nation’s Biggest Banks

Here’s the goods, via ThinkProgress’ Pat Garofalo:

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City more than three weeks ago have now spread across the country. The choice of Wall Street as the focal point for the protests — as even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said — makes sense due to the big bank malfeasance that led to the Great Recession.

Economist Blasts GOP’s Seven Biggest Economic Lies

By Robert Reich

The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here are the seven lies told by those who want to take America backwards:

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else.
Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and has dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

Texas Voter Photo ID FAQ

by Michael Handley  (Updated Thursday June 27, 2013, 3:10 p.m.)

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act that required Texas and other states to get a federal DOJ or District Court approval before implementing any election law change.

The Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court. With Section 4 now invalidated, the states listed in Section 4, which includes Texas, are no longer compelled to comply with Section 5 preclearance requirements. Those states are now free to enforce laws previously blocked under Section 5 regulations.

On August 30, 2012, a federal DC Court three-judge panel blocked Texas' new SB 14 Voter Photo I.D. Law, under provisions of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court. The three-judge panel found that SB 14 imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

The Department of Justice pointed out that hundreds of thousands of registered voters in Texas were without the necessary identification and were thus at risk of disenfranchisement. A disproportionate number were Latino.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting from the June 25th SCOTUS ruling, highlighted a paradox at the heart of the majority opinion: “In the court’s view, the very success of Section 5 [and 4] of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy”.

Ginsburg, supported by justices Sephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said it is the very success of pre-clearance that underlines why it must be preserved. “The Voting Rights Act has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies have been tried and failed,” she writes.

In her dissent, Ginsburg lists some of the insidious changes to voting laws that could now creep back into the American electoral landscape. Under pre-clearance, states including Texas have been blocked from racial gerrymandering by redrawing electoral boundaries in an attempt to create segregated legislative districts.

Opponents of pre-clearance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act say that Section 2 will be sufficient on its own as a safeguard against future discrimination. But the burden of challenging new electoral laws now shifts from the federal government to the individual voter.

Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford law school who had previously filed an amicus brief on behalf of the bipartisan House Judiciary Committee leadership supporting the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, said that by striking down pre-clearance the supreme court had “shifted the burden away from the perpetrators of discrimination and onto the shoulders of the victims of discrimination. Local minority voters will now have to find a lawyer and go to court to argue voting rights infringement under Section 2 – and for many that will be very difficult.”

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids states from enacting voting restrictions that have a greater impact on minority voters than on others. There is, however, a catch. Samuel Bagenstos, who was until recently the number two official in the U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division, has said that the DOJ can't bring a Section 2 lawsuit claiming voter disenfranchisement, until after voters have been disenfranchised:

“In order to bring a Section 2 case, you’d have to as a practical matter show two things. One, that there’s a significant racial disparity and two, that the burden of getting an ID is significant enough for us to care about.

Any Section 2 case would almost certainly have to wait until after the next election, since the evidence that the laws were discriminatory “can only be gathered during an election that takes place when the law is enacted.”

Minority Leader of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Wednesday that Congressional Democrats are planning new legislation to render ineffective Chief Justice Roberts Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act. But many question whether such legislation has any chance of passing in the Republican controlled House.

Shortly after the Supreme Court read its decision striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott tweeted that nothing now stands in the way of the state enforcing its controversial SB 14 voter photo ID law.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott announced. “Redistricting maps [as originally] passed by the Legislature [in the 2011 legislative session] may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 the Supreme Court followed up its Tuesday, June 25th, ruling on Section 4 of the VRA, officially vacating and kicking back the DC Court three-judge panel's August 2012 ruling that blocked Texas' voter photo I.D. law.  SCOTUS' action was a predictable result of its ruling, effectively ending the federal government's oversight of elections in Texas and other states with a history of discrimination in voting. The justices ordered lower courts to reconsider, in light of Tuesday's ruling, the status of previous low court rulings on appeal to SCOTUS, as was Texas' I.D. law. Legal experts remain divided on what the Supreme Court's rulings mean for the election laws that had been blocked under Section 5 review, and it could be weeks before the district courts weigh in. In the mean time, Texas and other states listed in Section 4 are not waiting to start enforcement of those laws.

U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey (D - Fort Worth) joined seven others Wednesday in filing a federal lawsuit to keep Texas from enforcing its voter ID law. Veasey, who represents the 33rd Congressional District, one of four districts created statewide during the latest redistricting battle, filed the papers in Corpus Christi federal court saying that under Section 2 of the VRA, SB 14, which requires voters to present a government-issued photo I.D. at polling places, will unconstitutionally deprive thousands of minorities of their right to vote and make re-election campaigns more expensive.

At his Redistricting Blog, Michael Li explains how Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act could possibly provide some of the protections afforded under Sections 4 and 5.

Originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the Texas Photo I.D. Law (SB 14) requires voters to present one of a limited selection of government issued photo I.D. to election Judges in order to qualify to vote. The accepted forms of currently dated photo identification include:

• Texas DPS issued Driver’s License or Personal Identification Card;
• Texas DPS issued Election Identification Certificate (EIC);  
• US passport;
• US military ID;
• Texas concealed weapons license; or
• US citizenship papers containing a photo.

For those who do not have an unexpired government issued photo I.D., the law contains a provision that requires the Texas Driver's License office to issue special "Election Identification Certificates" free of charge to citizens. Of course, a person seeking a free EIC at the Driver's License Office must present a state certified birth certificate and other I.D.'s.  Obtaining those identity documents, for those who don't already hold them, can be costly to a near impossibility. (see - Texas A Step Closer To Federal Real I.D. Act and War On Terror "Real I.D." Driver's License Federal Law Meets State Voter Photo I.D.)

The Texas Department of Public Safety announced shortly after the Supreme Court read its decision that starting Thursday, June 27, 2013, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing free Election Identification Certificates to anyone who doesn't already have another of the government issued photo I.D. documents. (DPS Webpage for EIC Info.)

Under the 2011 state law creating one of the state’s most strict voter I.D. laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years - which means they must be periodically renewed. However, there is no expiration date of an EIC for citizens 70 years of age or older.

To qualify for any Texas Department of Public Safety issued photo I.D., an applicant must give proof of U.S. citizenship and Texas residency by presenting identity documents. These identity documents include an unexpired Texas driver license, Texas Identification card, or U.S. Passport book or card.  For most who don't have one of those primary identification documents, already, they must present an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by their birth state's Bureau of Vital Statistics, along with another identity document listed under a menu of documents. This menu of documents includes a Voter Registration Card.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What Do The Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?

Since the Occupy movement began on Wall Street we have heard the main stream media's near universal refrain that, "no one knows what they want." To anyone listening, the message of what they want is clearly understood and resonating with a growing number of every day Americans from coast to coast, including North Texas. The truly grassroots Occupy movement now has meetups active in 1,539 cities worldwide.

Over 100 members of Occupy Dallas, which is a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, set up a 'tent city' in Pioneer Plaza park near downtown Dallas to provide shelter and a place to sleep. (picture right)

The Occupy Dallas group obtained a city permit Monday to remain camped in Pioneer Plaza park until 5 p.m. Friday. Their is potential for conflict between protesters and City Hall as given the liability insurance required as a prevision of the permit is difficult, if not impossible, to buy.

While the Occupy movement has spread to many cities around the U.S. over the last weeks, the movement has also found support on high school and college campuses across the country, as reported by the Student Activism blog. (Thanks to Facebook and Twitter!) In total, students from at least 100 college campuses around the country walked out of class in a show of solidarity and support for the Occupy Wall Street movement on October 5th.

Students are angry about the debt that many of them must obtain to go to college and the fact that they are graduating into the worst job market since the Great Depression. And it's no wonder: Outstanding student loan debt exceeded credit card debt for the first time in 2010 and student loan debt is up 25 percent since 2008. Organizers behind Occupy Colleges have announced this Thursday, October 13 as the date for a second national student action day in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, with students from at least fifty-six campuses pledging support.

What do the occupy Wall Street protesters want?

Occupy Wall Street protesters are clearly saying that individuals, corporations, and special interest groups, armed with the power of wealth, have gained an unfair advantage over 99 percent of "We the People" in every aspect of our society. This "Letter To The Ruling Class," that seems to have gone viral on the Internet among Occupy Wall Street supporters, sums up the movement's complaint:

You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat. We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you. You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed. We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence. You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings. You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions. You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living. You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame. We are hit… we are bleeding… but we ain’t got time to bleed. We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution! -- Attributed to Jesse Ventura by Kos

What the Occupy activists want has wealthy conservative plutocrats in a panic:

Occupy activists want the restoration of a fair and balanced playing field for every American. A field of play that is not controlled by the 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans; a field of play where everyone pays their fair share to build and maintain our public education, utility and transportation systems; and a field of play where no one person, corporation, or special interest group, armed with the power of wealth, can gain an unfair advantage over even a single American.

Occupy activists want a fair and balanced playing field that the federal government's system of oversight and regulation provided to American society, before conservatives dismantled it in their fervor for deregulation and elimination of taxes payed by billion dollar corporations and the richest 1 percent of Americans.

What the "Occupy," "The Other 98 Percent," and "The 99 Percent" movements want, in essence, is a restoration of Pres. Roosevelt's New Deal protections for the American financial system and middle class Americans.

Krugman: Panic of the Plutocrats

The New York Times OpEd by Paul Krugman:

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.”

Read the full story: The New York Times

U.S. Incomes Declined During The Last 10 Years

The U.S. economy may technically be in a recovery, but it likely doesn’t feel that way for many Americans when grabbing for their wallets. Median annual household income has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, according to a new study from former Census Bureau officials Gordon Green and John Code.

Between December 2007 and June 2009, when the U.S. economy was in recession, incomes declined 3.2 percent. While during the recovery between June 2009 and June 2011 incomes fell 6.7 percent, the study found. (click on the chart to enlarge)

The lack of income growth may explain why for most Americans the recovery still feels like a recession. Eight in 10 Americans believe the recession is an ongoing problem, according to a recent Gallup poll.

And workers don't anticipate things will pick up any time soon. Nine out of 10 Americans said they don't expect to get a raise that will be enough to compensate for the rising costs of essentials like food a fuel, according an American Pulse survey released in June.

Slow job growth is likely also exacerbating the feelings of recession and weighing on household incomes. U.S. employers added 103,000 jobs in September, too few jobs drive the unemployment rate below 9.1 percent and barely enough to keep pace with population growth, the Department of Labor reported last week. Those Americans that are employed are continuing to get squeezed by their employers with wage stagnation and benefit cuts, while profits per employee went up for the second year in a row in 2010, according to financial analysis company Sageworks.

While American workers find them selves under increasing pressure, American corporate profits are surging again in 2011 as corporations horde those profits in bank accounts. Corporations were sitting on $2.2 trillion in cash at the end of June, and that number has grown during the last quarter.

If giving tax cuts to corporations and the ultra-wealthy is the most stimulative approach to boosting jobs and wages, as Republicans claim in rejecting Pres. Obama's Jobs Plan, then the economy should already be racing, given the trillions of dollars in tax cuts President Bush and Republicans handed during the eight years of Pres. Bush's administration. Right? Wrong!

If the U.S. continues its sluggish jobs growth pace it could drive incomes even lower. Americans who are jobless for more than 99 weeks lose any unemployment benefits driving their incomes to zero and weighing on the national average, according to 24/7 Wall Street.

The recession’s and the recovery’s drag on income growth has put some Americans in a worse position than they were decades ago. The median income for U.S. males was worse in 2010 than in 1968 on an inflation-adjust basis.

In some states the recession and the recovery only exacerbated a decline in incomes that’s been taking place for longer. The median household income in Wisconsin plunged 14.5 percent between 1999 and 2010, The Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reported.

The super rich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' income gains.

Texas State Climatologist: Texas Drought Could Last Until 2020

Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon thinks Texans should get use to hot dry Texas summers. He says these hot dry conditions could last another five years, or even extend to 2020.

Parts of Texas may get some nice thunderstorms this early October weekend, but the state witnessed a September that continued the trend of above-normal temperatures with exceptional drought conditions during 2011. The daily maximum temperatures were above average across the state by two or more degrees. Every major station but Amarillo, Galveston, and Port Arthur reached 100+ °F at some point during September.

As of the Oct 4th U.S. Drought Monitor, 100% of Texas was suffering under some form of drought conditions, and over 85% of the state was designated as D4 (Exceptional Drought), the worst possible scenario. Indeed, the big story for September was the continuation of the devastating drought. A majority of the state observed only a fraction of their percent averages for rainfall, with Abilene and Austin below 10%.

Texas SOS Responds To US DOJ On Voter Photo ID Law Clearance

The back and forth between the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Civil Rights Division's voting rights section, the Texas Secretary of State's (TXSOS) office, the Texas Democratic Party and various organizations opposed to the legislation continued this week over the strict voting photo identification law signed by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry last May.

Did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Just Trigger The Nuclear Option?

The Republicans instituted the permanent filibuster when Obama took office, and that was the end of that. No more legislation, ever, on anything unless you have 60 votes in the Senate.

That's not the way it is suppose to work. But the Republicans decided to implement a permanent filibuster of everything, and to forever change the way the Senate works, and essentially make the body permanently dysfunctional. (see: How Can Only 40 Senate Republicans Stall Senate? And, How Senate Democrats Can Out Maneuver The Republicans.)

Tonight, perhaps, Senator Reid changed that -- The Hill:

Fellow Texas Bloggers To Speak At TDWCC Annual Dinner

Fellow Texas bloggers Eileen Smith and Rachel Farris, who write their respective blogs, "In the Pink" and "Mean Rachel" from Austin, Texas, will be featured speakers at the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County's 5th annual fund raiser dinner on Sunday, October 23 at the Southfork Ranch in Parker, Tx.

Eileen Smith is the editor of the long-running satirical political blog In the Pink Texas, which has won three “Best of Austin” awards from the Austin Chronicle. She’s currently a columnist at the Texas Observer, where she covered the most recent session of the Legislature and now writes a weekly wrap-up of Governor Rick Perry’s road to the White House called “Perryland.” She was the first-ever editor of Texas Monthly’s award-winning website, TexasMonthly.com, and she blogged the 2008 presidential campaign on “Poll Dancing.” Eileen has a Master’s in Journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern University. Originally from Virginia, she has lived in Austin for over ten years. You can follow her on Twitter at @EileenDSmith.

Native Texan and Democratic activist Rachel Farris (@MeanRachel) writes MeanRachel.com, a progressive blog that follows politics, the legislature and how they both are affected by social media. She covered the 2008 Democratic National Convention with The Texas Observer team and has spoken about social media and communications at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs, Texas State University’s “Mass Communications Week,” and St. Edward’s University. She also writes for The Huffington Post and AlterNet.org, and currently serves on the board of Texas Democratic Women.

This should be an interesting evening of discussion on “Framing the Issues” using social media communication channels on the Internet. In additional to the speakers and dinner, the evening includes a cash bar, silent auction and musical entertainment.

Read more...