Wideleft

Yeah, really it does happen. I'll even highlight the examples for you that occured in the last 10 years. Here's a list of deadliest Top 10 U.S. shootings, with their state house and state senate control (at the time) Governor (at the time). Las Vegas, Nevada (2017): 59 dead. Divided State Government, Republican Governor. Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, Florida (2016) 49 dead. Republican control of State Senate and House. Republican Governor Virginia Tech, Virginia.(2007) 32 Dead. Republican Senate and House. Democratic Governor, Sandy Hook, Connecticut (2012) 26 Dead. Democrat trifecta Texas First Baptist Church (2017) 26 Dead. Republican Trifecta Luby's Massacre, Killeen Texas. (1991) 23 Dead. Democrat trifecta. San Ysidro McDonalds, San Diego, California. (1984) 21 Dead. Democrat House and Senate. Republican Governor. Parkland High School. Florida (2018) Republican Trifecta. United States Postal Service. Edmond Oklahoma (1986) 14 Dead. Democrat trifecta. San Bernadino, California. (2015). 14 Dead. Democrat trifecta. More examples from just this year: Tallahasee Yoga Studio, (Nov 2). 3 dead, 5 injured. Republican trifecta Florence, South Carolina (Oct 3). 1 dead, 7 injured. Republican trifecta. Cincinnati, Ohio (Sept 6) 4 dead, 2 injured. Republican trifecta. Jacksonville, Florida (Aug 26) 3 dead, 9 injured. Republican trifecta. Scottsdale, Arizona (May 30-June 4) 7 dead. Republican trifecta. Sante Fe, Texas (May 18) 10 dead, 14 injured. Republican trifecta. Nashville Waffle House, Tennessee (April 22) 4 dead, 2 injured. Republican trifecta. Benton, Kentucky (Jan 23) 2 dead, 16 injured. Republican trifecta.

From Ed Tait (emphasis in #3 mine): 5 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW 1. The Bombers and Riders are meeting for the fourth time this season. The Riders won both the Labour Day Classic and the Banjo Bowl, before the Bombers crushed them 31-0 October 13th here in Winnipeg. Saskatchewan finished second in the West with a 12-6 record, with the Bombers third at 10-8. The winner on Sunday will advance to meet the Calgary Stampeders in Calgary on November 18th in the West Final. 2. These two teams haven’t met in the playoffs since the 2007 Grey Cup and — cover your eyes and ears for this one — the Bombers are on a seven-game playoff losing streak to the Riders that dates back to 1965. One more historical nugget: the last time the Bombers played in Regina in the playoffs was 43 years ago — on Nov. 8 1975, to be exact — at old Taylor Field. Riders legend Ron Lancaster led the Riders to a 42-24 win over Ralph “Dieter” Brock and the Bombers that day. 3. The Bombers are relatively healthy heading into the playoffs, although there is uncertainly regarding the status of linebacker Jovan Santos-Knox, who has not practised this week. A year ago the Bombers went into the West semi against Edmonton minus receiver Darvin Adams, defensive end Jamaal Westerman, linebacker Maurice Leggett and with quarterback Matt Nichols nursing a bum calf and broken finger on his throwing hand while Weston Dressler played with a broken hand. 4. The Riders and Bombers are two of the Canadian Football League’s hottest teams heading into the playoffs. Both clubs went 5-1 in the final third of the season. Vegas bookies have made the Riders three-point favourites. 5. The Bombers head into the postseason attempting to overcome some daunting history. Not since the 2005 Edmonton Eskimos has a third-place team managed to capture the Grey Cup. That year the Eskimos finished third in the West at 11-7 and went on to win in Calgary and B.C. before knocking off Montreal in the championship.

An update on gun violence trends. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/firearm-homicide-suicides-increasing-study/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2018-11-08T18%3A13%3A14&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2NohT2cfqV-ipRYWw8Md1unpCf8XJD3eRLmHXNQdL9gdWkrW9rzhP22Fs

The challenge for Democrats is that they can propose the best programs, initiatives etc in the House, but if/when passed, Trump will try to take all the credit for them. Seriously, they could put Single-payer health care on the table and Trump (knowing that this would be a BIG legacy) would humiliate the senate into approving it and take all the credit for something he couldn't begin to develop on his own. It would guarantee him re-election in 2020.

The Republicans themselves have outlined 100 or so investigations the Democrats could launch: https://www.axios.com/2018-midterm-elections-republicans-preparation-investigations-180abf7b-0de8-4670-ae8a-2e6da123c584.html

A very cool article about art meeting science. https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-15/iceland-shifting-sculpture-changing-arctic?fbclid=IwAR0yFlT2u9browaIPH7dfeAZ7VrK4Lp1Dzh1IEHa5iM2rQQtqt8rM9tEQXk

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-lawmaker-matt-shea-defends-advocacy-for-holy-army-as-spokane-sheriff-refers-his-writings-to-fbi/ One guess as to which party this "lawmaker" comes from.

Saw the Milk Carton Kids with The Barr Brothers as their opening act on Saturday night. While MCK's library trends towards the down tempo, they are simply amazing at what they do. Between the harmonies, the world-class guitar picking of Kenneth Pattengale and between song banter that is better than anyone I've ever seen (save the Smothers Brothers), I don't think I've ever got better value for a concert ticket. They are a supremely underrated act - until you've heard them. They could sing a how-to on how to fillet a jackfish and it would sound amazing. This is the purtiest song I've heard in years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/29/trumps-hate-and-lies-are-emboldening-extremists-just-ask-the-analyst-who-warned-us/?utm_term=.46cac99543a4

I'd agree, but he looks a little too ethnic to become a far right hero. Stay tuned for how they spin that.

So if there was any doubt that the Deniers aren't in this for the cold hard cash and couldn't give a lick about science: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/climate-change-doubters-are-finalists-environmental-protection-agency-science-advisory "James Enstrom, who has served as a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute and is a retired professor from UCLA, has received funding from the tobacco industry to produce research that downplays the risks of secondhand smoke...A description of his qualifications for the appointment said that Enstrom's research, which has vastly different conclusions from those of the majority of scientists, justifies rolling back EPA regulations on air pollution, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." To be clear, deniers are throwing their hats in with people who don't think second hand smoke is bad. "Richard Belzer is an independent consultant on regulatory economics who has worked for a number of conservative think tanks, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute and R Street Institute. His recent clients include Exxon Mobil, the American Chemistry Council and Fitzgerald Glider Kits, which is pushing EPA to roll back air pollution protections on heavy trucks." Hey diesel exhaust is totally cool too! You know what - we actually should have more because air pollution is ok. Do you really want to associate yourself with this kind of thinking?

Not only that (in Kansas), new voters were sent the incorrect address for that out of town polling station. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/dodge-city-moves-only-polling-site-gives-voters-wrong-address-1353478211626?v=railb&

You may think we're in no rush as you are fortunate enough to currently sit in a less effected latitude. I'm not sure the residents of Tuvalu feel the same way. https://www.ecowatch.com/meet-the-worlds-first-climate-refugees-1882143026.html Or maybe a Syrian refugee: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html Or even in North Carolina: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-north-carolina-hurricanes-do-what-scientists-could-not-persuade-republicans-that-climate-change-is-real/2018/10/17/45136c56-d0ac-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?utm_term=.bfc787535313 So tell me - what will it take for you to realize it's here and it's happening?

Taxes are the cost of a civilized society, so I don't reflexively oppose increases in taxes. I am not in favour of corporations polluting for free, or even worse, getting subsidized to do so.

When I can choose not to subsidize oil companies (1.7 bilion annually), I will choose that option.

Because not only is it the right thing to do, being a leader in the transition away from carbon-based energy has economic benefits. Properly done, Canada can lead in innovation and export the products (not just solar panels and windmills, but anything infrastructure-related) and attract investment in the companies producing these goods. It is a fact that an electric car is now less expensive to own over a lifetime than one that burns gas. The carbon bubble is coming and we need to be prepared. We all saw what happened when Harper put all his economic eggs in the petroleum basket. As for Kris Sims (of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-taxpayer-federation-opinion-lamont-1.3802441

Not peer reviewed. From ESI's own website: "ESI continues its long-standing interest in climate change, although its focus has changed considerably. True to its dedication to evidence-based public policy, ESI analyzed the same paleoclimate records that formed the evidentiary basis of Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore's award-winning documentary "Inconvenient Truth" and discovered that the relation between carbon dioxide and global warming is more nuanced than previously thought. The results of this analysis are currently being peer-reviewed for publication and will be posted on this site following publication. If confirmed, ESI's scientific findings will help point the way to a different, more adaptive, and more cost-efficient environmental policy response to climate change." As for the second, you validate him by saying he's retired NOAA. Hmm what's the first thing you read when you go on NOAA's climate change impacts website? "Impacts from climate change are happening now." https://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/climate-change-impacts You can't have it both ways. You also can't cherry-pick the findings of one retired NOAA staffer when over 6000 current NOAA scientists and engineers are not in agreement. Yes, scientific dissent is important because it makes research better. This is little more than sowing seeds of doubt for the sake of it. Oh - and this is Rex Fleming (this "respected scientist" has 13 twitter followers):

A fascinating read. If you've never heard of the "Carbon Bubble", pay close attention to that section as well as the section under "The Carbon Lobby and the Trump Gang. You'll gain a deeper understanding of the organizations/corporations and nations who want things to remain as they are. https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd If you have time, read the followup article as well. https://thenearlynow.com/the-smokestacks-come-tumbling-down-c03ba1294522

The Daily Signal is an American political journalism news website founded in June 2014. The publication focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary from a conservative perspective. It is published by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/climate-change-doubters-are-finalists-environmental-protection-agency-science-advisory "Finalists for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Advisory Board include researchers who reject mainstream climate science and who have fought against environmental regulations for years. Among them is an economist from the conservative Heritage Foundation whose work was cited by President Trump as a justification for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement."

That's what progressive governments have tried to do. Small "c" conservative governments show a pattern of killing green subsidies.

2010s June 2012 In response to questions following a speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations,ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests that while climate change is real, the solution would be to “adapt”: “[A]s a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.” January 2013 (Global CO2 level: 396 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $32.6 billion) The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona. The model bill mandates teaching the “weaknesses” of the “global warming… theory.” ALEC received consistent funding from Exxon since 1998, and continues to give to ALEC. 2014 Analysis of ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments reports and ExxonMobil Foundation 990 tax forms reveals that Exxon continues to fund climate denier groups. Between 1998-2014, Exxon gave over $30 million to such groups (Source: Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists). Since 2007, ExxonMobil has also donated $1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change. September 2014 Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt announces that the company would not renew its membership to the American Legislative Exchange Council because ALEC is “literally lying” about the fact of climate change. As far as is known, Exxon remains a member of ALEC, serving on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council as of August 2015. February 2015 Research by Greenpeace exposes Willie Soon as having failed to disclose that Exxon and other fossil fuel interests funded his research. Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon’s claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon between 2005 and 2010. September 16, 2015 (Global CO2 level: 401 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $16.2 billion) InsideClimate News publishes the first exposé on Exxon’s knowledge of climate change risks and how it responded. The article describes how management at Exxon learned about the potential risk of climate change as early as 1977 and invested in climate change research. October 9, 2015 The Los Angeles Times and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism publish a story about Exxon’s knowledge of climate threats to the Arctic, including models to anticipate impacts on Arctic operations that Exxon executives such as Lee Raymond would publicly dismiss. October 14, 2015 U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier request that the U.S. Department of Justice launch an investigation into whether Exxon violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as laws on consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, and shareholder protection. November 4, 2015 New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opens an investigation into Exxon over whether the company has lied about what it knew about climate change. The AG issues a subpoena to Exxon demanding in-house documents. November 20, 2015 Exxon Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Kenneth P. Cohen sends a letter to Columbia University, accusing members of the Graduate School of Journalism of violating the school’s ethics policies regarding the recent articles regarding Exxon’s climate change-related research going back to the 1970s. The Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Steve Coll, issues a response defending the articles. November 23 and 30, 2015 A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that organizations that received funding from corporations like Exxon were more likely to argue against climate change science than organizations that did not receive such funding. Another study in Nature Climate Change finds that climate-denying organizations funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers are the most successful at inserting climate denialism into media stories. January 2016 The U.S. Department of Justice refers the case of Exxon’s advocacy around climate change to the FBI. January 20, 2016 The Los Angeles Times reports that California’s Attorney General is investigating Exxon over whether the company committed securities fraud or violated environmental laws by lying about what it knew about climate change. March 29, 2016 A coalition of 17 Attorneys General and AG officials announces their support for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. As part of the event, the AGs of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands announce that they are investigating Exxon’s actions regarding climate change. Top officials from Vermont, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut say fossil fuel companies would be held accountable for illegal activities around climate change, although they do not announce investigations. May 18, 2016 13 Representatives sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee send letters to 17 state Attorneys General and 8 non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace. The letters accuse the agencies and organizations of tampering with companies’, organizations’ and individuals’ rights to free speech. Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responds that “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny.” Data from Oil Change International shows that the 13 Representatives who sent the letter have received $2,848,418 in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies since 1999. May 25, 2016 Exxon holds its annual shareholders meeting in Dallas. The board confronts 14 proposed resolutions from shareholders, 10 of which are climate-related. All climate change resolutions are voted down. However, a resolution requiring Exxon to report on the impacts to its business from climate policy receives a substantial 38% vote of support, and a separate resolution passes allowing shareholders to vote in a portion of Exxon’s board of directors. This presents the possibility of getting a climate expert on Exxon’s board. June 1 Greenpeace USA, other NGOs and the Maryland Attorney General reject the authority of Congressional representatives’ inquiry. Greenpeace notes the “‘irony’ that [the] committee, in the name of protecting ExxonMobil’s free speech, would ‘examine’ the free speech of environmental groups.” June 9 Nineteen members of California’s Congressional delegation send a letter of support to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, encouraging her investigation into Exxon despite pressure from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee to stop. June 29 The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands agrees to withdraw his subpoena of Exxon, after Exxon sues the U.S. territory for what the company claims are violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. The agreement does not prevent the U.S. Virgin Islands from subpoenaing Exxon in the future. Exxon had also sued the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office based on similar arguments, but Massachusetts continues to fight the lawsuit. July 6 Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), implies he will subpoena the 17 Attorneys General and 8 NGOs if they do not reply to the Committee’s earlier request for their communication records. Greenpeace and 350.org respond by demanding that Congressman Smith and the involved Committee members reveal their connections to the fossil fuel industry, which has given Smith and the other members $2,848,418 in campaign contributions since 1999. July 11 19 Senate democrats use the chamber floor to highlight the fossil fuel industry’s–including ExxonMobil’s–“web of denial” around climate change. The same day Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) introduce a resolution arguing that fossil fuel companies created a “misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest.” July 13 Congressman Smith subpoenas the offices of the New York and Massachusetts AGs and 8 NGOs, including Greenpeace, with a deadline to respond by July 27. July 27 Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey, as well as Greenpeace and other NGOs, refuse to respond to the subpoena. “The American people know this Congressional subpoena is Rep. Smith’s signature move to turn attention away from the real issue at stake, which is the investigations into Exxon’s climate denial,” says Greenpeace Executive director Annie Leonard. August 20 New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.” September 20 The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating whether Exxon failed to publicly report the potential impact of climate regulations on its future business–the type of investigation also being conducted by the New York Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal reports that the SEC is also investigating whether Exxon failed to “de-book” some of its oil and gas reserves in the face of low oil prices–in other words, that Exxon has been claiming valuable assets that it does not actually have, given the poor state of the oil and gas industry. September 20

2000 (Global CO2 level: 370 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $17.7 billion) ExxonMobil publishes an ad, titled “Unsettled science,” highlighting a study showing a historical decrease in temperatures in the Sargasso Sea. CEO Lee Raymond presents the study at that year’s shareholder meeting as evidence that fossil fuels may not be causing global warming. The author of the study, Lloyd Keigwin, later complains that Exxon misused the data: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming…I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes…” January 2001 George W. Bush inaugurated as US president, with $100,000 in inaugural funding from ExxonMobil. Just days before Bush’s inauguration, Exxon’s publishes an advertisement titled “An energy policy for the new administration.” The ad argues that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyoto process needs to be rethought.” February 2001 The Bush White House receives a letter from Exxon asking if the administration can oust climate scientist Robert Watson from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under Watson’s chairmanship, the IPCC had released a number of reports linking climate change to human activity. March 2001 Bush administration announces withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. May 2001 The UK Stop Esso campaign is launched. The campaign is aimed at Exxon’s subsidy Esso, and is a coalition effort that includes Greenpeace UK, People and Planet, and Friends of the Earth. 2002 (Global CO2 level: 373 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $11.5 billion) The GCC announces it is disbanding, explaining that the group “has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.” May 2002 Greenpeace USA launches the Stop ExxonMobil campaign. Over the following months, activist actions against Exxon stations spread around the globe. May 2003 The Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unit converges on ExxonMobil’s compound in Irving, Texas, to charge the oil giant with crimes against the climate. January 2004 (Global CO2 level: 377 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $25.3 billion) ExxonMobil puts out a new ad titled, “Directions for climate research.” The ad argues for “uncertainties that limit our current ability to know the extent to which humans are affecting climate and to predict future changes caused by both human and natural forces.” The same month, Exxon’s “Weather and climate” ad takes a similar tack, arguing that “scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change…” June 2004 Greenpeace USA develops www.exxonsecrets.org, a website showing the links between Exxon money and some of the loudest climate deniers being quoted in the media. The website includes dossiers and fact sheets for each organization and person with a description, history, staff bios, quotes, deeds and hidden affiliations. July 2005 Environmental and public interest groups launch the “Exxpose Exxon” campaign. 2006 Rex Tillerson becomes Chief Executive Officer of Exxon. September 2006 The Royal Society, Britain’s preeminent scientific organization, writes a letter to Exxon, inquiring into the company’s promotion of uncertainty around climate change science. The letter comes after the Royal Society meets with Exxon to discuss its funding of climate-denying groups. Exxonpromised at a previous meeting with the Royal Society to stop the funding, but had not followed up after the meeting to explain how it would fulfill the pledge. Later that month, it is reported that Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has actively undermined action on climate change. 2008 (Global CO2 level: 386 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $45.2 billion) Exxon’s 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report announces that the company will “discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” In other words, it will stop funding climate-denying groups. Funding is cut to some climate-denying groups. Funding to others continues. 2008 Greenpeace USA and other citizen groups launch the “Strike Out Exxon” campaign, aimed at stopping the company’s advertisements at Nationals Stadium in Washington.