Feb 28 // Feb 17 2017
It's two outrages for the price of one!
Degrading women. Degrading the planet. What else is new?
Two Weeks Ago News is starting to believe that the only reason Donald Trump wanted to become President was so that everyone in the country would take an interest in Civics again, and try to figure out how and why our country has the laws it has, and why they matter. Because it feels like every day, more and more of us know more about our democracy, how it works and what the impact of our present or soon-to-be-experienced circumstances may be.
Two weeks ago, we were dealing with the fallout of nominations that became appointees and a signed bill that will result in the degradation of our planet. It was a busy couple of days. The outrage was real – and amplified immediately by everyone with a keyboard - and it was relentless.
Let’s start with Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren spoke before the Senate, planning to go on the record with her objections to fellow Senator Jeff Sessions, nominated by President Trump for the office of Attorney General. As part of her statement, she planned to read a letter from Coretta Scott King, in which she stated: “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as a US Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, indicated that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.” The letter goes on to address numerous specific examples of why and how Sessions exhibited prejudice and discrimination against black voters in Alabama.
Like many people, we’ve read the letter at Two Weeks Ago News, and if the circumstances it describes are valid, we found it an appalling account of intimidation, filled with actions that denied black voters access to the ballot box and subverted the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
All of it was disturbing to say the least. But Sessions’ ostensible racism wasn’t the point of all the outrage that ensued. No, that came about as a result of a little used rule in the Senate that say one Senator cannot – we’re paraphrasing now – stand up and call another Senator a scumbag (for the record.) That kind of attack – even a second-hand attack, even if you’re just quoting someone else who thinks a senator is – again, paraphrasing - a scumbag – isn’t allowed.
Surprise! This attorney general nominee hearing then turned into a women’s empowerment moment. Senator Warren was removed from the Chamber after being warned to cease and desist from the verbal attack that was forthcoming. She chose not to – her prerogative – and suffered the consequences. Turned out to be a net positive for her, it would seem, since her removal resulted in millions of people – if the numbers are true – reading that letter and understanding Senator Warren’s point of view about this Senator Sessions being a spectacularly poor choice for Attorney General. Certainly many more than would have known had she simply read the letter into the record.
Predictably, the ubiquitous meme soon followed: “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” (This is exactly what we think about whenever we reach for that second brownie. Whatever.) Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harriet Tubman appeared on a meme to offer support. Favorite Two Weeks Ago News facebook quote about the whole episode: “I can’t wait to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020.”
Why Senator Tom Udall was able to get the same letter on the record for the same purpose just hours later remains a mystery to us at Two Weeks Ago News. Stopping a woman from reading it and allowing a man to read the same thing in front of the same people in the same place for the same reason sounds like just about the dumbest decision a politician can make and the most transparent act of sexist behavior one can imagine. But they never cease to surprise us.
Moving on, we have one Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the outrage was expressed in phrases like “dismantling the EPA” and “eventually eliminating” the department, AKA regulating himself out of a job.
Rather than document every move, every suit, every instance of malfeasance he has committed against the energy industry in an effort to create a planet that harms us rather than houses us, all in pursuit of more money or power for himself; rather than read every email he ever exchanged with someone representing the oil, gas or coal companies for the same purpose, we’ll simply make this observation: Everything we read about his dismantling the department makes no sense. Living in a nation that’s filled with unsafe water, unclean air and farmland that can grow nothing isn’t a great idea for anyone, even Republicans.
What does make sense – even if it’s not our particular affinity – is that the new head of the EPA appears to be true to his Republican sensibilities and wants to turn back to the states the power that he believes has been usurped by the federal government, often without regard to the particular needs of a state, its economy or its constituents. According to The Washington Post, Pruitt isn’t easily going to overturn what he believes are onerous restrictions put in place by the Obama Administration. Their article goes on to say “For his part, Pruitt has said he intends to return the agency to its central mission of protecting the quality of the nation’s air and water while respecting the role of states as primary enforcers of environmental laws. ‘It is our state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges,’ he said during his confirmation hearing last month.”
But let's say all of that is false; it's just the talking point he has to deliver to the media but he has no intention of delivering on them. What if he is truly evil and wants to destroy the planet starting with the United States? What if he really is a “friend to polluters” everywhere? Maybe it is the end of days. Maybe we will be living in a post-apocolyptic “The Road” kind of scenario in just a month or two.
But maybe not.
Which brings us to the undoing of President Obama’s coal mining rule. What is the undoing of the coal mining rule, you ask? In the interest of time, we offer you a brief recap, followed by an explanation...in fewer than 200 words:
The Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a bill that was passed just a few short weeks before President Obama left office – and one that his administration took almost his entire tenure to get it written – was overturned by President Trump. According to ThinkProgress.org, the legislation requires mining companies to restore the “physical form, hydrologic function, and ecological function” of streams after mining operations are complete. And, it calls for monitoring pollution levels in streams near surfaces mines.In Appalachia, mining companies regularly blow the tops off mountains to access stores of coal beneath, a practice known as “mountain top removal.” They dump the debris into valleys below, filling rivulets and contaminating downstream water supplies. Mining firms have decapitated more than 500 mountains in Appalachia and buried some 2,000 miles of streams, according to Appalachian Voices, an environmental advocacy group.
The coal industry had called it costly to implement, resulting in job losses and further debilitating an industry that was already suffering in the marketplace.
So the politicians from coal country are happy – they’re saving jobs for the people who vote for them. (Note that everyone involved on either side of the issue ostensibly also want clean streams and clean water.) Politicians from other regions are horrified and asking that attention be paid elsewhere, to things like health, safety and pensions if the goal is to protect miners. Their view is you can’t do both. According to Senator Martha Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, you’re either repealing this environmentally-friendly rule to keep miners employed or you’re going to protect the water and streams of our country for the “outdoor industry and sportsmen and fishermen can continue to thrive.” (AKA: her constituents.)
Are we that naïve at Two Weeks Ago News? Are we wrong in thinking that we really can’t do both? Keep the regulations in place to the point where they are feasible, effective and negotiable as needed, accomplishing the standards required for a clean environmental footprint for the industry that also allows for both commerce and community?
It doesn’t seem all that impossible but according to the news, it is. It definitely is. There is only one way forward. One. The other way – however you define it – is 100% misguided at best and criminal at worst.
That can’t be true. But at Two Weeks Ago News, it feels true.
It's two outrages for the price of one!
Degrading women. Degrading the planet. What else is new?
Two Weeks Ago News is starting to believe that the only reason Donald Trump wanted to become President was so that everyone in the country would take an interest in Civics again, and try to figure out how and why our country has the laws it has, and why they matter. Because it feels like every day, more and more of us know more about our democracy, how it works and what the impact of our present or soon-to-be-experienced circumstances may be.
Two weeks ago, we were dealing with the fallout of nominations that became appointees and a signed bill that will result in the degradation of our planet. It was a busy couple of days. The outrage was real – and amplified immediately by everyone with a keyboard - and it was relentless.
Let’s start with Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren spoke before the Senate, planning to go on the record with her objections to fellow Senator Jeff Sessions, nominated by President Trump for the office of Attorney General. As part of her statement, she planned to read a letter from Coretta Scott King, in which she stated: “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as a US Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, indicated that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.” The letter goes on to address numerous specific examples of why and how Sessions exhibited prejudice and discrimination against black voters in Alabama.
Like many people, we’ve read the letter at Two Weeks Ago News, and if the circumstances it describes are valid, we found it an appalling account of intimidation, filled with actions that denied black voters access to the ballot box and subverted the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
All of it was disturbing to say the least. But Sessions’ ostensible racism wasn’t the point of all the outrage that ensued. No, that came about as a result of a little used rule in the Senate that say one Senator cannot – we’re paraphrasing now – stand up and call another Senator a scumbag (for the record.) That kind of attack – even a second-hand attack, even if you’re just quoting someone else who thinks a senator is – again, paraphrasing - a scumbag – isn’t allowed.
Surprise! This attorney general nominee hearing then turned into a women’s empowerment moment. Senator Warren was removed from the Chamber after being warned to cease and desist from the verbal attack that was forthcoming. She chose not to – her prerogative – and suffered the consequences. Turned out to be a net positive for her, it would seem, since her removal resulted in millions of people – if the numbers are true – reading that letter and understanding Senator Warren’s point of view about this Senator Sessions being a spectacularly poor choice for Attorney General. Certainly many more than would have known had she simply read the letter into the record.
Predictably, the ubiquitous meme soon followed: “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” (This is exactly what we think about whenever we reach for that second brownie. Whatever.) Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harriet Tubman appeared on a meme to offer support. Favorite Two Weeks Ago News facebook quote about the whole episode: “I can’t wait to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020.”
Why Senator Tom Udall was able to get the same letter on the record for the same purpose just hours later remains a mystery to us at Two Weeks Ago News. Stopping a woman from reading it and allowing a man to read the same thing in front of the same people in the same place for the same reason sounds like just about the dumbest decision a politician can make and the most transparent act of sexist behavior one can imagine. But they never cease to surprise us.
Moving on, we have one Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the outrage was expressed in phrases like “dismantling the EPA” and “eventually eliminating” the department, AKA regulating himself out of a job.
Rather than document every move, every suit, every instance of malfeasance he has committed against the energy industry in an effort to create a planet that harms us rather than houses us, all in pursuit of more money or power for himself; rather than read every email he ever exchanged with someone representing the oil, gas or coal companies for the same purpose, we’ll simply make this observation: Everything we read about his dismantling the department makes no sense. Living in a nation that’s filled with unsafe water, unclean air and farmland that can grow nothing isn’t a great idea for anyone, even Republicans.
What does make sense – even if it’s not our particular affinity – is that the new head of the EPA appears to be true to his Republican sensibilities and wants to turn back to the states the power that he believes has been usurped by the federal government, often without regard to the particular needs of a state, its economy or its constituents. According to The Washington Post, Pruitt isn’t easily going to overturn what he believes are onerous restrictions put in place by the Obama Administration. Their article goes on to say “For his part, Pruitt has said he intends to return the agency to its central mission of protecting the quality of the nation’s air and water while respecting the role of states as primary enforcers of environmental laws. ‘It is our state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges,’ he said during his confirmation hearing last month.”
But let's say all of that is false; it's just the talking point he has to deliver to the media but he has no intention of delivering on them. What if he is truly evil and wants to destroy the planet starting with the United States? What if he really is a “friend to polluters” everywhere? Maybe it is the end of days. Maybe we will be living in a post-apocolyptic “The Road” kind of scenario in just a month or two.
But maybe not.
Which brings us to the undoing of President Obama’s coal mining rule. What is the undoing of the coal mining rule, you ask? In the interest of time, we offer you a brief recap, followed by an explanation...in fewer than 200 words:
The Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a bill that was passed just a few short weeks before President Obama left office – and one that his administration took almost his entire tenure to get it written – was overturned by President Trump. According to ThinkProgress.org, the legislation requires mining companies to restore the “physical form, hydrologic function, and ecological function” of streams after mining operations are complete. And, it calls for monitoring pollution levels in streams near surfaces mines.In Appalachia, mining companies regularly blow the tops off mountains to access stores of coal beneath, a practice known as “mountain top removal.” They dump the debris into valleys below, filling rivulets and contaminating downstream water supplies. Mining firms have decapitated more than 500 mountains in Appalachia and buried some 2,000 miles of streams, according to Appalachian Voices, an environmental advocacy group.
The coal industry had called it costly to implement, resulting in job losses and further debilitating an industry that was already suffering in the marketplace.
So the politicians from coal country are happy – they’re saving jobs for the people who vote for them. (Note that everyone involved on either side of the issue ostensibly also want clean streams and clean water.) Politicians from other regions are horrified and asking that attention be paid elsewhere, to things like health, safety and pensions if the goal is to protect miners. Their view is you can’t do both. According to Senator Martha Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, you’re either repealing this environmentally-friendly rule to keep miners employed or you’re going to protect the water and streams of our country for the “outdoor industry and sportsmen and fishermen can continue to thrive.” (AKA: her constituents.)
Are we that naïve at Two Weeks Ago News? Are we wrong in thinking that we really can’t do both? Keep the regulations in place to the point where they are feasible, effective and negotiable as needed, accomplishing the standards required for a clean environmental footprint for the industry that also allows for both commerce and community?
It doesn’t seem all that impossible but according to the news, it is. It definitely is. There is only one way forward. One. The other way – however you define it – is 100% misguided at best and criminal at worst.
That can’t be true. But at Two Weeks Ago News, it feels true.