Political Mojo | Mother Jones

Big Coal Attacks Penn State Climate Scientist (Again)

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 3:35 PM PST
Mike Mann

We've documented the long-term effort to malign Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann here rather extensively. Now a coal-backed group is running a smear campaign targeting an upcoming speaking event Mann is holding on campus.

The Common Sense Movement and the Secure Energy for America Political Action Committee (CSM/SEAPAC) have started a petition asking Penn State to cancel Mann's Feb. 9 speech. In the petition, they rehash "Climategate" and accuse him of "allegedly manipulating scientific data to align with his extreme political views on global warming." The group offers a template letter for people to send to "daily newspapers near you" attacking Penn State for hosting a speech by "someone of such questionable ethics."

Who is this "Common Sense Movement"? The website claims to represent "a group of individuals and businesses committed to ensuring the availability of affordable, reliable and secure sources of energy for American consumers." But as Brad Johnson reports at Think Progress, it's a coal front group:

SEAPAC is a wing of the Pittsburgh-based astroturf group Common Sense Movement, which is running the "I Am Coal" campaign. Contributors include James Clifford Forrest III, president of coal company Rosebud Mining, David Young, president of the Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association, and the top executives of Swanson Industries, a West Virginia mining equipment company.

Yes, just your average "American consumers."

Andrew Revkin called out the group's attempt to silence Mann as a "shameful attack on free speech." Thankfully, Penn State has not cowed, as The Guardian reported on Friday.

Perhaps the best part of this is that Mann, a respected scientist, plans to talk about his new book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars at the event—a book that's largely about this nasty effort on the part of the fossil fuel industry to undermine his work.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Koch Brothers Meet Again to Prep for "Mother of All Wars"

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 3:00 PM PST

Last week, the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers held their latest get-together with wealthy conservative political donors. At these meetings, held twice a year under a veil of secrecy, Republican all-stars discuss election strategy and vet potential presidential candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Last September, Mother Jones obtained exclusive audio recordings from a Koch seminar held outside Vail, Colorado, where Charles Koch had declared that the 2012 election would be "the mother of all wars" and thanked dozens of million-dollar donors who'd pledged to the cause.

According to a Huffington Post source, 250 to 300 guests attended the most recent event, which was held in Palm Springs, California. They included Citadel CEO Ken Griffin and casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who along with his wife has given a staggering $10 million to a pro-Newt Gingrich super-PAC. Guests reportedly pledged a total of $40 million to the effort to oust Obama, with Charles and David Koch promising an additional $60 million. But it wasn't all fun and games, the source said, as guests complained that recent meetings had focused more on "alpha male" anti-Obama chest-pounding than the strategy sessions for which they'd been known.

Your Daily Newt: Ridin' the Rails

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 2:54 PM PST

As a service to our readers, every day we are delivering a classic moment from the political life of Newt Gingrich—until he either clinches the nomination or bows out.

Newt Gingrich wants you to know that subways are for rich folks. Two weeks ago in South Carolina, he pilloried "those who, you know, live in high-rise apartment buildings writing for fancy newspapers in the middle of town after they ride the metro." On Friday in Nevada he blased Manhattan elites who take the subway to work.

Here's a photo of Newt Gingrich, from his 1998 book, Lessons Learned the Hard Way:

P.F. Bentley/Lessons Learned the Hard WayP.F. Bentley/Lessons Learned the Hard Way

In fairness, he was sitting in coach.

Film Review: A Separation

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 1:48 PM PST

When Oscar nominations were released last week, it was no surprise that the Iranian film A Separation, written and directed by Asghar Farhadi, was among the list of Foreign Language Films—after all, it had already won the Golden Globe in that category in addition to being a big hit on the festival circuit. But with a second nomination, for Original Screenplay, the film has a shot at upsetting movies backed by Hollywood powerhouses.

Farhadi, who started out writing screenplays for the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and directing TV shows, has slowly gained a Western audience with films like Fireworks Wednesday, which won a Golden Hugo at the Chicago International Film Festival in 2006, and About Elly, which won prizes at festivals in Berlin and Tribeca in 2009. With the success of A Separation, Farhadi is poised to break into a more mainstream audience, and in so doing, to bring a subtle, nuanced portrait of daily life in Iran to the American public at a time when relations between the two countries are particularly tense.

The film begins as Simin (Leila Hatami) is asking a judge to grant her a divorce from her husband, Nader (Peyman Moadi), not because he's a bad partner—she calls him a "good and decent person"—but because he refuses to leave Iran with her, claiming that he instead needs to take care of his elderly father. Frustrated by the official's refusal to grant her request, Simin leaves the apartment where she and Nader live with their daughter, Termeh (Sarina Farhadi, the director's daughter) to stay at her parents' house, leaving Nader to find a substitute caretaker for his father, who has Alzheimer's and can't be left alone. So he hires Razieh (Sareh Bayat), a devout woman with a young daughter, Samoyeh (Kimia Hossenei), and another child on the way—though it's hard to tell beneath her flowing chador. After Nader's father soils his pants on the first day, Razieh wants to quit. "The work is too heavy," she says; it's also underpaid and far from her home in the suburbs. But her husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), is unemployed and in debt to multiple creditors, so she continues on—but in secret, as Hodjat has a hot temper and would be angry to learn she's working for a single man.

Shortly thereafter, Nader comes home early to find his father face-down on the floor, his hand tied to a bedpost, and no one else home. When Razieh returns to the house shortly thereafter, saying only that she had to go out, Nader's fear and frustration erupt, and a confrontation between the two ends with Nader pushing Razieh out the door. That action sets off a chain of accusations, defenses, and contentions that loop around and circle back over a constantly shifting moral terrain.

Sheldon Adelson's Long Odds on Gingrich

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 12:44 PM PST
Sheldon Adelson

Arguably, the only thing that's kept Newt Gingrich in the running this long (besides a gargantuan heap of grandiosity) is Sheldon Adelson's money. Adelson, the chairman of the Las Vegas Sands casino company, has, with his wife Miriam, poured a whopping $10 million into the pro-Gingrich super-PAC Winning Our Future. With Mitt Romney looking like a sure thing to win this Saturday's primary in Adelson's home state of Nevada, it remains to be seen if the casino mogul will keep bankrolling Gingrich if he goes for broke and hate-runs against Romney until the Republican convention.

Looking at Adelson's past, it's clear that he's not reluctant to put his money where his beliefs are, even if those bets may not pay off. Adelson made his name (and fortune) with his "take-no-prisoners ambition," as Peter Stone wrote in a 2008 Mother Jones profile. At the time, Adelson was a major backer of Freedom's Watch, a would-be conservative MoveOn.org, which envisioned a "never-ending campaign" to keep the White House and maintain a Republican majority in Washington, DC.

In spite of Adelson's contributions, Freedom's Watch never really took off. As MoJo's Laura Rozen later reported, some of the group's supporters blamed Adelson himself:

"He is both meddlesome and attached to his own agenda," says a conservative think tanker. "And he is not listening to people who are giving him good political and strategic advice…Everyone I know comes away very frustrated from their experience" with Freedom's Watch.

The son of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants, Adelson is also a vigorous supporter of conservative Israeli causes and politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As Adam Serwer explains, "Adelson's donation to Gingrich likely has something to do with their shared anti-Palestinian views, namely the notion that Palestinian national identity is 'invented.'"

If Gingrich gets trounced in Nevada, will the gambling tycoon hold 'em or fold 'em? Or will he raise? With an estimated net worth of $21.5 billion, as Time's Michael Crowley has pointed out, Adelson can afford to spend at least another 0.0465% of his total fortune on this race.

Komen Isn't the Only Do-Gooder Group Conservatives Targeted for Planned Parenthood Ties

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 12:12 PM PST

When Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced on Tuesday that it would end funding for Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion activists, who had complained about Komen's ties to Planned Parenthood for years, were delighted. Tony Perkins, the president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, applauded tha anti-cancer group for "putting women's health first rather than fund the nation's largest abortion provider." Unfortunately for Planned Parenthood's foes, Komen's move led to a national outcry, and on Friday, Komen began to walk back its decision to cut off funds.

But Komen isn't the only apparently apolitical organization experiencing pressure to break ties to Planned Parenthood. While reporting Thursday's story on the right-wing boycott of Girl Scout cookies because of a Colorado council that allowed a transgender seven-year-old to join a troop, I learned that conservatives' biggest complaint with the Girl Scouts is the organization's ties to Planned Parenthood. Sure, inclusion of a transgender girl has some people up in arms. But the Girl Scouts' supposed association with what Cathy Ruse, a blogger for the Family Research Council, described to me as "the biggest abortion business in the US" is the religious right's main beef with the 100-year-old girls' leadership organization.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Friday Cat Blogging - 3 February 2012

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 12:03 PM PST

Normally, drinking out of human glasses is Not Allowed. But last night I mentioned that I still needed photos for Friday Catblogging, so this morning An Exception Was Made as Marian urged me to get my camera and come record the moment. So I did. The camera captured some excellent tongue action from Domino, who is, I'm sure, obeying the universal law of cat lapping:

That comes to 3.43 laps per second for a an 11-pound (5-kilogram) cat. Inkblot, who has a more mathematical bent, keeps his weight at precisely 18.12572 pounds, thus clocking in at a more leisurely 3.14159 laps per second. And that, my friends, is science.

I'm Getting Jobs Report Fatigue

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 11:35 AM PST

One of the things that's been niggling away at the back of mind lately is the (seemingly) increasing sameness of the blogs I read. More and more, as I plow through them in the morning, they're all filled with posts on the exact same four or five topics. I used to call them the "outrages of the day," though of course they're not all outrages. Some of them are just the ordinary news of the day.

This popped into my mind in a slightly different context today as I made my way through my RSS feeds and found post after post after post about the January jobs report. Some feeds had two or three or even four or five separate posts on the subject. It's gotten crazy.

Back in the day, blogs posted a bit here and there about monthly economic news, and of course specialty pubs like the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal would dive a little deeper into them and provide a bit of commentary and reaction. No longer. Now, the various reports are greeted every month by an enormous hail of blog posts diving ever deeper and deeper into the details behind the headline numbers. I wonder if it's time to ease up on this.

I appreciate detail as much as the next guy — more than the next guy, actually — but you know what? It's a jobs report for one month. There's only so much it can tell you. Diving deeply into it is sort of like trying to squeeze more significant digits out of a result than went into the inputs. You're just kidding yourself if you think this level of detail on a single month's data is really telling us anything.

Apologies if this seems Andy Rooney-ish. But seriously folks. I know it's an election year, but it's still only one month of jobs data. Give it the attention it deserves, but no more.

Komen's Position on Stem Cells Remains Unclear

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 10:13 AM PST
microscope

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has hedged its decision to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings after that move kicked off a good deal of outrage. But it's still not clear where the group stands on embryonic stem cell research, another subject that has made Komen a target of anti-abortion groups.

Anti-abortion groups have been pressuring Komen to stop providing millions in support to research institutions like Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the U.S. National Cancer Institute because those organizations also conduct research using embryonic stem cells.

As we reported yesterday, news outlets affiliated with the anti-abortion rights movement have been touting a recent press release from Komen that insists that it is not funding embryonic stem cell research and does not support any cancer research that involves "destroying a human embryo."

A reader managed to find a copy of the Nov. 30 press release, which has since disappeared from Komen's website. I've posted that document here, and it definitely seems to suggest that Komen now opposes embryonic stem cell research. That wasn't the case a few years ago, when this Komen newsletter touted the potential benefits of using embryonic stem cells:

Embryonic stem cells (derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro and then donated for research purposes) have the potential to give rise to many different types of tissue. Because of this, embryonic stem cells are currently considered to have the most potential for use in the regeneration of diseased or injured tissues. Another potential role is providing a better understanding of cancer development.

The National Cancer Institute notes that "embryonic stem cells hold far more potential than adult cells" when it comes to research, because embryonic cells "can change into more tissue types and replicate indefinitely, two properties not generally shown with adult cells."

I've asked Komen to comment on whether they have formally changed their position on this type of research, but have not received a response. Although many are heralding Komen's semi-cave on Planned Parenthood, the group's current position is on stem cell research is still a mystery, and one that needs to be resolved—particularly since research on "a cure" is central to Komen's mission.

Mitt Romney's Terrible Economic Dilemma

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 9:29 AM PST

Greg Sargent points us to Mitt Romney's latest statement on the economy:

We welcome the fact that jobs were created and unemployment declined. Unfortunately, these numbers cannot hide the fact that President Obama’s policies have prevented a true economic recovery. We can do better. Last week, we learned that the economy grew only 1.7% in 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. As a result.....blah blah blah.

Alas, poor Mitt. Now he knows what it feels like to be Barack Obama. For the past two years Obama has basically been forced to say that, sure, the economy is bad, but it would have been even worse without his policies in place. That might be true or it might not, but it's sure not a vote getter.

Now Romney's on the other end of that argument. Sure, the economy is getting better, but it would be even better still without Obama's policies. Again, maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but no one cares. If the economy is getting better, then people are happy and they're going to vote for the guy in the White House. Romney had better figure out something better than that if he wants to have any chance of victory in November.