How many ways can we say NO?

The Keystone XL pipeline has been in the news again. Last week, a judge overturned a law that allowed Governor Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline route through Nebraska.

The decision was a victory for environmentalists concerned about potential devastation to water supplies and land if the pipeline leaks. Existing northern Keystone XL pipeline has already suffered leaks.

And coincidentally, last week another Canadian pipeline sprang a leak. According to Ned Resnikoff’s story for msnbc, “A leak in one of the pump stations along Enbridge Energy’s Line 67 pipeline caused about 125 barrels to spray across a rural area of Saskatchewan, Canada, the company reported on Saturday.” As the story points out, both the Enbridge and Keystone pipelines are being evaluated for expansion.

In addition, last week I came across the story of Alain Labrecque and his family. A logging contractor working with oil companies on tar sand extraction, Labrecque and his family were forced to abandon their 160-farm in Alberta after the entire family developed serious health issues.

Their farm was near Baytex Energy, which was releasing unregulated emissions the family says caused their headaches, popping ears, growths and other symptoms. According to the Salon story, the company “was willing to help them get out — so long as they stayed quiet: ‘You are just a small, little bolt in this huge robot, and you don’t matter,’ their doctor told them, according to court documents. ‘Move.’”

The product of Baytex’s process is what Keystone XL pipeline will be transporting across our aquifer and agricultural lands. Do we really want to risk our water supply? As the original impact study for Keystone XL noted: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.” We can see the consequences of a tainted water supply in the reports about the January Elk River spill near Charleston, W.V.

And in November 2013, the non-profit group Public Citizen issued a report on Keystone XL’s southern pipeline titled: “TransCanada’s Keystone XL Southern Segment: Construction Problems Raise Questions About the Integrity of the Pipeline.” The report documented numerous incidents of damaged pipe, shoddy construction and repair, and destruction to agricultural property. It concluded: “This raises the specter of history repeating itself, with toxic crude leaking or even gushing from damaged pipe. Given the stakes – the looming potential for a catastrophic spill of a hazardous crude along a pipeline that traverses hundreds of streams and rivers, and that comes within just one or two miles of some towns and cities – it would be irresponsible for the federal government to allow tar sands crude to start flowing through the southern leg without ordering a complete hydrostatic retesting of the line and a thorough quality assurance review.”

We can’t let ourselves be swayed by public relations messages that promise jobs and cheap gas, both of which have been refuted. A state department study ball parked the final count of permanent jobs from the pipeline at 35. And the pipeline’s purpose is cheap transport of oil to Houston, where it will be shipped to foreign markets.

In an agricultural region with a growing renewable energy industry, we should be ready to say NO to big oil.

Why shouldn’t work provide the dignity of a living wage?

As I was flipping through TV channels after church on Super Bowl Sunday, I happened to pause long enough to hear the lead story on PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. It was a brief overview of religious groups’ reactions to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, noting mixed responses, especially to his call to raise the minimum wage.

“But others, including religious conservatives, argued this would hurt businesses and lead to more unemployment,” the announcer said. Disgusted, I flipped the channel.

“Since when,” I wondered aloud, “did Judeo-Christian traditions mandate care of business? The charge is to care for people.”

Make no mistake -- this as a moral issue. If people work, and in today’s economy some are working two or three jobs, they should earn enough to supply their basic needs. In other words, they should earn a living wage.

Instead, more Americans have become victims of our Wall Street economy that measures success via the annual financial statement’s profits and shareholder dividends. Long hours, benefit cuts and wage freezes have become accepted means to increase corporate profits. Workers are simply resources to be exploited.

As David Cooper reports for the Economic Policy Institute in “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Millions out of Poverty and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,” “It is important to also recognize that today’s minimum wage has not fallen to exceptional lows out of economic necessity. Over the past 45 years, the U.S. economy has vastly expanded, and productivity (our ability to produce goods and services for the same amount of work) has more than doubled.”

He also debunks the belief low wage jobs are held by teenagers with no need for an income. He writes: “This is patently false: The workers who would be affected by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 earn, on average, 50 percent of their family’s total income.”

In an article on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, Jared Bernstein and Sharon Parrot of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reinforce these findings: “ . . . the vast majority of those who would benefit are adults, most are women, and their families depend on their paychecks . . . . This reflects the fact that the low-wage workforce has gotten older and more highly educated in recent decades . . .”

In fact, as Jim Hightower notes in an article about college teachers last week, “The sorry secret of higher education -- from community colleges to brand-name universities -- is that they've embraced the corporate culture of a contingent workforce, turning professors into part-time, low-paid, no-benefit, no-tenure, temporary teachers.”

The real reason for low wages and temporary jobs is to exponentially increase profit for a few, not add value to products and services. If Americans truly value the dignity of work, we will demand all workers are paid fairly for their labor.

Can the House move beyond horsefeathers?

Last weekend, my husband mentioned the cold weather was making him hungry for duck soup, something we’ve been anticipating since we carved up a duck for Christmas dinner.

“Now why does that always make me think of the Marx brothers?” I asked.

“You know they made a movie with that title,” he said. “It includes the song ‘Whatever it is, I’m Against It.’”

I shook my head, noting I could remember seeing Groucho perform the number he described. “Are you sure it was in Duck Soup?”

Sure enough, after searching online, he found the song in the 1932 movie “Horse Feathers.” Groucho Marx plays Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the new president of Huxley College. In the opening number, Wagstaff and other college professors sing and dance in full academic robes and mortarboards:

I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it. . .

As my husband played the clip for me, we heard our 13-year-old daughter stirring in the next room. “What is that?” she asked. “It sounds just like the Republicans!”

She’d read my mind.

For the last five years, I’ve been continually amazed at the recalcitrance of congressional conservatives, and House Republicans more specifically. No matter the proposal, if it is supported by President Obama, they oppose it. Even policies based upon conservative blueprints, like the Affordable Care Act which was originally conceived by The Heritage Foundation, have been vigorously attacked.

Last June, when Edward Snowden leaked information about the activities of the National Security Agency, conservatives blasted the administration for potential violations of citizens’ civil liberties. Yet after 9-11, they enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act in the name of national security, arguing some loss of liberty was necessary. Also last summer, after the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill, conservatives in the House refused to take up the bill.

In October, this same group felt it was more important to oppose President Obama than to negotiate and compromise their way to a working budget for our government. Before Christmas, they decided that their absolute (and irrational) loyalty to austerity was more important than extending unemployment benefits for workers seeking jobs and funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program to feed the needy, including many elderly, disabled people and children.

Elected to govern, these folks have decided to stand in the corner and pout instead of conducting themselves with statesmanship and working across differences to develop working policies.

Time to vote them out. I took the first step last Tuesday when I attended my party caucus, wearing my “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport” T-shirt.

You know what? Governing isn’t a spectator sport either. I want my representation in there talking to the opposition and looking for common ground and workable solutions for the common good. Enough with the horsefeathers.

Gossip much?

My parents weren’t much for gossip or rumors. Mom and Dad might listen to the latest neighborhood news, but they didn’t put much stock in information that wasn’t “straight from the horse’s mouth.” And I don’t remember hearing them repeat anything they heard from others outside our home. I used to think most people were raised that way.

But I’m beginning to wonder because too many good people I know don’t seem to understand they are spreading rumors when they forward chain e-mails or share infographics on Facebook and other electronic media.

Let me give you an example. Thanks to the current national debate on gun control, handy-dandy electronic posters and photos with stories are making the rounds. One that caught my eye used different photos of a young woman paired with a long caption that included the statement of Darrell Scott, father of a Columbine School shooting victim, to a congressional panel.

Although Mr. Scott’s statement is reproduced accurately, the background information and conclusion attached to his words have been altered to politicize his testimony. I easily discovered the inaccuracies and hyperbole via a quick search at www.snopes.com.

Unfortunately, instead of taking a couple of minutes to ferret out the truth, most folks simply hit “Share,” spreading this Internet gossip. Given the power of the father’s words, I think the media manipulators who altered the story have done him a disservice – because the false context overshadows and hijacks his message.

But that’s the point. Public relations/communication companies and political organizations hire people to create and distribute these messages. Through careful word choices, image selection, color, animation and other tactics, they craft these messages to manipulate you.

The goal is to push your emotional buttons so you react strongly without thinking. So not for the last time, I’m going to recommend if you’re not willing to verify the story, don’t pass it on. Because if you do, you are advancing someone else’s agenda – one that may be hidden and malicious. Otherwise, why hide it? Why circulate information anonymously?

I asked that about the last chain e-mail that landed in my inbox. It was a list of symbolic meanings for each of the 13 folds in a ceremonial presentation flag.

After checking it on Snopes and determining most of the e-mail’s contents were harmless (the exception was a rhetorical jab at separation of church and state), I nearly let it go. But then I scrolled to the end to see flashing stripes and rolling stars; the cheap electronic equivalent of a patriotic car magnet. It was just too much for me, so I hit Reply All and sent the Snopes link with a short note.

As one of my Facebook friends noted recently, there are simple ways to verify these items. And he warned if his friends won’t check them, he will do it publicly. Then he signed his post “The Debunking Ba****d.” I swiftly agreed.

So if I’m on one of your e-mail lists or you’ve friended me on Facebook, consider yourself warned.

Has lack of participation driven us to the brink?

We live in a society based on participation. Democracy, the form of government our founders chose, requires citizens’ participation for the common good. Yet at every level today, citizens choose to drop out. They may complain, but they refuse to participate.

I see it locally. Churches, civic groups and political parties struggle to find people willing to attend meetings and take part. I see it nationally with the decline in voting and in unions.

Folks, this is by design.

Our lack of participation has allowed a small group of ultra wealthy and connected individuals to work us to the bone for less and less. The more productive we become, the less they pay and the more hours they demand. Meanwhile, our civic institutions are weakened as these same individuals and their constituent organizations tilt the tax code to ensure they pay less and less to support our common infrastructure.

So instead of standing up, yelling and pushing back, we’ve all retreated to our living rooms to watch American Idol or Survivor. We’ve ceased to read about the policies they’ve pushed through not only Congress, but our statehouses. Instead, we keep track of politicians’ selfies and follow celebrity news.

These power brokers work secretively, but via the efforts of a tiny band of persistent scholars and investigative journalists, we are learning about their efforts.

First, the Center for Media and Democracy was blessed with a document dump about the efforts of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This organization was formed in 1973 by corporate conservative activist Paul Weyrich; they’ve had 40 years to build a network and institute their initiatives.

The State Policy Network is a related organization, also now under the microscope thanks to the Center for Media and Democracy’s stinktanks.org web site. This group works to publish the phony research of fake think tanks; of course, said research supports corporate initiatives and is camouflaged to fool gullible pundits and media outlets.

And speaking of the media, most corporate media in the U.S. (network and cable radio and TV stations and large metropolitan papers) are owned by a handful of corporations. It is the owners who shape the perspective and tone of news reports, and they make sure it protects their interests. News consumers must remember that – always.

Organizations like Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) monitor news reports continuously to highlight the most egregious instances of bias and untruth. And if you enjoy satire, John Stewart’s Daily Show, Stephen Colbert’s Colbert Report, and The Onion also catch many of the media’s worst cases of misinformation.

But again, citizens must participate in the process. It’s a simple thing. Pick a group and attend a meeting. Be willing to help with an event. Talk to someone new, and listen to them, too. Engage.

This is how the 99% will take back their country – by barreling through the divisions these secretive special interests have erected between us. When we stop accepting just what they give us and demand better, everything will change. When we stand up for the interests of people instead of shilling for corporate interests by parroting anti-union, anti-worker, anti-tax rhetoric, our representatives will start changing their votes. When we inform ourselves based on facts instead of reacting in anger at swirling internet rumors, they’ll begin to lose their power.

Americans have done this before; we can do it again -- if we are willing to participate.

Will we let job seekers be scrooged?

Last Wednesday, word came from Washington that the Congressional committee negotiating a federal budget had reached a deal, thus avoiding another government shutdown. Hallelujah!

Like most compromises, this deal makes no one happy. Radical right conservatives were unhappy the sequester and deficit reduction were scaled back. Progressives, myself included, were unhappy it raises no new revenue.

But perhaps most distressing was the fact unemployment benefits were not extended for the long term unemployed. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

This disregard for the poor and jobless was the subject of Charles Blow’s Thursday column for The New York Times, in which he reports: “Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said Sunday on Fox News: ‘I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers.’”

As Blow notes this attitude about job seekers illustrates the divide between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe individuals must go it alone with little government support, while liberals believe government intervention helps advance the whole society. So conservatives often claim unemployment benefits are a disincentive to work.

Blow writes about his own experience among the poor and notes this conservative attitude indicates not only a lack of experience with poverty, but a lack of empathy. “Most people want to work. But sometimes, bad luck comes calling. Sometimes you have a job, but you lose it. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, a new one proves elusive. “And following the Great Recession, that is a particular problem.”

Coincidentally, an article on ThinkProgress the same morning highlighted it. Bryce Covert reported on a new study showing growth in the number of low wage jobs, while high wage jobs continue to decline. He writes: “The report also notes that there is a huge number of people vying for the jobs that pay better. It calculates that there were seven job seekers for every projected job opening that paid above $15 an hour in 2012 and 17.9 million more job hunters than higher wage jobs.”

His article further notes the movement among states and municipalities to raise their minimum wages and for low wage workers to organize. Yet current political dialogue portrays the workers behind these efforts as lazy and unworthy. Case in point: a Facebook post by Sarah Palin “Liked” by a friend last weekend. This infographic showed combat soldiers with the text: “We get paid less than minimum wage and you’re demanding 15 bucks an hour to slap a burger on a bun.” Way to distract from real issues, Sarah.

As my husband asked, how many soldiers left a job flipping burgers to join the military in hopes of a better career? And why shouldn’t they all earn a living wage? Is it working that’s important, or are only certain jobs worth a living wage?

I was disappointed my friend fell for Palin’s distraction, especially given her own family’s recent employment experiences. But like Senator Paul, too many of us separate ourselves from the poor and jobless and simply choose to blame them for their situation. It’s easier than working to fix the system. So now who’s lazy?

Until Congress can develop policies that create jobs, it must ensure job seekers can eat and pay the rent. And that means we the people have to make them do it by demanding they extend unemployment.

Do we understand what gratitude requires?

Just over a year ago, I was writing about The Hunger Games and how this futuristic morality tale reflects our own cruel and unequal society. At the time, presidential candidate Mitt Romney had just written off 47 percent of Americans, labeling them as lazy and irresponsible.

This November, the second part of the Hunger Games movie trilogy, Catching Fire, was released in theatres. The release coincides with Congress’ last-ditch debate over the Farm Bill and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So this fall I am seeing other writers draw the comparison between America and the Hunger Games.

As the editors of The Miami Herald noted in a piece titled “Hey Congress, hunger’s not a game”: “That the program [SNAP] has been an unmitigated success is irrefutable — if ensuring that Americans don’t go hungry in this land of plenty is one’s mission. That it has been a cesspool of waste, fraud and abuse, as lawmakers who want to make brutal and inhumane budget cuts contend, is simply not true. It’s a ruse, an excuse to throw poor people under the bus.”

I find it ironic we are still battling over SNAP funding during a season supposed to be focused on gratitude and generosity. And I am disappointed we cannot see past petty, divisive and judgmental, not to mention false, arguments to push lawmakers to do the right thing.

This is urgent for people in every community, though we may not acknowledge it. As Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services wrote on Huffington Post: “On November 1, SNAP families began receiving fewer benefits each month due to an automatic benefit reduction. For many families, coping with this cut will be tough, particularly during the holidays. Fortunately, this is the time of the year in particular that food pantries and food banks are aided by generous Americans. But they cannot fairly be expected, and they are telling us that they cannot fully meet the need in their communities if SNAP is cut further.”

Concannon notes that many of these families include children, the elderly, disabled persons and working people. And he lays out all the ways – counter to the prevailing myths about SNAP administration and recipients – the program works. In fact, he notes that fraud in the program has been reduced over the last 15 years to about 1 percent.

But, I have to wonder about American society when we are willing to allow cuts to a program that feeds people in need, especially in a time of economic instability and high unemployment. And I am not alone.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne laid it out beautifully in this post titled, “On Thanksgiving, understanding what gratitude requires.” He writes: “A call to responsibility lies at the heart of gratitude. If faith without works is dead, gratitude without generosity of spirit is empty. By reminding us of how much we owe to others, or to social arrangements, or to fate, or to God, gratitude creates an obligation to repay our debts by repairing injustices and reaching out to those whom luck has failed. Gratitude is a response to acts of love. It demands more of the same — nothing more, nothing less.”

We should be demanding Congress act on a Food, Farms and Jobs bill to restore SNAP and focus on economic stability for all. True gratitude requires it.

Who’s manufacturing your news?

After weeks of battling media misinformation about the Affordable Care Act, I was hungry to write about something different this week. And thankfully, a different item popped up as my deadline loomed.

Two headlines screamed out to me on Thursday morning: “DOUBLE WOW!! www.StinkTanks.org PERFECTLY Exposes Koch Cabal $$ used in each US state” and “Corporate America’s New Scam: Industry P.R. Firm poses as Think Tank!” In other words, corporate interests use think tanks to lobby our representatives, and said think tanks make stuff up.

The first article, a Daily Kos post by War on Error, highlighted the latest project by the Center for Media and Democracy to uncover corporate manipulation of our government via media and think tanks. This new web site, stinktanks.org, allows citizens to track the influence of the State Policy Network, a Koch Brothers organization, currently targeting statehouses to advance corporate interests.

As War on Error writes, “While SPN members call themselves ‘think tanks,’ they rarely act as such. SPN groups often engage in extensive lobbying activities, even though nonprofits are limited in the amount of lobbying activity they may participate in by the IRS. SPN ‘think tanks’ release ‘research’ and policy reports, and there are numerous instances of SPN think tanks being accused of skewing facts and using faulty research to reach their policy goals. Many SPN think tanks also collaborate with the right-wing Franklin Center to launch agenda-driven ‘news’ outlets, hawking right-wing talking points from behind a mask of journalism.”

The second article outlined events surrounding the release of a study finding that low wages paid to fast food restaurant workers cost American taxpayers $7 billion in social supports annually. The study authors argued that raising these workers’ wages would unburden taxpayers of subsidizing super-sized corporate restaurant profits.

Shortly thereafter, media began reporting conflicting research results from an entity called the Employment Policies Institute. As article author Lisa Graves noted, “In fact, the Employment Policies Institute operates from the same office suite as Berman and Co., a public relations firm owned by Richard Berman. This is not an opinion; it’s a fact anyone can verify by viewing EPI and Berman and Co.’s websites. In such a depressed media environment — where there are four public relations flacks for every reporter, compared to a 1-to-1 ratio in the 1960s – it is not surprising that a P.R. company could successfully rebrand itself as a think tank and capitalize on an acronym held by an actual think tank, the Economic Policy Institute, with 20 staff and 36 respected research associates.”

This is why I always ask who is paying for your news. Who owns your favorite cable or network TV or radio station? Who owns your daily newspaper and magazines? Who owns and operates the web sites you visit? Are they for profit? Are they funded by advertising or donations?

And if owners and key decision makers are not transparent about these things, instead operating in secret, they are probably trying to manipulate you to act for their benefit, not yours.

Which, darn it all, gets me back to Obamacare. Are we going to accept the sketchy reports from media and politicians rooting for its failure, or are we going to fight for the help we need?