
Support VoteVets.org
Re: Think Progress » Saudi-Funded Fox News Rejects Ad Arguing Against Middle East Oil Dependence
Last week, progressive veterans organization VoteVets.org released an ad arguing that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” The ad asserts that “every day, Iran gets $100 million richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate.”
While CNN and MSNBC have aired the ad, Fox News is refusing to do so. Politico reports Fox apparently found the ad “too confusing.”
Watch the ad:
What I find remarkable about this ad is that the folks at VoteVets.org have found the ultimate sanction against Iran that simultaneously helps fix the environment. Think about it. When we divert research and development funds away from big oil and to renewable forms of energy we can defund the Saudis, Iraq, Dubai, and Iran and all the other oil producing nations that support terrorism, in one form or another. Remember that almost all the 9/11 skyjackers were Saudi, not Iraqi. We can do that while cleaning our waterways, lessening the impact of offshore oil drilling, and setting up a beautiful future for our kids and grandkids.
But you can bet that if something clever and good for the working man comes along Fox News will refuse it. It will come to pass that the oil companies go the way of the horse and buggy. It is just a matter of time. There is only so much oil to be had and after they wring out every drop of it out of the earth, then what? SO, why not jump on the bandwagon and herald in a new age before that crisis hits?
In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, says “the only confusing thing” is why Fox is rejecting the ad:
“There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.”
It’s unclear what Fox News’ motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News’ parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently.
It is always very clear as to what Fox News’ motivations are. They probably coordinate with the GOP before they air any kind of ad, especially one that advocates clean air. They will misinform the public through omission. It’s like I’ve always said – the more you watch Fox News, the more misinformed you become.
___________________________________________________________________


The Looming Redistricting Debacle and How to Stop It
Re: The Republican Decade? | Mother Jones
Gerrymander is defined by Miriam Webster as an attempt (1) to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible, and (2) to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group.
Justification for dividing these territorial units has historically been the US Census, the latest one being completed this year. But a census is not strictly required to redistrict. More on this later.
The scariest results of the mid-term elections was the number of State Houses that flipped from blue to red. The how’s and why’s of the takeovers of state legislatures are still being hammered out between all the self-appointed experts and pundits out there. From ABC News:
If you are worried that the GOP will try something in your state, you should pause and examine your state’s laws concerning redistricting as some states (mostly blue) have an impartial committee or panel convened to draw up the new state legislative, and congressional districts. But in most states, the reigning political party has awesome influence over the redistricting process. This whole issue is moot if the congressional lines are drawn fairly. (Fair means different things to different people. What I mean is that the new districts have demographic data from the census to justify the new lines drawn.) Some states, like Texas for example, can’t be trusted to do a fair job of it, so their redistricting plans have to be approved by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Texas is famous for gerrymandering, defined earlier. The most recent and one of the most dramatic cases of gerrymandering, without a recent census to back up the plan I might add, happened in 2003 and involved then Congressman Tom Delay, the House Majority Leader at that time. It seems that Delay wanted more House seats for Republicans, so he went back to Texas and personally lobbied for districts that favored Republicans. From Wikipedia:
The Delay plan focused on diluting the Hispanic vote, especially in their 23rd district which takes up most of western Texas.
What happened after the GOP accepted Delay’s map is the point of the story. In Texas, as in most legislatures, for any business to be accomplished in the state house, a quorum has to be formed on the floor to even bring a piece of legislation there. The Texas Democrats, yelling foul, decided that if there were no quorum, then there could be no vote on the measure(s) in time for the deadline.
Feeling screwed, 50 Texas Democrats secretly fled the state to Ardmore Oklahoma just before the vote. That slick maneuver ended debate on redistricting. The Democrats ultimately appealed the gerrymandered plan that was approved by Bush’s Justice Department saying that there can’t be a real redistricting without a census.
To make a long story short, the US Supreme Court ruled in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, June 28, 2006, that a state could redistrict whenever it wanted to, but they went on the say that the plan for District 23 really did weaken Latino voting and had to be changed and put right in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
So there is your answer. If your Democratic delegation to the state house feels screwed when they take up the issue of redistricting, they could simply leave. Haul ass. Get on the bus, Gus. Florida looks good any time of the year. Why not? Republicans pull shicanery like this all the time. Why not turn the table on them?