May 16, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-sends-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate-case-back-to-lower-courts/

Supreme Court sends Obamacare contraceptive mandate case back to lower courts
CBS/AP
May 16, 2016, 10:57 AM

Photograph -- Sister Loraine McGuire with Little Sisters of the Poor speaks to the media after Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal brought by Christian groups demanding full exemption from the requirement to provide insurance covering contraception under the Affordable Care Act, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2016. JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS


The Supreme Court on Monday ducked issuing a major ruling on a challenge by Christian nonprofit employers to an Obamacare mandate, sending the case back to the lower courts.

The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion in a case surrounding the arrangement by the Obama administration to spare religious groups from having to pay for birth control for women covered under their health plans if they object, while ensuring that women covered under their plans can still obtain birth control.

The decision by the justices said that the parties involved should agree on an approach that accommodates religious exercise while at the same time ensure that women covered by health plans "receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage."

The outcome on Monday suggests the court lacked a majority for a significant ruling and is perhaps another example of how the court has been affected by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The justices did not rule on the merits of whether that accommodation violated employers' religious rights.

Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the birth control requirement. Other faith-affiliated groups that oppose some or all contraception have to tell the government or their insurers that they object.

The groups argued that the administration already has carved out exemptions and encourages people who can't get contraceptives through their employers to use the health care exchanges that were created by the health care law and serve millions of people.

The administration contended that tens of thousands of women would be disadvantaged by a ruling for the groups.


“The Supreme Court on Monday ducked issuing a major ruling on a challenge by Christian nonprofit employers to an Obamacare mandate, sending the case back to the lower courts. The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion in a case surrounding the arrangement by the Obama administration to spare religious groups from having to pay for birth control for women covered under their health plans if they object, while ensuring that women covered under their plans can still obtain birth control. The decision by the justices said that the parties involved should agree on an approach that accommodates religious exercise while at the same time ensure that women covered by health plans "receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage." …. Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the birth control requirement. Other faith-affiliated groups that oppose some or all contraception have to tell the government or their insurers that they object. The groups argued that the administration already has carved out exemptions and encourages people who can't get contraceptives through their employers to use the health care exchanges that were created by the health care law and serve millions of people.”


Denial of service on religious grounds is alive and well. Interestingly no other religion besides Christianity has even made an attempt to make laws that essentially allow them to go one step further on the ladder of government control. Freedom of religion means freedom to believe their doctrines, but not the freedom to try to enforce them on the society at large. They know that very well. It was no accident that Popes Benedict and Pius XII had verified Nazi membership in the case of Benedict; and suspected Nazi leanings on the part of Pius for his failure to speak out against them for genocide during the Holocaust.

The fact is that RELIGIONS are very often right-leaning, at least in their strictest groups, and often do try to control situations according to their own beliefs. I don’t think Catholics are any worse about that than Protestants. There are radicals among the followers of very conservative religious thinkers of all kinds,and also in politics. There is in this case as well as others that one of their religious goals is to set up their doctrines in the political arena. I’ve mentioned the Dominionists before, and they are participants in this Tea Party power grab as well. A very large number of eighteenth and early nineteenth century settlers in the US came to escape religious restrictions at home, and it is directly against our American ethos to allow those things to take a foothold now and erode our Constitutional democracy.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-fight-against-chinese-espionage-ensnares-innocent-americans/

U.S. fight against Chinese espionage ensnares innocent Americans
American Xiaoxing Xi, chair of Temple University physics department, was wrongly accused of sending American technology to China and worries about his career
60 Minutes
May 13, 2016

Photograph -- xi1062939640x360.jpg, Xiaoxing Xi CBS NEWS


The U.S. Justice Department bungled the economic espionage case against Xiaoxing Xi. It investigated him for contact with Chinese scientists that was required by his U.S. funded research grants. Now cleared, Xi, a naturalized citizen of the U.S., fears the false accusations may have lingering repercussions on his promising career. Xi appears in his first television interview in a Bill Whitaker story about Chinese-American citizens wrongly accused of economic espionage-related crimes for China. Whitaker's report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, May 15 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Last May, Xi was arrested at his home in a raid by armed FBI agents wearing bullet-proof vests. At first he thought it was a mistake. Soon he learned otherwise. "I was saying to myself, they're going to put me in jail, and all of these things that I've been working for years was coming to an end," he tells Whitaker.

The government accused Xi of providing Chinese scientists with a piece of proprietary American technology used for superconductor research. It turned out Xi was collaborating with the Chinese scientists on a completely different device that he was developing himself. It wasn't proprietary and it had no economic value. Still, it took four months and $200,000 in legal fees before his lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, could make the government recognize its mistake. Xi is back at Temple, but he will no longer chair the physics department. The Justice Department has not apologized. "I didn't do anything wrong but my family and myself had to go through this. I think we deserve some kind of apology," he says. "And, you know, it's not over, right? The scars from this traumatic experience is so deep that it's going to be with us for the rest of our life."

Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor, blames government alarm about a legitimate problem. Chinese economic espionage costs the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. "I think prosecutors are feeling pressure to bring these cases. I think investigators are excited about bringing cases that may be high profile," he says.

Zeidenberg also represents Sherry Chen, a naturalized American citizen and former National Weather Service hydrologist who was suspected of passing government data on U.S. infrastructure to China. As in Xi's case, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Chen. But she was fired from her job. In her first television interview, Chen tells Whitaker, "I'm a dedicated worker. I didn't do anything wrong. And I love my job."

The Justice Department would not be interviewed on camera but gave 60 Minutes this statement: "We investigate and prosecute individuals based on known or suspected criminal activities or threats to national security, not based on race, ethnicity or national origin."



“The U.S. Justice Department bungled the economic espionage case against Xiaoxing Xi. It investigated him for contact with Chinese scientists that was required by his U.S. funded research grants. Now cleared, Xi, a naturalized citizen of the U.S., fears the false accusations may have lingering repercussions on his promising career. Xi appears in his first television interview in a Bill Whitaker story about Chinese-American citizens wrongly accused of economic espionage-related crimes for China. Whitaker's report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, May 15 at 7 p.m. ET/PT. …. It turned out Xi was collaborating with the Chinese scientists on a completely different device that he was developing himself. It wasn't proprietary and it had no economic value. Still, it took four months and $200,000 in legal fees before his lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, could make the government recognize its mistake. Xi is back at Temple, but he will no longer chair the physics department. The Justice Department has not apologized…. Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor, blames government alarm about a legitimate problem. Chinese economic espionage costs the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. "I think prosecutors are feeling pressure to bring these cases. I think investigators are excited about bringing cases that may be high profile," he says. …. As in Xi's case, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Chen. But she was fired from her job.”


There have been several news stories about specifically Chinese industrial and scientific espionage, so there is some basis for the FBI’s suspicion of these two. “… based on known or suspected criminal activities or threats to national security, not based on race, ethnicity or national origin." Whether or not it is based on ethnicity, etc., it happens and is harmful. Remember the case of Richard Jewel? He was severely damaged by the FBI’s overly aggressive and MISTAKEN focus on Jewel, and more despicably by the fact that they LEAKED (accidentally?) the story to the press. Luckily he did get a police job again subsequently. Justice finally was reached with hero status and apologies from Atty. General Reno, as his true honesty and astute reasoning for his actions and innocence were made known. “No good deed goes unpunished.” See Jewell’s story below.

See Wikipedia below –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Richard Jewell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named Richard Jewell, see Richard Jewell (disambiguation).

Richard Jewell
Jewellrichardcap.jpg
Born Richard White[1]
December 17, 1962
Danville, Georgia[1]
Died August 29, 2007 (aged 44)
Woodbury, Georgia
Other names Richard Allensworth Jewell
Occupation Police officer, security guard

Known for Discovered planted pipe bomb at Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia, United States and helped evacuate people from the area before the bomb exploded. He was later falsely accused of planting the bomb himself, but was exonerated by an FBI investigation.

Richard Allensworth Jewell (born Richard White;[1] December 17, 1962 – August 29, 2007) was an American police officer who, while working as a security guard for Piedmont College,[2] became known in connection with the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Discovering a backpack filled with three pipe bombs on the park grounds, Jewell alerted police and helped to evacuate the area before the bomb exploded, saving many people from injury or death. Initially hailed by the media as a hero, Jewell was later considered a suspect. Jewell's case is considered an example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information.[3]

Despite never being charged, he underwent a "trial by media" with great toll on his personal and professional life. Jewell was eventually completely exonerated, and Eric Rudolph was later found to have been the bomber.[4][5] In 2006, Governor Sonny Perdue publicly thanked Jewell on behalf of the State of Georgia for saving the lives of those at the Olympics.[6]

. . . . Libel cases[edit]

After his exoneration, Jewell filed a series of lawsuits against the media outlets which he claimed had libeled him, primarily NBC News and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and insisted on a formal apology from them. L. Lin Wood was the lead attorney in all of Jewell's libel cases.[2][3][10][11]

In 2006, Jewell said the lawsuits were not about money, and that the vast majority of the settlements went to lawyers or taxes. He said the lawsuits were about clearing his name.[3]

Aftermath[edit]

In July 1997, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, prompted by a reporter's question at her regular weekly news conference, expressed regret over the FBI's leak to the news media that led to the widespread presumption of his guilt, and apologized outright, saying, "I'm very sorry it happened. I think we owe him an apology. I regret the leak."[20]

Also in 1997, Jewell made public appearances in film and television. He appeared in Michael Moore's 1997 film, The Big One. He had a cameo in the September 27, 1997 episode of Saturday Night Live, in which he punched Will Ferrell (who was in character as Janet Reno), and jokingly fended off suggestions that he was responsible for the deaths of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana.

On July 4, 2001, Jewell was honored as the Grand Marshal of the Carmel, Indiana's Independence Day Parade. Jewell was chosen in keeping with the parade's theme of "Unsung Heroes."[21]

On April 13, 2005, Jewell was exonerated completely when Eric Rudolph pleaded guilty to carrying out the bombing attack at the Centennial Olympic Park, as well as three other attacks across the South. On August 1, 2006, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue honored Jewell for his rescue efforts during the attack.[22][23]

Jewell had worked in various law enforcement jobs, including as a police officer in Pendergrass, Georgia. He worked as a sheriff's deputy in Meriwether County, Georgia until his death. He also gave speeches at colleges.[3]

Jewell died August 29, 2007, at the age of 44. He was suffering from severe heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes.[6]

In 2014, Fox announced that they had secured the filming rights to Marie Brenner's 1997 Vanity Fair article "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell"[24][25] with Jonah Hill signed on to play Jewell and Leonardo DiCaprio set to play his attorney.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/navy-seal-instructor-removed-training-after-trainee-death-n574246

Navy SEAL Instructor Removed From Training After Sailor's Death
by KEN DILANIAN and MIKE HIXENBAUGH
NEWS MAY 14 2016, 9:43 PM ET

Read the Original NBC News Report About Seaman Lovelace

Photograph -- Seaman James Derek Lovelace, 21, died during basic underwater demolition/SEAL training, better known as BUD/S. U.S. Navy
Related: Read the Original NBC News Report About Three Trainee Deaths


This story is part of a reporting collaboration between NBC News and the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

A Navy SEAL instructor has been temporarily removed from training duties after a sailor died during a swimming exercise last week in California, a command spokesman said Saturday.

The announcement comes a day after a report by NBC News and the Virginian-Pilot newspaper raised questions about the circumstances leading to the sailor's death, contradicting the official narrative released earlier by the Navy.

Numerous sources told the newspaper that other SEAL students had witnessed an instructor hold Seaman James Derek Lovelace under water immediately prior to his death on May 6.

The incident happened during the first week of the infamously grueling Basic Underwater Demolition/SEALs training, or BUD/S, at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California.

The preliminary findings of an autopsy by the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office indicate Lovelace drowned, though the investigation of cause of death is ongoing. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating.

"While the investigation is ongoing, the instructor involved has been assigned duties apart from directly training students for the time being," Navy spokesman Lt. Trevor Davids said Saturday in a statement. "As the investigation progresses and details become clear, his Commanding Officer will reassess his status."

Davids was unable to say whether the instructor was removed immediately after the death or following the NBC News report.

The Navy confirmed Lovelace's death on Tuesday, four days after his death, only after NBC News and The Pilot asked about it. At that time, a spokesman said safety observers outside the pool noticed Lovelace "having difficulty" during a routine and not particularly high-intensity drill "and withdrew him from the exercise."

He was taken to a San Diego hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The Navy's initial account did not describe any role an instructor may have played in the moments leading up to Lovelace's death.

The instructor's temporary removal Saturday was first reported Saturday by the Washington Post, which identified the sailor as an enlisted petty officer first class who joined the Navy in 2008 and has served at SEAL units based in both San Diego and Virginia Beach. The instructor had deployed to Afghanistan at least twice, the Post reported.

According to more than a half-dozen sources who've spoken to The Pilot — none of whom are eyewitnesses, but who include two family members of SEAL students who were present during the incident and a former SEAL who's coaching a student through the same course — Lovelace had been held underwater before passing out.

Unlike what was initially described by the Navy, the sources say the drill involved physical harassment of trainees by instructors in the water, intended to test their ability to stay afloat under stress.

It wasn't a "drown proofing" drill, as was initially reported, but a more intense exercise known as "combat tread," according to three of the sources. During "combat tread," students swim in camouflage uniforms while instructors grab at them in the water.

Lovelace "was hands-on with the instructor," one source said. "The instructor kept physically and verbally harassing him."

Another wrote in an email: "The event was witnessed by multiple trainees and was captured on video."

Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for Naval Special Warfare Command, said in a statement Friday that Naval Special Warfare Command is "fully cooperating" with the NCIS investigation and a separate Navy safety investigation into the training death.

"It would be premature to discuss any details until those investigations are complete," Salata wrote, declining to specifically address the specifics of events leading up to the training death.

Lovelace joined the Navy in November, after walking away from a baseball scholarship to pursue his dream of becoming a Navy SEAL, family members said. His funeral was held Friday in Florida.



“The announcement comes a day after a report by NBC News and the Virginian-Pilot newspaper raised questions about the circumstances leading to the sailor's death, contradicting the official narrative released earlier by the Navy. …. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating. "While the investigation is ongoing, the instructor involved has been assigned duties apart from directly training students for the time being," Navy spokesman Lt. Trevor Davids said Saturday in a statement. …. The Navy's initial account did not describe any role an instructor may have played in the moments leading up to Lovelace's death. The instructor's temporary removal Saturday was first reported Saturday by the Washington Post …. It wasn't a "drown proofing" drill, as was initially reported, but a more intense exercise known as "combat tread," according to three of the sources. During "combat tread," students swim in camouflage uniforms while instructors grab at them in the water. Lovelace "was hands-on with the instructor," one source said. "The instructor kept physically and verbally harassing him." Another wrote in an email: "The event was witnessed by multiple trainees and was captured on video."


“Davids was unable to say whether the instructor was removed immediately after the death or following the NBC News report. The Navy confirmed Lovelace's death on Tuesday, four days after his death, only after NBC News and The Pilot asked about it. … "The instructor kept physically and verbally harassing him."

I have nothing against men such as the instructor in this case being “real men.” I just don’t want them to be criminals, and I really don’t want them to get away with their crimes. Thank goodness for our brave members of the Free Press in this case. The THREE similar incidents reported by the Post appear below. Two of them – one of which was a suicide -- are not as damning to SEAL operations as the Lovelace case is, in which the death was the direct result of abusive instructor behavior. It actually looks a lot like cold blooded murder. I wonder if there was 'bad blood" between the two men.

They do show a general neglect of the sailors’ mental health issues after they drop out of training, which very likely contributed to one of the young men’ apparent suicide. It reminds me of the news story about a woman in the Army who was raped by her superior. When she dared to report it she was demoted. I don’t know that the same thing happened in this case, though, but power structures do have some tendency to “protect” their positions by eliminating witnesses. I know, because I've read lots of murder mysteries, and people who buck the system can end up dead! See this related article.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-navy-seal-trainees-last-four-classes-died-n573146

Three Deaths Raise Questions About Navy SEAL Training Program
by KEN DILANIAN and MIKE HIXENBAUGH
NEWS MAY 12 2016, 3:45 PM ET


Daniel DelBianco had wanted to be a Navy SEAL since he was a young boy, and after months of punishing training, he was closing in on his goal. But in April, during a period of sleep deprivation known as "Hell Week," the 23-year-old former college rugby player couldn't take it anymore, and he "rang the bell" to signal he was quitting.

Seven hours later, he took an elevator to the top of a San Diego hotel and threw himself off the building, ending his life.

Seaman DelBianco is among three SEAL aspirants in the last four training classes who have died, raising questions among their family members about whether the Navy has been properly looking out for the young men who submit themselves to what is reputed to be among the world's most grueling training programs.

DelBianco's father, Steve DelBianco, said he hopes his son's death will lead the Navy to overhaul its approach to the young men who don't make it through training.

Daniel DelBianco played rugby for USC. Courtesy of DelBianco family
"We can't bring these men back," he said. "What matters now is whether these tragedies will transform how SEAL command handles young men at the very point when they've been broken, both physically and emotionally, especially after days of sleep deprivation.

At his son's memorial service, DelBianco said he asked Rear Adm. Brian Losey, the SEAL commander, to promise they would not let this happen again, "and the Admiral agreed. Losey is leaving, but his promise must be kept."

A Navy spokesman did not immediately answer what, if any, protocols the Navy has in place to ease the transition for trainees who wash out. In DelBianco's case, he was given no counseling or supervision and no medical or physical care, a family member said.

In a statement Thursday evening, Capt. Jay Hennessey, commanding officer of the Navy Special Warfare Center, said the SEAL community has a long history of helping sailors transition after dropping out of what is formally called Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, better known as BUD/S.

"Despite a successful track record, any loss of life drives us to ensure we are doing everything possible to make training safe and effective," Hennessey said. "In the wake of the recent suicide we have acknowledged opportunities to improve our process and recovery procedures for students who disenrolled --specifically improving accountability for sleep-deprived sailors."

NBC News first reported earlier this week that SEAL trainee Derek Lovelace died last week in Coronado, California, after passing out in a pool exercise. Seaman Lovelace was just at the beginning of what is a grueling six-month regimen, the details of which have not been fully disclosed to the public.

DelBianco hadn't made it much further. A third Navy man, Petty Officer 2nd Class Caplen Weare, 24, died in November in a motor vehicle accident, 60 hours after washing out of training, his mother told NBC News. Weare's blood alcohol content was just under twice the legal limit, according to the county coroner's report, and he wasn't wearing a seat belt.

You can reach Ken Dilanian at ken.dilanian@nbcuni.com

Julie Weare said her son's death was an accident, but she wishes the Navy had taken better care of him. People who wash out of SEALs training are still in the service, awaiting a transition to other jobs. They can also try again to complete the training, and some do.

"The Navy should have not just (have) left him to his own devices," Julie Weare told NBC News. "My husband did ask…why my son was alone."

The DelBianco and Weare deaths were first reported Thursday by the Washington Post.

The Navy SEALs are considered among America's most elite military units, and their role in several daring operations, including the 2011 raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, has further elevated that status. Their most high-profile missions have been turned into best-selling books and Hollywood blockbusters, inspiring a new generation of young recruits.

The path to becoming a SEAL is notoriously grueling; by the end of each course, four out of five trainees will have dropped out.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/samford-university-apologizes-over-sorority-s-t-shirt-racist-imagery-n574131

Samford University Apologizes Over Sorority's T-Shirt With Racist Imagery
by ELIZABETH CHUCK
NEWS MAY 14 2016, 3:09 PM ET

Related: University of Oklahoma Says Racist Song Was 'Formalized' By SAE
Photograph -- A shirt designed for the Alpha Delta Pi sorority at Samford University, includes imagery of an African-American man eating watermelon and a slave picking cotton. Alpha Delta Pi Sorority via Facebook


An Alabama university has issued an apology after one of its sororities printed T-shirts with racist connotations that "repulsed" the school's president.

The shirts were designed for the Alpha Delta Pi formal last month at Samford University in suburban Birmingham and depict a map of the state of Alabama containing several scenes — including a black man eating watermelon and a slave picking cotton. University officials said they rejected the design, but the shirts were produced anyway.

"Samford University apologizes for the offensive image that appeared on T-shirts," the school said in a statement Friday. "This is completely inconsistent with the university's mission and values. We are addressing the issue with our Alpha Delta Pi chapter and the international organization and with the vendor who produced the shirt."

The sorority also apologized, and the chapter president told NBC affiliate WVTM the sorority is "horrified" by the oversight.

"In selecting the T-shirt, we failed to focus on the specific images in the design," Lauren Hammond said. "Had we recognized what the design details depicted, we would never have purchased the shirts."

She added that once the mistake was realized, the sorority's members were asked not to wear the shirt anymore and that the clothing would be destroyed.

Stacy Bruton, international president of Alpha Delta Pi, added that the design "contradicts the values of respect and dignity that our organization prides itself on."

"We do not tolerate, and would never intentionally approve any design with racial stereotypes/overtones or any other offensive images or language. This situation highlights for all our chapters the importance of attention to detail," she said.

In an email to students and staff, Samford President Andrew Westmoreland said he was "repulsed" when he saw the shirt.

"Let me add this personal word to our employees and students of color, in the hope that you can know of my personal embarrassment. I was repulsed by the image. I lack the words to express my own sense of frustration," he wrote Friday.

Samford is a private university with an enrollment of just over 5,200 students, the majority classified as white. It's located in Homewood, a Birmingham suburb.



“The shirts were designed for the Alpha Delta Pi formal last month at Samford University in suburban Birmingham and depict a map of the state of Alabama containing several scenes — including a black man eating watermelon and a slave picking cotton. University officials said they rejected the design, but the shirts were produced anyway. …. We are addressing the issue with our Alpha Delta Pi chapter and the international organization and with the vendor who produced the shirt." The sorority also apologized, and the chapter president told NBC affiliate WVTM the sorority is "horrified" by the oversight. "In selecting the T-shirt, we failed to focus on the specific images in the design," Lauren Hammond said. "Had we recognized what the design details depicted, we would never have purchased the shirts." She added that once the mistake was realized, the sorority's members were asked not to wear the shirt anymore and that the clothing would be destroyed.” …. "Let me add this personal word to our employees and students of color, in the hope that you can know of my personal embarrassment. I was repulsed by the image. I lack the words to express my own sense of frustration," he wrote Friday.”


“Stacy Bruton, international president of Alpha Delta Pi, added that the design "contradicts the values of respect and dignity that our organization prides itself on.” Statements like these are so typical of organizations when they get caught in something disgraceful. We “failed to focus on the specifics of the design.” From the photograph, the depictions actually are pretty bad likenesses, but it is obvious that the figures are of black people mostly. One seems to be of a white woman lying out in the sun, though that one is unclear also.

I am glad to learn that the sorority didn’t design the art, but rather bought it as is and without realizing what the images represent. They are also apologizing profusely, which is a good thing. The University officials, however, have given the lie to the idea that the sorority was unaware of the depictions; saying that they did see the design and didn’t approve it, but the sorority bought it anyway. I wonder how much more there is to this story? The President’s apology to his campus workers and students of color has the ring of sincerity to me. I’ve never heard one in such a position apologizing to his workers. Too often workers are “invisible” to a leadership system. He did acknowledge their presence as campus and the fact that they would have to see kids walking around campus with the offensive shirts. The sorority issued orders that all shirts be confiscated and destroyed. This comes a year or less after two fraternities in the South got into trouble for a watermelon eating contest with racial overtones, black face as party dress, and a fight song with overtly racial lyrics. I love the South, but most of these things are happening down here. The North has always tended to have a higher standard of living and per capita income, with factories and other businesses to provide jobs; the population above the Mason Dixon Line also tends to be better educated and city dwellers with more events and activities going on. That is my excuse for the fact that too many people down here are overtly racist, which ends up coloring their activities in general. It’s sad.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-hasnt-nancy-pelosi-endorsed-hillary-clinton-yet/

Why hasn't Nancy Pelosi endorsed Hillary Clinton yet?
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
May 16, 2016, 11:10 AM

Related -- Clinton slams "frightening" policies of her "likely opponent"; Commentary: Yes, Donald Trump can beat Hillary Clinton


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is one of the few Democratic leaders in Congress that has not yet endorsed a candidate in the Democratic presidential race.

At her weekly press conference last Thursday, she said that she expects Hillary Clinton to win the general election in November, but she still has not issued an official endorsement.

"We're very proud of Hillary Clinton and what she will bring to the Oval Office when she's president of the United States," she told reporters.

The California Democrat made a similar statement to Politico: "I love Hillary Clinton, and I think she's going to be a great president...I am not talking to you about the timing of my endorsement. ... I feel very confident she will be president."

A source familiar with her thinking told Politico that Pelosi fears that an endorsement could reduce voter turnout in her state's primary on June 7.

Asked Monday whether Pelosi might be waiting until just before the primary to make an endorsement, her spokesman told CBS News, "I don't have any announcements for you."

A number of Democratic leaders in Congress have already endorsed Clinton, including House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Out of the 35 Democrats in California's House delegation, Politico reports that only three others have not yet endorsed Clinton.

Besides Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is another prominent Democrat who has not endorsed either candidate.

Over the last couple of months Pelosi has been blunt about her objection to one aspect of the Democratic nomination process, saying in March and in April that she opposes the allocation system for its reliance on superdelegates.

"I have, for 30 years, been against superdelegates. I just don't think that that's the way you are supposed to choose," she said.

According to CBS News' latest count, Clinton leads with 2,239 delegates, including superdelegates, while Sanders has 1,462.


“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is one of the few Democratic leaders in Congress that has not yet endorsed a candidate in the Democratic presidential race. At her weekly press conference last Thursday, she said that she expects Hillary Clinton to win the general election in November, but she still has not issued an official endorsement. "We're very proud of Hillary Clinton and what she will bring to the Oval Office when she's president of the United States," she told reporters.”


“A source familiar with her thinking told Politico that Pelosi fears that an endorsement could reduce voter turnout in her state's primary on June 7.” This has been given as the rationale for prohibiting the announcement of the winner based on exit polling down through the years, and I do agree strongly with that policy. After all, that exit poll can be wrong, so it shouldn’t be used to presuppose who the winner really is; and more importantly, many people who have a psychology different from mine feel they will be “wasting their vote” if they vote for anyone other than the winning candidate so they just stay home and don’t vote. What?? Bad news for our democratic electoral system. For goodness’ sake, support your candidate to the end, and then form that wonderful unity bond after the race. At that time, we can rally around whichever Democrat really does win!

At this point, I’m glad to see that there are major Democrats who are trying not to change the direction of the voting. Interestingly they have not said they won’t vote for Hillary in November, nor that they prefer Sanders. They are watching. Maybe they can be convinced that Bernie is the better candidate. They really should take into account the fact that in recent polls Bernie has been repeatedly chosen as the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

This is a very emotional and important election with some threat, and quite a bit of talk, of both parties approaching a possible split. If that does happen it will change our political landscape, which would be a good thing in my view. It could possibly eliminate this ridiculous deadlock over bill after bill in the legislature, and bring in “new blood,” rather than the same set of old leaders, year after year. It would also prevent the two parties from stubbornly acting in lock step unity on the talking points (no new taxes – read my lips) rather than as individuals. Group think not only introduces corruption of all kinds, it presents fewer ideas for voters to choose from. Maybe voters would actually get some good and progressive changes in policy if we had four parties rather than two.

I would like to see the use of a proportional system instituted, in which one to 100 votes over the line can’t cause a candidate to be elected when actually the proportion of difference between them is only 50/50. In that case we should have an automatic runoff rather than having one candidate just give up and hand the position to the slightly stronger one. That, to me, is unfair, just as the use of an electoral college which can actually override the election results is equally so. If there is one thing I really, really dislike, it is a situation in which both parties don’t have an equal chance, and for no good reason.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-gop-operatives-recruiting-a-third-party-candidate-to-derail-trump/

Are GOP operatives recruiting a third-party candidate to derail Trump?
By JULIANNA GOLDMAN CBS NEWS
May 15, 2016, 11:53 PM


Efforts to draft a third-party candidate are under way and while no possible contender has agreed, several are open to being approached, CBS News has learned.

One individual involved in the process tells CBS News the next three to four weeks are critical to figuring out if launching an independent bid is realistic. This individual cautioned, however, that efforts are disparate. Whether or not it's possible organizationally -- as well as the mechanics of such an operation -- are still up in the air.

First reported by the Washington Post, GOP operatives trying to derail Donald Trump by bringing in another conservative candidate have started considering several names, including former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and retired Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Star of the reality television show "Shark Tank" and billionaire investor Mark Cuban was floated as a possibility, but he told the Post, "I don't see it happening. there isn't enough time," although he also said that Trump "knows I would put him in his place."

While nobody has shut the door to Sen. Ben Sasse, an outspoken Trump critic, the Nebraska Republican is deemed unlikely -- and is at least far less likely than Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who dropped out of the Republican primary contest nearly two weeks ago.

Retired Marine Corps. Gen. James Mattis had been seriously considering in the spring, the source confirmed. But he also ruled out a presidential bid.

Other names are in the mix, according to the source. Republicans' 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, however, is considered to be a long-shot.

The individual said donors have been very receptive -- if there's a real candidate -- but declined to give names of possible financiers.

The price tag is said to be north of $100 million, though not much more than that. Organizers figure that the nature of this kind of campaign wouldn't require the force of a $1 billion race: Rather, it would be targeted, wouldn't play every battleground state. It would pin its hopes, instead, on earned media, attention from debates, and some paid advertising.

Among the challenges these avid opponents of Trump face over the next few weeks is ballot access. They consulted advisers to former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who shut the door on his own third-party bid in March, to devise their own strategy, but time is growing short. Texas' deadline has already passed and North Carolina's is looming.

Another hurdle to overcome: other Republican party leaders.

Earlier Sunday, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the attempts to draft a third-party candidate are a "suicide mission" for GOP operatives and advising against them.

"I think what people should do is take the Paul Ryan approach which is to work with Donald Trump and find out whether or not there's common ground ... as opposed to blowing everything up," Priebus said in an interview.



“Whether or not it's possible organizationally -- as well as the mechanics of such an operation -- are still up in the air. …. The price tag is said to be north of $100 million, though not much more than that. Organizers figure that the nature of this kind of campaign wouldn't require the force of a $1 billion race: Rather, it would be targeted, wouldn't play every battleground state. It would pin its hopes, instead, on earned media, attention from debates, and some paid advertising. Among the challenges these avid opponents of Trump face over the next few weeks is ballot access. …. Another hurdle to overcome: other Republican party leaders. Earlier Sunday, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the attempts to draft a third-party candidate are a "suicide mission" for GOP operatives and advising against them.”


If Trump gains a controlling hand in the Republican Party, such as by wooing individuals away from party goals and standards by promising them candy, they will find that they, like Kafka’s unfortunate character, have turned into an alien form – in Kafka’s case, a giant cockroach! That’s in a fascinating novella called “The Metamorphosis.”

I know I run the risk of overemphasizing the danger of a Donald Trump presidency, but I was born in 1945 and all the news of Hitler and the Holocaust and the atomic bomb sunk into my consciousness before I was old enough to reassure myself that all would be well. I was in the first grade when my playmate -- our church minister’s son -- said to me that our country had a bomb big enough to blow up the earth. I raged at him and said it wasn’t so. Well, luckily it wasn’t quite true, but it was close. So I care very much what Party and Individuals come into power, especially in this election. It looks as though the Angry White Blue Collar Men in this country may win, and if they do we may not recognize this country afterward. I hope our whole population will come out to vote in unprecedented numbers and defeat that man.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-shows-majority-americans-prefer-medicare-health-care/story?id=39148652

Poll Says Majority of Americans Prefer 'Medicare For All' Health Care
By MICHAEL EDISON HAYDEN
May 16, 2016, 4:01 PM ET

Photograph -- US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally in Atlantic City, N.J, May 9, 2016.


A growing number of Americans now support the idea of federally-funded healthcare, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup measuring response to each of the three remaining Presidential candidates' proposed healthcare policies.

When presented with three different scenarios for the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), based on the candidates' positions, 58 percent of U.S. adults favored Sen. Bernie Sanders' idea of replacing the law with a single-payer, federally-funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans.

For this poll, Gallup surveyed a random sample of 1,549 adults between May 6 and May 8 of this year about which of the three candidates' healthcare policies they preferred, without using any of their names. The majority expressed a preference for Sanders' proposal to replace the ACA with some form of the "Medicare for All" system, compared to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's proposal to maintain the ACA and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump's proposal to repeal it.

A slight majority of those polled, 51 percent, favored repealing the ACA, as Trump proposes, and 48 percent favor keeping the ACA in place following Clinton.

Respondents could choose more than one option and many did. For example, 35 percent said they would favor keeping the ACA and also said they favored replacing it with a federally-funded healthcare system. Choosing both options was common among Democrats and those leaning Democratic -- 59 percent favored both approaches. When those who chose both options were asked which they would prefer if they could only choose one, 64 percent said they would choose the federally-funded healthcare system.

Data from the poll suggests a recent shift, since a previous Gallup poll in March indicated that a majority of Americans still preferred a privately-run health care system to a government-run single-payer system.

Other surveys have also shown a growing trend in approval for so-called European-style government in America. In February, a Harvard University survey discovered that a majority of 18-to-29-year-olds, did not support capitalism, and preferred socialism instead.

Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has made health care reform and his notion of "Medicare for All" a focal point of his campaign.


“When presented with three different scenarios for the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), based on the candidates' positions, 58 percent of U.S. adults favored Sen. Bernie Sanders' idea of replacing the law with a single-payer, federally-funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans. …. For example, 35 percent said they would favor keeping the ACA and also said they favored replacing it with a federally-funded healthcare system. Choosing both options was common among Democrats and those leaning Democratic -- 59 percent favored both approaches. When those who chose both options were asked which they would prefer if they could only choose one, 64 percent said they would choose the federally-funded healthcare system. …. Data from the poll suggests a recent shift, since a previous Gallup poll in March indicated that a majority of Americans still preferred a privately-run health care system to a government-run single-payer system. Other surveys have also shown a growing trend in approval for so-called European-style government in America. In February, a Harvard University survey discovered that a majority of 18-to-29-year-olds, did not support capitalism, and preferred socialism instead.”


I think a number of things have changed here. 1) Hillary is not seen as being so transparent now, after her close ties with Wall Street which Bernie so eloquently pointed up, between the many paid speeches and her personal wealth; 2) Her failure to speak in favor of working hard to greatly lessen the wealth divide in the country as Bernie has; 3) Her backing of protections for Big Business and military aggressiveness; 4) Her vote to go into the Iraq War; 5) Her slowness to back the LGBT community; 6) doubts on her climate views, though her record isn’t all bad; 7) her support of TPP and NAFTA, which have decimated the American Lower Middle Class workers’ chances for well-paid work; 8) instead of fighting strongly against the Koch driven Big Business push in this country, she has compromised and taken money from the lobbyists who represent him. The good news is, she definitely isn’t RACIST, uneducated, hate filled, uncaring about the human beings who live in this country. See this complete text of a Mother Jones article on her climate stances below.

The items I mentioned above are the things that make me feel at least somewhat disenchanted with Clinton, though I certainly wouldn’t vote for Trump, as an article recently said of a number of Sanders supporters should Hillary become the official (not presumed) Democratic choice for November. Do read the MotherJones article on Hillary. There is a mention of an apparent quid pro quo concerning her finance money and a likely related change in her position on the US-Colombia trade pact, which is deleterious to labor activities, and therefore to jobs and workers. She has also voted for more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico waters and won’t reveal her position on the Keystone XL pipeline. To be fair, I have heard little on Bernie Sanders’ views on environmental issues also, so I clipped a Mother Jones article on his positions as well beneath Hillary’s.


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/hillary-clinton-climate-change-president

Here's What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming: Clinton sees climate change as a major threat. But she still wants to boost fossil fuel supplies.
BEN ADLER
APR. 13, 2015 2:10 PM

Photograph -- Hillary Clinton at the 2014 National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas John Locher/AP

Related: How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change
The Ultimate Presidential Climate Matrix
Donald Trump Thinks Climate Change Is a Hoax
Scientists: Ted Cruz's Climate Theories Are a "Load of Claptrap"
Kasich Is No Better Than Trump on Global Warming
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sanders and Clinton Disagree on Climate. Let's Debate That.
Here's One Climate Issue Cruz Actually Gets Right


This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

It's strange to remember how bitterly divisive the 2008 Democratic presidential primary battle was. Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's platforms and ideological positioning were awfully similar. And on the chief difference between them—Obama's less hawkish foreign policy—the victor wiped away that distinction by appointing Clinton as secretary of state. Now Clinton has announced her candidacy and is poised to coast through the 2016 Democratic primaries as her party's prohibitive favorite. Would a Clinton presidency be essentially a third Obama term?

On climate change and energy, it seems the answer is yes. For better and for worse, Clinton's record and stances are cut from the same cloth as Obama's. Her close confidant and campaign chair, John Podesta, served as an Obama advisor with a focus on climate policy. Like Obama and Podesta, Clinton certainly seems to appreciate the seriousness of the threat of catastrophic climate change and to strongly support domestic policies and international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. But, like Obama and Podesta, she subscribes to an all-of-the-above energy policy. She promotes domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, including through potentially dangerous fracking. (The Clinton campaign did not respond to our request for comment.)

Here are eight important points about Clinton's climate and energy views:

1. She understands the science. In a December speech to the League of Conservation Voters, Clinton said, "The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say. Sea levels are rising; ice caps are melting; storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…If we act decisively now we can still head off the most catastrophic consequences."

2. She thinks the politics of climate change are daunting. In the same LCV speech, she said, "The political challenges are also unforgiving. There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious response required to effectively combat climate change is going to be a tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries including our own are grappling with slow growth and stretched budgets." She's not wrong, but she's looking at it rather pessimistically. Polls show that a large majority of Americans support limiting carbon emissions, and are even willing to tolerate slightly higher energy prices to do so. Moreover, investing in transitioning to clean energy will ultimately mean more economic growth, not less, and that's how politicians such as Clinton should frame it.

3. She fully supports Obama's landmark power-plant rules. In her LCV speech, Clinton praised the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, saying, "the unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost." As The Washington Post's Greg Sargent noted, this is hugely important. Reading the tea leaves, this means she would be willing to veto any congressional Republican effort to repeal the rules—even if they attached it to the budget and a veto meant shutting down the government. That's an absolute must for any president who is serious about climate change.

4. She connects climate change to women's rights. Clinton has been a strong advocate for clean cookstoves—an issue that might sound small, but has big impacts on the daily lives and health of poor women and their families. In 2010, as secretary of state, she took the lead in launching the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership led by the United Nations Foundation, with the aim of deploying 100 million clean cookstoves in the developing world by 2020. Currently, families in poor countries often rely on dirty stoves burning high-carbon fuels such as wood. On a macro level, this leads to CO2 emissions and deforestation. On a human level, the inhalation of smoke and other carcinogens is a huge health and safety risk, and since women do most of the cooking, they suffer the most. Clinton has long been a champion of women's rights internationally, so it makes sense that she's connecting these dots.

5. She promoted fracking abroad while secretary of state. Clinton encouraged developing countries to sign deals with American fossil fuel companies to extract their shale gas through fracking. This is consistent with Obama's fondness for touting natural gas as a lower-carbon "bridge fuel" to help us move from coal to renewables. Mariah Blake of Mother Jones did a deep dive from last year that found, "Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves."

6. Her family's charitable foundation takes lots of oil money. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia. Pacific Rubiales' founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation's board. IBT reports, "After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation—supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself—Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial US-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it 'strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.'" A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn't going into Hillary Clinton's pocket or her campaign account.

7. She has supported offshore oil drilling. In 2006, Clinton sided with Republicans and against climate hawks like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) by voting in favor of a bill opening new Gulf Coast areas to offshore oil drilling. Obama has opened up many areas for offshore oil drilling, and it's possible Clinton would do the same.

8. She avoids saying anything about Keystone XL. Even when asked directly about it, Clinton just refuses to answer. In January she told a Canadian audience, "You won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion." This, in fairness, may simply reflect her understandable concern that as a former secretary of state she should not take a position on an issue currently under review by her successor. It's also a tough issue for her, though, as it pits environmentalists and climate hawks against Democratic-leaning construction unions and most independent voters who favor more oil production in North America.

So Clinton shares what David Roberts has identified as Obama's split personality on climate change—tackling it aggressively on the consumption side but continuing to boost fossil fuel supplies. That's not as bad as the science deniers on the Republican side, or the climate curmudgeonliness of likely Democratic candidate Jim Webb. But it's also not quite the climate hawkishness we need.


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/bernie-sanders-greenest-presidential-candidate

Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?
He was recently ranked as the Senate's top leader on global warming.
BEN ADLER
MAY 14, 2015 6:15 AM

Photograph -- Sanders speaking at Drake University
Related: "On climate stuff [Sanders has] been the most aggressive voice in the Senate," says Bill McKibben.
Related: How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change
The Ultimate Presidential Climate Matrix
Donald Trump Thinks Climate Change Is a Hoax
Scientists: Ted Cruz's Climate Theories Are a "Load of Claptrap"
Kasich Is No Better Than Trump on Global Warming
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sanders and Clinton Disagree on Climate. Let's Debate That.
Here's One Climate Issue Cruz Actually Gets Right

This article originally appeared in Grist and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.

Climate Hawks Vote measures leadership, not just voting records, tabulating actions like bills introduced, speeches given, and so forth. In the 112th Congress, Sanders ranked third behind Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). In the last Congress, he edged out Whitehouse by one point.

"Sanders is very much among the top leaders," says R.L. Miller, founder of Climate Hawks Vote. "He has a record of really strong advocacy for solar in particular." Miller notes that distributed solar, which enables everyone with a solar panel to create their own energy instead of relying on a monopolistic utility company, fits especially well with Sanders' democratic socialist philosophy. It's bad for corporations and good for regular folks who get to own the means of production.

Here are some of the highlights from Sanders' climate and clean energy record:

In 2013, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sanders introduced the Climate Protection Act, a fee-and-dividend bill. It would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens, then invest the remainder in energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency. The bill, of course, went nowhere (even if it had advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been DOA in the Republican-controlled House), but it shows that Sanders supports serious solutions and wants to keep the conversation going.

Also in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. This bill didn't become law either.

In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he wrote in Grist at the time, "It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America." The bill didn't pass.

In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the country, the very literally named "10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act." As Grist's David Roberts explained, it would "provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey." The bill didn't pass.

In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.

Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus package.

So we know Sanders is dedicated to climate action and clean energy. Looking forward, though, it's unclear how Sanders will differentiate his climate and energy proposals from Clinton's. Clinton, like President Obama, firmly supports regulating carbon emissions domestically and getting strong international agreements to reduce emissions globally. While it is certainly true that Sanders has made more of an issue of his support for the same, it is not necessarily an issue on which Clinton needs to be pushed leftward. Many climate hawks love the fee-and-dividend approach that Sanders supports, but the truth is that no big climate-pricing bill will pass in the next few years, no matter who's president, because the Republicans will continue to control the House. And Clinton already supports the kind of strong executive action that Obama is taking to curb CO2 emissions from power plants.

One way Sanders could set himself apart as the greenest candidate would be to propose clamping down on domestic fossil fuel extraction, especially on federal lands and waters—something a president could move on without congressional approval. Sanders has not spoken up about the extraction issue in general, but he could call for a moratorium on fossil fuel leasing offshore or on federal land. That would please climate activists, who are already expressing concern that Clinton isn't committed to keeping dirty fuel sources in the ground. "What we really need," says Miller, "is someone to advocate for closing down the Powder River Basin"—an area in Montana and Wyoming that's a huge source of coal mined from federal land—"but no one is really willing to come out and say that, so instead they come out for higher prices on coal leases. Sanders has not."

In an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, Sanders called for a progressive climate agenda that includes a carbon tax and investments in renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative transportation—but he made no mention of restricting fossil fuel development. Here is what he offered:

A tax on carbon; a massive investment in solar, wind, geothermal; it would be making sure that every home and building in this country is properly winterized; it would be putting substantial money into rail, both passenger and cargo, so we can move towards breaking our dependency on automobiles. And it would be leading other countries around the world.

Bill McKibben, who founded 350.org and has led the fight to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, says he is confident Sanders understands the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Sanders has opposed Keystone, while Clinton has avoided taking a position on it. "He's been the most consistent and proactive voice in the entire Keystone fight," writes McKibben in an email. "Everything that's been needed—from speeches on the floor to legislation to demands that the State Department change its absurd review process—he and his staff have done immediately and with a high degree of professionalism…On climate stuff he's been the most aggressive voice in the Senate, rivaled only by Sheldon Whitehouse. He understands it for the deep, simple problem it is: that we can't keep burning this stuff." (Full disclosure: McKibben is a member of Grist's board of directors.)

One area where Sanders indisputably differs from Clinton is trade. Clinton, like her husband and Obama, has been an ardent supporter of free trade agreements. Some environmentalists worry that these agreements—like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that is currently under consideration—give polluting companies too much power to undermine environmental regulations in signatory nations. As secretary of state, Clinton supported the TPP, although as a candidate her campaign advisors say she hasn't made up her mind on it. Sanders is one of the most skeptical members of the Senate on trade agreements and he is currently helping to lead the charge against the TPP.

To describe Sanders' challenge against Clinton as uphill would be too generous. It's more like climbing Mt. Everest—without oxygen or a guide. But by bringing attention to some of these issues, he may raise awareness and draw Clinton out. Sanders' office declined to comment for this story, citing an overwhelming number of interview requests following announcement of his candidacy. That speaks to the megaphone a presidential campaign can grant a candidate, especially in a nearly empty field. Sanders is sure to use it for worthy causes. Will keeping fossil fuels in the ground be one of them?