Read About The Tarbaby Story under the Category: About the Tarbaby Blog
As we all know, the money is not going into the pockets of the Active Duty Military Personnel.
The U.S. has spent $4.3 trillion on war since 9/11. Every American could have free healthcare for a fraction of that.
Posted by ATTN: Video on Wednesday, November 15, 2017
by Lydia DePillis, CNN Money November 17, 2017
Britta Pigorsch was a sophomore in a high school outside of Madison, Wisconsin, when Act 10 passed the state legislature in 2011.
She already knew she wanted to be a teacher. But the legislation, which gutted collective bargaining rights for public sector unions and slashed their benefits, galvanized her further.
“It angered me,” said Pigorsch. “I thought: Well, I could either not go into education, or I could go into education and be a voice that stands up for it.”
Now 22 years old and soon to receive her teaching certificate from the University of Wisconsin, Pigorsch faces a vastly changed landscape.
Along with diminished leverage with school boards, teachers have seen lower pay, reduced pension and health insurance benefits and higher turnover as educators hop from one district to another in search of raises, a new report finds.
With the Supreme Court preparing to hear a case that could make paying dues to unions voluntary for public sector employees — like they already are in right-to-work states — Wisconsin’s experience could soon confront teachers across the country as well.
In the five years since Act 10 was passed, median salaries for teachers in the state have fallen by 2.6% and median benefits declined 18.6%, according to an analysis of state administrative data by the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
In addition, 10.5% of public school teachers in Wisconsin left the profession after the 2010-2011 school year, up from 6.4% the year before. The exit rate remains elevated, at 8.8%.
As a consequence, the report found, Wisconsin’s educational workforce is less experienced: Teachers had an average of 13.9 years experience under their belt in the 2015-2016 academic year, down from 14.6 years in 2010-2011.
Teachers aren’t just moving out of the state or out of the field entirely. A higher percentage of teachers are also moving to other districts: From 2015 to 2016, the percentage who did so jumped from 1.3% to 3.4%, according to the report.
“In a climate right now where we see the only way an educator could get a pay raise is moving to another district, that’s a natural outcome,” said Christina Brey, a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, which represents grade school employees.
That’s particularly difficult for rural districts, which can’t afford to pay more to retain good teachers. The report found that teachers in rural areas werethe most likely to move districts, and the average level of experience among teachers in those areas had fallen the most: One out of four rural teachers had taught for fewer than five years in 2015-2016, up from 17.6% in the year before Act 10 passed.
“Rural schools oftentimes are seen as starting grounds, where newer teachers can put in a year or two before moving to a wealthier area where they can get a pay raise,” Brey said.
So how has all this affected kids?
The report’s authors, David Madland and Alex Rowell, reviewed other research that suggested that as collective bargaining agreements expired, students performed slightly worse on standardized tests, particularly in already struggling schools.
But perfect measurement is difficult, since the tests have changed several times since Act 10 passed. The conservative, Madison-based John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, which supports Act 10, argues that other metrics — such as graduation rates and the number of advanced placement tests taken — are trending upward.
“I think if this cataclysmic destruction scenario was going to play out, you wouldn’t be seeing such positive education news,” says Chris Richardson, the organization’s communications director.
Nobody disputes, however, that Act 10 had a devastating impact on Wisconsin’s unions, which went from representing 14.1% of workers in the state in 2011 to 9% in 2016.
The case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Janus vs. AFSCME, could make paying dues to unions voluntary for public sector employees. (Currently, in non-right-to-work states that allow collective bargaining for public employees, all workers covered by a union contract must pay dues.)
That would cut into the unions’ budgets and reduce their power, which could lead to the same weakening of pay and benefits that Wisconsin’s teachers have experienced.
But unions in other states have seen this coming for a long time. The unions weathered a similar case that deadlocked last year after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and they have since taken steps to build confidence among their membership so they will keep paying dues even if it’s no longer required.
“As a result of the dress rehearsal that they got, they all in their own ways have taken steps to be as prepared as they can be,” says Michael Childers, director of the School for Workers at the University of Wisconsin. “It’s not like they haven’t seen this coming.”
In the years since Act 10 passed, Brey said her union has adapted by becoming more active on the local level, and offering more training and other services to make membership more appealing for teachers.
Meanwhile, Pigorsch is considering where to look for a job after she earns her certificate in January. Many of her peers, she said, have been warned off by older teachers who’ve become cynical about the changes to Wisconsin schools. She wants to stay and try to improve things in Wisconsin, but better pay and stronger representation are just across the St. Croix River in Minnesota.
“A part of me thinks I want to start my career feeling good about being a teacher, and being respected, and having the benefits that a union can give me,” Pigorsch said. “If the students from the state’s top teaching school don’t even want to teach in their own home state, I don’t think that’s a very good sign.”
Related: Why the world isn’t getting a pay raise
Related: Billionaire pulls the plug on DNAInfo, Gothamist after vote to unionize
Why the super-rich don’t need another tax cut
"The super-rich don’t need another tax cut." — Nick Hanauer
Posted by ATTN: on Friday, November 17, 2017
Lorie Shaull / Flickr
By Lorraine Chow November 17, 2017
About 210,000 gallons (5,000 barrels) of oil leaked Thursday from TransCanada Keystone oil pipeline near Amherst, South Dakota, drawing fierce outcry from pipeline opponents.
The leak, the largest spill to date in South Dakota, comes just days before Nebraska regulators decide on whether its controversial sister project—the Keystone XL (KXL) Pipeline—will go forward.
“Enough is enough. Pipelines leak—it’s not a question of ‘if’, but ‘when.’ The pending permit for TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline should be flatly rejected by Nebraska’s Public Service Commission (PSC), but know that no matter what the outcome, the fight’s not over yet,” said Scott Parkin, Rainforest Action Netrwork‘s Organizing Director. “We need to stop all expansion of extreme fossil fuels such as tar sands oil—and we need the finance community to stop funding these preventable climate disasters—disasters for the climate, the environment and Indigenous rights.”
CNN reported that the spill occurred in the same county as part of the Lake Traverse Reservation.
“We are concerned that the oil spill is close to our treaty land, but we are trying to stay positive that they are getting the spill contained and that they will share any environmental assessments with the tribal agency,” said Dave Flute, tribal chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate.
According to TransCanada, the Keystone pipeline system delivers Canadian and U.S. crude oil supplies to markets around North America, stretching 4,324 kilometers (2,687 miles) in length. It starts from Hardisty, Alta., east into Manitoba where it turns south and crosses the border into North Dakota. It then runs south through South Dakota to Steele City, Neb., where it splits. One arm goes east through Missouri for deliveries into Wood River and Patoka, Ill., and the other runs south through Oklahoma to Cushing and onward to Port Arthur and Houston, Texas.
The proposed KXL would add to the massive Keystone system, with its line starting in Hardisty, Alberta and ending in Steele City.
In March, President Trump overturned President Obama’s rejection of the KXL by signing an executive order to advance the project forward. Trump said that doing so would boost construction jobs but critics noted that it would only create 35 permanent jobs.
Environmental groups have long battled against the proposed tar sands project, over fears it would lock in decades of increase climate pollution. A peer-reviewed study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy found that extracting and refining oil sands crude from Canada produces 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the same process for conventional American crude, Newsweek reported in 2015.
As the KXL’s proposed route crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, a major underground deposit of fresh water, a spill could threaten waterways and drinking water sources.
“Americans fought the Keystone Pipeline, because we knew it endangered our nation’s water and a stable climate,” Environment America‘s Global Warming Director Andrea McGimsey said in a statement after the spill. “The Nebraska Public Service Commission should look to today’s disastrous leak as Exhibit A when commissioners decide in the coming week whether to allow Transcanada to extend this hazardous pipeline through their state. This latest disaster is an urgent reminder that we must stop building infrastructure for dangerous fossil fuels and transition to clean energy as soon as possible.”
TransCanada said Thursday that it shut down the pipeline after detecting a pressure drop in their operating system. An investigation into the cause of the spill is underway.
“The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available,” the company said.
This isn’t the Keystone’s first spill. In April 2016, the line gushed 18,600 gallons (400 barrels) of oil in South Dakota.
“With their horrible safety record, today’s spill is just the latest tragedy caused by the irresponsible oil company TransCanada,” said Ben Schreiber, senior political strategist at Friends of the Earth. “We cannot let the world’s fossil fuel empires continue to drive government policy toward climate catastrophe. The only safe solution for oil and fossil fuels is to keep them in the ground.”
Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources told CNN that the were no initial reports of waterways, water systems or wildlife impacted by the leak.
“It is a below-ground pipeline but some oil has surfaced above ground to the grass,” Walsh said. “It will be a few days until they can excavate and get in borings to see if there is groundwater contamination.”
TransCanada said that crews, including its own specialists from emergency management, engineering, environmental management and safety as well as contracted, nationally recognized experts are assessing the situation.
Groups from other states that are facing their own pipeline battles have also decried the incident.
“From the multitude of spills we’ve seen in Ohio along the construction of the Rover Pipeline, to the 210,000 gallon spill today in South Dakota due to a mishap with the Keystone XL pipeline, we should be sure safeguards are in place to ensure that all Ohioans, and Americans, have clean air, land and water,” said Melanie Houston, the director of Climate Programs at the Ohio Environmental Council.
Greenpeace is also urging Nebraska officials to say no to the new pipeline.
“The Nebraska Public Service Commission needs to take a close look at this spill,” said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace. “A permit approval allowing Canadian oil company TransCanada to build Keystone XL is a thumbs-up to likely spills in the future.”
Solar Panels in the Path of a Pipeline! Tiny House Warriors + Lubicon Solar = #StopKM
Tiny House Warriors are building 10 Tiny Homes in the path of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and with the help of Lubicon Solar, we just solarized the first home! DONATE to help us stop destructive pipelines and build a renewable energy future! tinyhousewarriors.com & lubiconsolar.com
Solar Panels in the Path of a Pipeline
Solar Panels in the Path of a Pipeline! Tiny House Warriors + Lubicon Solar = #StopKMTiny House Warriors are building 10 Tiny Homes in the path of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and with the help of Lubicon Solar, we just solarized the first home! DONATE to help us stop destructive pipelines and build a renewable energy future! tinyhousewarriors.com & lubiconsolar.com
Posted by Tiny House Warriors on Wednesday, November 15, 2017
by 3p Contributor 
By Pam Strifler November 17, 2017
For at least 10,000 years, agriculture has been central to the way people live. Yet across that immense span of time, there probably has been no time when the enterprise of growing our food has been more crucial to the world than right now.
As climate change increasingly affects the world around us, farmers find themselves front and center in the challenge to feed the world while overcoming increasingly erratic and extreme weather as well as heightened threats from insects, pests and plant diseases. And unless climate change is addressed more aggressively, the science community broadly agrees that the situation stands only to get worse.
Farmers hold an important key to a brighter future. Worldwide, the agriculture industry, coupled with forestry and other land-use changes, accounts for about 24 percent of human-related greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers have a major opportunity to help reduce these emissions and take action to mitigate climate change and its affect on them, their crops and the rest of us. Through the use of modern agriculture practices and technologies, farmers are reducing emissions and helping give us all a more sustainable future.
Personally, I believe there are considerable reasons for us to be optimistic. Here’s why.
As I write these words, some of my colleagues are in Bonn, Germany, attending the United Nations Climate Conference, an international gathering on climate action. They tell me that it’s impossible to be there and not feel the urgency of the moment and encouragement for the future, sentiments that I, too, share.
Recently, the UN’s Environment Programme helped set the stage for this conference with a new report. Both governments and non-governmental organizations must boost their efforts dramatically, the report said, if we are “going to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future” brought on by climate change. “We still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough,” the organization’s executive director, Erik Solheim, added in a press release.
Yet the report also detailed the vast potential available for different industries – agriculture included – to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s why I feel such optimism: I’ve learned from my own career in agriculture that the great people that make up this global industry will rise to the occasion.
Farmers have always adapted to change. They have been ever diligent and focused on providing from the land. More than most industries, agriculture is still mainly an inter-generational family enterprise, farmers everywhere think like stewards. They want to preserve their land and their farm for their children.
Farmers know how to do this, and with further advances in science and innovation they’ll be able to do even more. What agriculture needs to make farming more resilient and climate-smart are robust regulatory frameworks that are guided by sound science. With that in place, our challenge will be largely one of increasing adoption of what we already know is effective and continuing to develop science-based solutions that work for the good of farmers, society and the natural environment.
I am perplexed that many who embrace the sound science behind climate-change reject two decades of scientific research that has shown time and again that crops grown from genetically modified seeds (GMOs) are safe for people and better for the environment.
These technologies facilitate conservation tillage, where farmers either don’t turn the soil at all (no-till) or turn it less (reduced-till) than they typically would in preparing the soil for planting and weed control. The result is not only less need for fossil fuel, irrigation and machinery, but also less soil erosion and – most crucially in terms of fighting climate change – more storage of carbon in the soil. Crop production systems which include GMOs offered by many companies, including Monsanto, also have the ability to produce more productive plants and enable better harvests on less land. Taken together, these advantages have already resulted in a reduction of about 227 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the last 20 years. It would take more than 267 million acres of forests a full year to absorb that much carbon, representing roughly 35 percent all forestlands in the United States.
Science is now giving us even newer innovations that – if we embrace them – will drive agriculture more toward carbon neutrality. Digital tools and data science are helping farmers make better informed decisions about where and when to apply nutrients, pesticides and water, which means they grow more crops with lower inputs and less environmental impact. Using microbial seed treatment products – coating seeds with fungi and bacteria beneficial to their growth – offers great potential for increased soil health and producing robust crops that provide us more food and keep more greenhouse gases in the soil and out of the atmosphere as they grow.
Ironically, some of the things we need to do more of are not at all new. Thousands of years ago, Virgil, the ancient Roman poet, rightfully noted that planting cover crops between growing seasons can bring better harvests. Today, thanks to science and data modeling, we know that cover crops absorb carbon as they grow and help keep the soil intact, better storing that carbon.
The adoption of climate-smart practices like cover crops and reduced tillage are underutilized and that’s why agriculture holds so much promise as part of the solution to help mitigate climate change. If we want to make a difference however, we need to scale this, quickly.
Here’s yet more grounds for my optimism:
In December 2015, my employer, Monsanto, committed itself to achieving carbon neutrality in its own operations by 2021. At the time, I remember thinking that the goal was reachable, but the timeline? Bold.
Yet now, nearly two years down the road, we recently announced our early progress, showing that we’ve reduced our carbon footprint by more than 200,000 metric tons, which is equivalent to taking nearly 43 million cars off the road. We know this is just the beginning and expect the rate of our reductions to accelerate, but right now every incremental reduction from organizations and individuals around the world makes a difference. Consider just one part of our overall commitment – our efforts with the growers who produce the seeds we sell. By adopting conservation tillage and planting cover crops, those growers have already reduced the greenhouse gas emissions footprint associated with growing our seeds by about 85 percent.
But that’s really only part of the story. The other part is the extraordinary cooperation and collaboration that we have with these contract growers and so many other parties to our effort. Governmental entities like the U.S. Department of Agriculture; business groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the Climate-Smart Agriculture Working Group of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development; environmental groups like Conservation International, the Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy – all of these, and many more, have joined together with the kind of urgency we need.
No doubt, we all have our work cut out for us. Agriculture faces an unprecedented challenge. But:
Pam Strifler is Vice President Global Sustainability, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Insights for Monsanto. She oversees the development of Monsanto’s global sustainability strategy and execution of key initiatives.
By Mayra Cuevas and Steve Almasy, CNN
(CNN)A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in Marshall County, South Dakota, the pipeline’s operator, TransCanada, said.
Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about 3 miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. In April 2016, there was a 400-barrel release — or 16,800 gallons — with the majority of the oil cleanup completed in two months, Walsh said. About 5,000 barrels of oil spilled Thursday.
“It is a below-ground pipeline but some oil has surfaced above ground to the grass,” Walsh said. “It will be a few days until they can excavate and get in borings to see if there is groundwater contamination.”
There were no initial reports of the oil spill affecting waterways, water systems or wildlife, he said. TransCanada said it was working with state and federal agencies. “The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available,” the company said.
The sections of pipeline affected stretch from Hardisty, Alberta, to Cushing, Oklahoma, and to Wood River, Illinois, the company said.
The spill occurred in the same county as part of the Lake Traverse Reservation.
“We are concerned that the oil spill is close to our treaty land, but we are trying to stay positive that they are getting the spill contained and that they will share any environmental assessments with the tribal agency,” said Dave Flute, tribal chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate.
Environmental activist group Greenpeace said the spill shows another section of the pipeline in Nebraska should not be approved.
“The Nebraska Public Service Commission needs to take a close look at this spill,” said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace. “A permit approval allowing Canadian oil company TransCanada to build Keystone XL is a thumbs-up to likely spills in the future.”
The Keystone Pipeline system stretches more than 2,600 miles from Hardisty east into Manitoba and then down to Texas, according to TransCanada. The pipeline transports crude oil from Canada.
The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would stretch from Hardisty down to Steele City, Nebraska, would complete the entire proposed system by cutting through Montana and South Dakota.
In March, the Trump administration officially issued a permit that approved construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid hefty opposition from environmental groups, who argued the pipeline supports the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, which pumps about 17% more greenhouse gases than standard crude oil extraction. Environmentalists also opposed the pipeline because it would cut across the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground deposits of fresh water.
Tar sands oil is much thicker and stickier than traditional oil, significantly complicating cleanup efforts. The fact it’s thicker also means it needs to be combined with other hazardous materials to allow it to be transported in pipelines.
Native American groups have argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.
Trump said the new pipeline will be a big win for American workers, but critics say it won’t be, because most of the jobs would be temporary.
TransCanada said Thursday that the section of Keystone pipe that was leaking was isolated within 15 minutes after a drop in pressure was detected.
According to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ website, this is the third pipeline spill in the state this year. Another came in April when about 84 gallons of crude oil leaked from the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline in Spink County.
That pipeline, which runs through both Dakotas and two other states, drew fierce resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota, the tribe’s allies and environmentalists.
Opposition to the pipeline sparked months long protests, with as many as 10,000 people participating during the peak of the demonstrations. Clashes with police at the protests turned violent at times, with one woman nearly losing her arm after an explosion last November.
CNN’s Eric Levenson contributed to this report.
Richard Gonzales November 16, 2017
A protest sign sits in the proposed path of the Keystone XL Pipeline in Silver Creek, Neb. Nati Harnik/AP
TransCanada, the company that owns and operates the Keystone Pipeline, says that an estimated 210,000 gallons, or 5,000 barrels, of oil have spilled near the small town of Amherst, S.D.
The cause of the leak is under investigation, according to the company’s website. TransCanada crews detected a drop in pressure at about 6 a.m. CT Thursday morning and shut down the pipeline, which runs from Hardesty, Alberta, to Cushing, Okla., and Wood River/Patoka, Ill.
Amherst is about 200 miles north of Sioux Falls, S.D., and about 25 miles from the state’s border with North Dakota.
The conduit is not the controversial and long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline that TransCanada is still shepherding through the approval process.
But as NPR’s Jeff Brady reports, the spill comes at a sensitive time for TransCanada.
“Regulators in the neighboring state of Nebraska are expected to announce a decision on the company’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline next week. The project and its route through Nebraska have been controversial. Some landowners are concerned about how an oil spill might harm their property and water supplies.”
The spill does nothing to enhance prospects for the XL Pipeline, which critics argue should not be allowed to operate.
“TransCanada cannot be trusted,” said Jane Kleeb, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a longtime activist opposed to Keystone XL, as quoted by the Washington Post.
“I have full confidence that the Nebraska Public Service Commission is going to side with Nebraskans, not a foreign oil company,” she added.
Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said the company was aware of the spill at about 5:30 a.m. CT. But his agency wasn’t alerted until about 10:30 a.m. CT.
“There is a time lag there and I expect that that will be some of the questions we need to answer over the coming months,” he told Jeff.
In its statement, TransCanada said, “The section of pipe along a right-of-way approximately 35 miles (56 kilometres) south of the Ludden pump station in Marshall County, South Dakota was completely isolated with 15 minutes and emergency procedures were activated.”
The spill occurred about 3 miles southeast of Amherst on private land, which Walsh described as a “flat, grassy area for grazing.” The company tweeted a picture of the site late Thursday.
The company says that it is providing state and federal regulators “with accurate and confirmed information on an ongoing basis.”
Let’s call this what it is: Republicans in Congress just voted to put their campaign donors ahead of their constituents.
Text NOT ONE PENNY to 21333 now to be the first to know when your voice is needed to hold them accountable and stop this bill in the Senate!
Rep. Tim Ryan Gives Fiery Speech Against GOP Tax Plan
This rep. didn’t hold back on exposing just how ridiculous the GOP tax plan really is
Posted by NowThis Politics on Thursday, November 16, 2017
November 16, 2017.
In this Ecovillage, you can learn to work with nature instead of against it.
Permaculture & Regenerative Agriculture: http://bit.ly/2zEwxWd
via Rob Greenfield & OUR Ecovillage
In this Ecovillage, you can learn to work with nature instead of against it.Permaculture & Regenerative Agriculture: http://bit.ly/2zEwxWdvia Rob Greenfield & OUR Ecovillage
Posted by EcoWatch on Thursday, November 16, 2017
