Bile for all

Will Glenn Beck bring down Van Jones after all? 47

Posted 8:05 AM on 4 Sep 2009
by David Roberts
- More from this author
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics
Read More About
- 9/11,
- Fox News,
- Glenn Beck,
- Obama administration,
- right wing,
- Van Jones

Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- MySpace
- Buzz Up!
- Twitter
- Newsvine
- Google Bookmarks
- StumbleUpon
Comment

SEE UPDATE BELOW

Glenn Beck still can’t believe American voters voted for a black man.

A couple days ago I ran a post defending Van Jones from some of the more absurd charges leveled at him by noted race-baiter Glenn Beck over the last month. Jones is not an “ex-con,” he’s not a communist, he’s not even a czar. He’s not, to pick just one of Beck’s darkly hinted smears, on a top-secret mission to commandeer the U.S. Treasury and dispense slavery reparations. He is, however, two things that scare the whitey tighties off of Beck and his tighty-whitey audience: black and liberal.

It was mostly a tempest in a teabag until the last couple of days, when Jones got tagged with a few things that could very well end up spelling the end of his career in the executive branch.

The first and less consequential is a video of Jones answering the question of why Republicans in Congress continually vote against clean energy as follows: “Because they’re assholes.” That is a) pretty funny and b) a little difficult to get worked up about. When he said those words, Jones was an activist speaking to an activist audience, not a government official. When a Republican vice president told a senior Democratic senator to “fuck himself”, the rightosphere responded with enthusiasm that bordered on tumescence. Republicans—not activists, but senior politicians—spent years cavalierly calling everyone to the left of Genghis Khan a traitor. Call the waahbulance.

Anyway, let’s face it, blocking progress on the signal challenges of our time for partisan political gain does kind of make you an asshole. Jones issued an apology anyway.

Yesterday brought a more disturbing discovery: that Jones had signed a Oct. 24, 2004, petition from the 9/11 Truth organization. The so-called “truthers” come in many varieties. At the far end are the loony tunes who believe the Bush administration rigged the whole thing using some combination of thermite bombs, missiles, and holograms. Ever so slightly less loony, though much more widely believed, is the notion that Bush officials knew the attack was coming and looked the other way. Not loony tunes at all—in fact shared by tens of millions of Americans—are concerns that warnings were insufficiently heeded, reaction to the event was riddled with incompetence, and official investigations have answered many questions poorly, if at all.

It was in this latter vein that the petition was written, with some political flourishes tossed in, reflecting the political context of the time. Many of the questions raised by the petition were banal, if anything, about topics addressed (adequately or not) in the official 9/11 commission report. What made it so toxic was a part of the preamble, which “calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

That’s bona fide crazy town. Did all 100 of the signatories notice it? I have trouble believing they did, even in the angry panic that preceded the 2004 election. There are some fairly prominent names, members of 9/11 families, heads of NGOs, professors, authors—Paul Hawken and Richard Heinberg among others. People who have reputations to risk (alongside predictable cranks like Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, of course). Were they mostly concerned with the unanswered questions or did they really want to associate with the notion that Bush officials knowingly let 3,000 people die? A source says Jones said he didn’t read the petition closely—thought it was just a petition to support the families’ questions—and I suspect that’s true for many of the signatories. In a released statement Jones disavowed it:

In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration—some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.

My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources.

Paul Hawken also released a statement corroborating Jones take on it:

In the fall of 2004, I was approached by 911Truth.org to support the grieving families of the 9/11 tragedy. Family members who had lost a loved one, and many American citizens, felt that the 9/11 Commission had not fully explored key questions involving that fateful day.

My concern then and now was for the victims. I felt that a deeper inquiry into policies and security would be helpful to reach a fuller understanding of the cause of 9/11 and how to prevent future terrorist attacks.

I do not recollect any of the questions that are posed on the website, never saw the subsequent press release of Oct 26, 2004, and never signed such a statement. I was interested in questions, not blame; inquiry, not jumping to conclusions.

It is unfortunate that Van’s name has been used in this way as I know he would not knowingly endorse a statement that would place blame or create divisiveness.

That would probably be that, except: Today, it emerged that Jones was on the organizing committee of a 2002 march also geared at demanding an inquiry into 9/11—again, the document combines sensible questions and objections to the way the Bush administration used 9/11 ... with some slightly crazy implications of conspiracy. The explanation’s likely the same—signing on before reading all the details—but in D.C., two is a trend.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked today if Jones still has the confidence of the president, and he basically refused to answer, saying only that Jones is “still employed at the White House.” That doesn’t bode well—even money has Jones out by the end of the day.

Is it just? Of course not. Jones is certainly guilty of poor judgment: As a lefty activist fighting a malign administration, he basically signed on to anything that came across his desk, without always reading closely or thinking it through. He was far, far from alone at that time. But he’s had nothing at all to do with the truthers outside of having his name on these documents. By no even mildly charitable interpretation is he “a truther” like the lazy-ass media is now saying.

Of course the right will offer no charity, and the media will echo whatever the right says. Politics ain’t beanbag.

Kate Sheppard observes that ...

... when Jones joined the administration last March, many environmentalists worried they were losing their most charismatic and visible spokesman.

Instead of playing a public role in drumming up support for clean-energy polices—something he was extremely effective at—[Jones] is now a relatively low-level bureaucrat struggling to steer stimulus funding toward green-job programs. In all honesty, Glenn Beck may have more to worry about with Jones outside the White House than in it.

It may be true that Jones can be more effective on the outside, but this is about a lot more than him. It’s about whether an outspoken progressive can work in government. About whether the likes of Glenn Beck, a revanchist, fear-mongering huckster who would have no place in the public sphere of a sane country, can collect a scalp.

Next week Obama will give an address to school children, encouraging them to stay in school and study. In response to yet another outbreak of mendacious bullying, the administration just changed the wording on its press release. It was a gutless move, evincing the kind of news-cycle jumpiness the Obama team eschewed so well during the campaign. Dumping Van Jones would be the same kind of thing.

This is all about bitch-slap politics. If Jones drops out, think Beck or the right-wing slime industry will stop? Think they won’t keep going after Carol Browner, John Holdren, and the rest—twisting and attacking every word and gesture from the Obama administration? “Uncovering” people as wildly caricatured leftists? Faux-populist fear merchants are like sharks; they have to keep moving, keep eating. There’s no sating them. Letting Beck bag Jones would be like chum in the water.

Jones will end up on his feet and doing good in the world no matter what. But the resolution of this fight will tell us a great deal about the balance of power between the Obama administration and the toxic 25 percent. The wingnuts have an active propaganda network, including a devoted cable news channel, but Obama still has the trust of the American people and a popular agenda. He needs to get his mojo back.

UPDATE: Ben Smith of Politico reports that two more signatories to the petition—Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn—also claim to have been misled, and to have signed onto something much narrower. Both claim never to have seen, and denounce, what ended up in the final press release.

Comments

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

anthropop Posted 11:12 am
04 Sep 2009
Ralph Nader a predictable crank? That's where I stopped reading and ascertained: David Roberts, fast on his way to main stream journalist. You and Glenn Beck would be great as partners.
Permalink
1. Dave from Canada Posted 1:35 pm
  04 Sep 2009
  I agree with Anthroprop.David, I like almost all of your posts. But in this one it looks like you're trying a little too hard to make yourself look "credible" (to whom? Republicans? Fox News?). Not every assertion of conspiracy is "crazy." Conspiracies do happen. That's why there is a law against it. American automakers and oil companies were convicted of conspiracy in a court of law for destroying transit systems. Before Watergate was confirmed, would you have called it a "conspiracy theory"?Certainly the idea that some in the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming, or were possibly to come, and rolled the dice for a political oppotunity is not a "looney tunes" idea. It may or may not be true, but it is very far from being looney. Think of the fabricated "evidence" they used to justify the invasion of Iraq. I expect there was a bit of a "conspiracy" in the White House on that one...
  Permalink
Avatar Posted 11:20 am
04 Sep 2009
I've just read the first 7 paragraphs of this story and I still have very little idea what position Van Jones holds in the Obama Administration, or who he ever was before that. I miss journalism!
Permalink
1. David Roberts Posted 11:38 am
  04 Sep 2009
  It's a blog, Avatar. All that background information has been covered in previous posts. I'm not going to re-cover it all every time I write a new post.I miss non-crank commenters.
  Permalink
  1. enviroperk Posted 8:06 am
    05 Sep 2009
    I am with you, and headed to the car.
    Permalink
movetotheright Posted 12:13 pm
04 Sep 2009
Avatar, you are right. That's the problem about Van Jones. Before he got to the White House, he claimed himself to be a Communist. He has done radical things throughout his time with the environmental movement. Clump him together with the other radical czars/advisors who are either fascist, marxist or like Obama a socialist. This is a disturbing group who have the ears of Obama and powers that we are not entitled to know about. I find all of them to be objectionable and not only ask for Obama to get rid of Van Jones, but all the other crazies who want to turn our country into a society where we have no Constitution, no rights and no money.Now that the cat's out of the bag, like Obama, they're all going to claim as Van Jones is doing, that all their radical views were from a distant past. But for Jones, that distant past was March 2009.Were all these radicals vetted? We already know that Obama wasn't vetted. So let's see. Do we want a New World Order, which all this is leading to or can we go back to the fundamentals of our Constitution and bring back our great nation to where it's supposed to be. In the meantime, let the people vote on whether Van Jones should be kept on or given the boot.
Permalink
1. veritone Posted 2:08 pm
  04 Sep 2009
  Do your knuckles scrape the ground when you walk, movetotheright? Thinking is clearly something you don't do. Describing Obama as a socialist is laughable. Clearly Glenn Beck provides all your talking points. Or is it Rush Limbaugh? I want to thank you, however, for making it clear that your views are those of a thoughtless buffoon.
  Permalink
jenniferlayne Posted 12:47 pm
04 Sep 2009
Van Jones is a smart, educated and useful person. He has spent his career so far - working to helping people and solving problems - and he does this in a very upbeat and creative way. He is a positive force and a grown up too...you don't see him sitting around crying in public thats for sure! How did these comments make their way to Grist ? I'm going to count on the likes of Glen Beck - hardly showing on the current administrations radar. They have work to do and are probably concentrating on that. Why Glen Beck is wasting his time worrying about Van Jones, I have no idea - I suppose Van should pat himself on the back that he's risen to such a height. And I do not understand folk who scream about people who are actually making a positive change in the world - people who help people - people who actually work to solve problems instead of creating the problem, or allowing it to continue. If you do not know who Van Jones is -- I suggest you goggle him - or choose the search engine of your choice - there is much out there - and at least one video of a speech he made on FORA.TV He's great and I for one feel really excited about Van working with the Obama administration - its exciting stuff !!! Thanks David for your article.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:29 pm
04 Sep 2009
OK, then what about Van Jones support for convicted cop killer Wesley Cook (aka Mumia Abu-Jamal)? Every day it looks more and more like Jones is a resident of crazy town. Shouldn't all of this have come up at his confirmation hearing . . . oh, nevermind.Good thing that President Obama still has some sane voices left in his administration like, John P. Holdren . . . he wrote, what??? . . . nevermind again.
Permalink
1. EnviroFan Posted 6:25 am
  05 Sep 2009
  Beck's attacks on Holdren are even less credible than this current round of bullshit with Van Jones. Beck is an inflammatory liar and America would be better off if he outright lost his shows and received a few quick kicks in the ass on his way back to psychoville.
  Permalink
Start Loving Posted 1:34 pm
04 Sep 2009
Yup, welcome to MSM Dave. You made it with flying colors! And all it costs is your Soul!
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 1:43 pm
04 Sep 2009
I agree with Anthroprop.David, I like almost all of your posts. But in this one it looks like you're trying a little too hard to make yourself look "credible" (to whom? Republicans? Fox News?). Not every assertion of conspiracy is "crazy." Conspiracies do happen. That's why there is a law against it. American automakers and oil companies were convicted of conspiracy in a court of law for destroying transit systems. Before Watergate was confirmed, would you have called it a "conspiracy theory"?Certainly the idea that some in the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming, or were possibly to come, and rolled the dice on political oppotunity is not a "looney tunes" idea. It may or may not be true, but it is very far from being looney. Think of the fabricated "evidence" they used to justify the invasion of Iraq. I expect there was a bit of a "conspiracy" in the White House on that one...
Permalink
trevor.lovell Posted 2:04 pm
04 Sep 2009
The problem with this post is not with its journalistic ethic. It's reasonably in depth and as the author notes, much more is covered in previous posts. The problem is that progressive journalists are an ECHO CHAMBER for right wing nut bags.

It's fine to spend a little time addressing valid concerns about a person's background. But after that, why not put a little work into demonstrating the amazing ideas and intelligence Van Jones brings to his position? Defend him by putting his innovative PRO-CAPITALIST rhetoric into your post, show clips from his insightful speeches on race-relations.

Or you can keep on telling America what you're telling them: Don't think about an elephant... Don't think about an elephant...
Permalink
jenniferlayne Posted 2:06 pm
04 Sep 2009
you failed to point out that Beck was praising DDT....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/glenn-beck-praises-ddt-ba_n_277449.html I still don't see why Beck should be a problem for Van Jones.
Permalink
veritone Posted 2:14 pm
04 Sep 2009
David, I have a very high opinion of you and your writing and often encourage others to seek out your articles. But I truly did not appreciate the way you dismissed Ralph Nader, or, for that matter Cynthia McKinney. It was unbecoming of the journalist I thought you were. We're only human and we all make mistakes. You just made one. For the record, Ralph Nader has probably saved more American lives than anyone I know. Seat belts ought to have been called "Nader belts," because more than anyone else he got them included in all cars. He may be stubborn and many other things, but I've never heard him lie or say anything that wasn't absolutely true.
Permalink
sherrieh Posted 2:30 pm
04 Sep 2009
One thing's for certain: this affair provides good evidence for Jones' contention that Republicans can be assholes. And like Jones said in the very video Trainwreck Beck is pointing to as if it disqualifies Jones, we need Dems willing to be assholes, too, because assholes get things done.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:49 pm
04 Sep 2009
"American automakers and oil companies were convicted of conspiracy in a court of law for destroying transit systems" - No they weren't, they were actually acquitted of this. GM was found guilty only of monopoly sales of buses.

You must be referring to the "National City Lines" myth where a subsidiary of GM and others were charged with conspiracy to destroy transit systems. In fact, NCL was engaged in buying electric trolleys and replacing them with buses. So at worst GM, tire, and oil companies were guilty of wanting to replace one form of mass transit with another one.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:14 pm
04 Sep 2009
For a defense of GM and the others involved in the NCL affair, read Tom Rubin's excellent article in EV World at: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=881

If anything GM and the oil companies are the heroes in this story for buying up near bankrupt transit companies and replacing them with more efficient and cheaper technologies.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:42 pm
04 Sep 2009
I know that Obama runs the most sciencey administration EVER. So I was pleased to see that Van Jones is a FELLOW at the prestigious Institute of Noetic Sciences. Now that sounds really sciencey and all.Noetics is . . . oh nevermind. Is there still room under that bus?
Permalink
movetotheright Posted 3:56 pm
04 Sep 2009
Sorry VERITONE, my knuckles only scrape the ground when I'm in the company of lefties. You're absolutely right, Obama also has other handles: Fascist, Marxist and Communist. Feel better now?
Permalink
1. veritone Posted 6:48 pm
  04 Sep 2009
  You prove my point, movetotheright. If I were as ignorant as you, I'd keep it to myself. I almost admire the zeal with which you display it. Got any more gems to share with us?
  Permalink
OilMonkey Posted 4:28 pm
04 Sep 2009
1) Contrary to the assertions of this article, Richard Heinberg is indeed a full-fledged (though most often closeted) "Troofer" moonbat of the LIHOP strain (Let It Happen On Purpose).

For some absurd and indefensible reason the Peak Community, such as it is, gives refuge to many moonbats (Richard Heinberg, Matthew Savinar, Michael Ruppert, Jan Lundberg, Carolyn Baker, et al.).

Bart Anderson -- editor of EnergyBulletin.net which regularly publishes articles by many of these moonbats -- has told me (via email) that it's a matter of being an "open-minded" intellectual.

So "open-minded", apparently, that their brains have fallen out of their heads.

James Howard Kunstler, to the best of my knowledge, is the only public figure in the Peak Community with enough integrity to repeatedly go on record stating the blatantly obvious: it's counterproductive and offensive to welcome pseudoscientific, opportunistic, conspiradroid moonbats into the Peak Community.

2) You have to be dumb, nuts or have seriously poor judgement if you're a public figure and you sign a document containing even the slightest hint of nine-eleven-was-an-inside-job conspiradroid moonbat language.

Van Jones has no excuse. This article does not absolve Van Jones of his mistake in signing the document in question.

He should definitely be called to task for this, as should Paul Hawken and Richard Heinberg.

And the Peak Community would do well to do the same with its numerous public-figure moonbats.

3) The only positive thing I can say about this article is that it's about time someone called Cynthia McKinney a "crank".

She's a freakin' grade A moonbat and she gets way too much positive press in the Left-in-name-only media.
Permalink
Larry Varney Posted 5:48 pm
04 Sep 2009
This line is just so typical: "...predictable cranks like Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader". Exactly what stances on what issues does Ralph Nader have, that makes you think he's a crank? If anything, he stands for all of the things that most progressives do. Unlike the Democrats, he does more tha lip service, and he does not accept "donations" from corporations. The Democrats have control of both Houses, as well as the Presidency. And yet they are willing to cave on almost every issue of significance. Why? Why continue to vote for the Tweedledee, the lesser of two evils? Isn't it time that we woke up, and voted for a "crank" with courage and principles?Or maybe we will see the "public option" in the new health plan, and all the Democrats will vote to pass it? I'm not holding my breath.
Permalink
randino Posted 6:07 pm
04 Sep 2009
I found the article pretty standard David Roberts. Solid, thoughtful - nothing to change my life about. The response, however, reminds me of a party I was at where everyone was dancing, having a good time, and then it seemed at a prearranged signal from the band, everyone hit everyone - with riotous consequences. Maybe we should ask the trogs who are making increasing forays into Grist, if they have any spare tin foil hats they can pass out.I don't like conspiracy theories because I think they are inherently conservative. According to conspiracy theory the problem is not with the structure of institutions, it is bad people plotting to do bad things. IE, put good people in and everything will be wonderful. Well, we have put good people in and things still suck, largely because we have dysfunctional political and economic institutions that seem hell bent in putting us over the falls - not as a result of evil intension, but because that is how they normally behave. I am now going to do what I did at the party. I am going to grab my beer, run for the car and get the hell away from the people who are fighting!Randy Cunningham
Permalink
1. veritone Posted 6:49 pm
  04 Sep 2009
  I saw a letter to the editor written by a Randy Cunningham recently. Was that yours?
  Permalink
  1. randino Posted 5:24 am
    05 Sep 2009
    I have had two. One in the Plain Dealer toasting the tootsies of some green washers at at local sustainability conference, and another in the New Yorker about college writing programs. Are you in the Cleveland area? Cue into www.clevelandclimatewatch.org. That's what I'm up to.Randy Cunningham
    Permalink
2. enviroperk Posted 8:08 am
  05 Sep 2009
  Me too. Outta' here.
  Permalink
  1. veritone Posted 8:44 am
    05 Sep 2009
    I'm based in Columbus, Randy. I have colleagues who work in your area, but we monitor all the news, state and national. I remembered your name from Grist, so it was gratifying to see you hold forth in print.
    Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 6:34 pm
04 Sep 2009
David, nice post. I have a minor correction: the link to Van Jones's original apology is broken. I got around it to the intended destination, but it might be easier for others if they don't have to.Anyway, I don't really mind that you called out Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney in this post, or that your post dismisses the "Truthers" for the tin-foil-hatters they probably are. However, I feel like one major issue never gets raised in this sort of discussion: isn't it okay, even if Van Jones was a "truther," for him to work at CEQ? In essence, his viewpoint on the 9-11 attacks and any supposedly related conspiracies has absolutely nothing to do with his actual job. He's not about to launch a massive, Macbook-powered Youtube video analysis on 8 year-old news footage or start trolling comment boards with the scoop on what "THEY don't want you to know."His job is about promoting green jobs and innovation in the economy, and there's no reason to believe he can't do that competently and responsibly at the same time he might hold private concerns about "the story" on the 9-11 attacks. Granted, rolling around with Loose Change 17th Edition Recut 2.0 in your trunk might cost you some serious sales credibility, but it ultimately shouldn't keep you from basically doing your job, especially if your job has little to nothing to do with national security issues. And in the end, as you point out, we're not even talking about anything, even, that problematic: he just wanted some more answers on how the most powerful defense system in the world apparently let its guard down to a homeland attack.
Permalink
1. Matt Petryni Posted 6:58 pm
  04 Sep 2009
  Edit: I just noticed that the link's been fixed. Now I stand corrected.
  Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:05 am
05 Sep 2009
My twitter rant on this steaming load of MSM-enabled (coal lobbyist) becks-crement.That's all this load deserves, a bunch of barely coherent tweets. You'll notice now cheney is predicting another 911. if it happens he can say he told you so and return to power. Would saudi billionaire wingnuts like that outcome? I think so.Anyway, that's enough of that. let's talk about who in this administration ought to get the axe. Rhambo, he is selling us out on healthcare reform, that just came out in the release of "secret" emails he sent reassuring his insurance industry sponsors. Will this traitorous creep get 100 million as a lobbyist the year after he is ejected from government? or will he get 100 million from each sellout? on healthcare, climate legislation, financial industry re-regulation, credit card company regulation...and on and on. because he will betray us over and over and over..that is clear.What sort of filthy blackmail does this sewer rat have on Obama that he hasn't been fired already? Or is Obama ok with the sellout? only time will tell. Our party has been taken over by raygun repubs. We thought we won? Nope. It was a nice fantasy though.Can Van jones bypass Rhambo and get us green jobs anyway? Highly doubtful, just resign and rejoin the battle van. The real basttle, because nothing is being acomplished in this administration. Is Rhambo really Rove in a mask? Probably. Corporate power won this last election.There is one person we can still trust, Howard Dean.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:08 am
05 Sep 2009
My twitter rant on this steaming load of MSM-enabled (coal lobbyist) becks-crement.That's all this load deserves, a bunch of barely coherent tweets. You'll notice now cheney is predicting another 911. if it happens he can say he told you so and return to power. Would saudi billionaire wingnuts like that outcome? I think so.Anyway, that's enough of that. let's talk about who in this administration ought to get the axe. Rhambo, he is selling us out on healthcare reform, that just came out in the release of "secret" emails he sent reassuring his insurance industry sponsors. Will this traitorous creep get 100 million as a lobbyist the year after he is ejected from government? or will he get 100 million from each sellout? on healthcare, climate legislation, financial industry re-regulation, credit card company regulation...and on and on. because he will betray us over and over and over..that is clear.What sort of filthy blackmail does this sewer rat have on Obama that he hasn't been fired already? Or is Obama ok with the sellout? only time will tell. Our party has been taken over by raygun repubs. We thought we won? Nope. It was a nice fantasy though.Can Van jones bypass Rhambo and get us green jobs anyway? Highly doubtful, just resign and rejoin the battle van. The real basttle, because nothing is being acomplished in this administration. Is Rhambo really Rove in a mask? Probably. Corporate power won this last election.There is one person we can still trust, Howard Dean.
Permalink
msg365 Posted 4:55 am
05 Sep 2009
It sounds like whoever wrote this article works for Obama. Your take is, "Let's just dismiss everything Beck says cause he's a republican and doesn't know any better." Facts are that half of Obama's staff are extremists, period. When was the last time any other president had one extremist on his staff? When was the last time any president appointed something as dumb as a green jobs czar? Jones admits to being a communist, he says he's not now, but of course that's what he's gonna say. That's like believing a serial killer won't kill again cause he says so. You don't go by what people say, but by their actions. Jones does not deserve any of the power he somehow has. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. If Bush or even Clinton pulled something like this, the press would be going nuts and not just Fox News.
Permalink
1. Matt Petryni Posted 9:43 am
  05 Sep 2009
  I miss the days when we spent more time debating policies with Republicans than we did debating facts. Now the entire political conversation seems consumed not by a conversation about our values and opinions upon which we differ, but a vitriolic exchange about the reality of basic facts: one side insisting the sky is red while the other vehemently tries to testify to its blueness.And no matter who wins that debate over a basic perception of reality, democracy is sure to lose it.
  Permalink
ceti Posted 7:01 am
05 Sep 2009
This is the kind of damned by faint-praise blog post that shows the true colors of beltway enviro-types, except there is no love here.So Van Jones is damned because he participated in civil rights actions and took positions that many progressives took over the last few very dark years? No wonder many environmentalists, especially the elitist kind, are looked on with such deep suspicion by other progressive activists. In fact, he demonstrated far more courage than others who are now cowering from right-wing trolls who have been given their own television talk shows to spew their anti-human and anti-environmental hatreds.Calling Cynthia McKinney or or Ralph Nader "predictable cranks" tells me everything I need to know about the direction that Grist is taking by hosting and highlighting blog posts like this. Sucks, because grist was not that bad earlier (although always infected with lifestyle environmentalism).
Permalink
1. Matt Petryni Posted 9:51 am
  05 Sep 2009
  I don't for the life of me even know what this post means. I think it's trying to diss on environmentalists for being cowards or something, but the actual point is so obscured in sarcastic but vague language that seems, overall, to misunderstand Roberts.The suggestion is that Roberts is caving to Glenn Beck's argument, but this is in fact the opposite: he's trying to continue defending him even though the White House appears to be waffling. And he's expressing concern that the White House is waffling. So if the point is that the "elitist, lifestyle environmentalists" are more aggressive in defending former activists against idiots like Beck than are the progressives in the White House, I could see how that would respond to Roberts's post. But the current reply truly suggests a re-read to me.
  Permalink
  1. ceti Posted 10:07 pm
    05 Sep 2009
    Damned by faint praise -- saying that he is "certaintly guilty of poor judgement" which I think a lot of people would take issue with. If he was guilty of poor judgment, then the vast majority of people we would also support would be disqualified as well. Only jelly fish and opportunistic politicians would remain. Certaintly no one with any principles.Insulting Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader also reflects the beltway enviro thought such as it is married to the electoral compulsions of a corrupt Democratic Party.It looks like they took out Van Jones, and the McCarthyite right-wing media trolls are celebrating while their liberal enablers are only shaking their heads and blaming it all on Van Jones.
    Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:28 am
05 Sep 2009
For me, it is impossible to believe that a species so wondrous and gifted as Homo sapiens will not find a way to continue rather than to induce its own extinction as we appear to be doing now. Somehow the miracle of life as we know it, with all its beauty and biodiversity, has to be protected. At least we have to try, whatever the odds.

What I find difficult to see this morning is how the human community can protect itself from itself. It looks like most of the leaders among us who are organizing and managing the global political economy have determined how the family of humanity will proceed. It reminds me of the strategy deployed by the stars of the movie, Thelma and Louise. The greediest among us, who have hoarded most of world's wealth and purchased political power with it, appear to have determined that they will play their game out to its bitter end. Come what may for the children, coming generations, life as we know it and the integrity of the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit.

These leaders have decided not to concern themselves with the future. They live for themselves. They remind us that in the future, "We'll all be dead anyway." Why worry? After all, they say that, according to their endgame, we should embrace 'the courage' to do nothing.......except to conspicuously consume, hoard and party hardy until our enterprise goes over the cliff marked UNSUSTAINABLE.

Everyone is encouraged to ravenously consume and excessively hoard resources, just like they do. Climb any mountain, cross any stream so you can worship your very own "sacred cow". Perhaps a fleet of autos, a private jet, a mega-yacht, a Madoff-like beach house in the Hamptons, a ski chalet in Davos, a club membership at Augusta National or day to day living in a gated community of your choosing. This is the "greed run amuck" way of life that has been legitimized, institutionalized, legalized and regarded as virtuous. This "greed is good" way of living in which everyone is encouraged to participate is of all things, so we are told, the one and only way to live. Life is not worth living if the values of wanton greediness are not idolatrized. People who say and do otherwise are branded losers and chumps.

The bold-faced recognition that this way of living in the world we inhabit is as unsustainable as it is obscene is not something leaders in the last 8 long, dark years cared to talk about. Dishonesty, duplicity, double-dealing and denial prevailed. These leaders were famous for not fighting the battles for freedom but are all too ready to send other peoples' children into harm's way. They had bigger things to do. These leaders make statements like, "I haven't flown commercial in thirty years. Only private jets for me."

So here we are, nearing the end of the first decade of Century XXI. Wealthy people buy politicians and the same old business-as-usual activities continue, just as all of them have agreed. Corporations have their PR firms promote whatever it is they want to keep doing. We have large-scale business enterprises that are "too big to fail" and too big to succeed as viable operations because they are soon to become unsustainable.

The focus of many too many leaders remains riveted upon convenient and attractive matters associated with endless growth of human enterprise, per-capita overconsumption and overpopulation rather than upon the actual threats to human wellbeing and environmental health that are directly posed to the human family by these very same, distinctly human global overgrowth activities. By so doing, these leaders could be willfully, duplicitously and perniciously directing the children down a "primrose path" to face some sort of unimaginable, colossal, human-driven wreckage which a single, selfish generation is largely responsible for precipitating.

Perhaps it is somehow right, and timely finally, to speak openly of such things even though so many of our most greedy leaders appear so clearly unready to change their unsustainable lifestyles. I would submit that it is not the public who is not ready to address global challenges and make needed changes, but too many leaders who have chosen to disregard the welfare of others as well as the preservation of Earth's body and its environs for the sole purpose of protecting the greed-mongers' way of life.
Permalink
georgiact Posted 11:07 am
05 Sep 2009
The fact that congress alllows any administration to have Czars is both pathetic and unconstitutional. I don't care if it's a drug Czar or a clean air Czar. The administration does not have authority in these areas other than signing legislation into law, which Obama can influence. Obama now has over 30 Czars. Czars circumvent the ballance of powers between the branches of government. We elect our representatives to oversee these areas. If they cannot confirm appointments and call these people to task and hold them responsible (withhold funding), then how are we represented by these Czars? We are not. This is rogue government. Of course Van Jones could probably not survive the vetting by congress, even a Democrat congrss. We shold have very high standards for public service, particularly at this level. Unfortunately, the bar is set very low. Tax cheats can run the IRS and chair the Ways and Means Committee, for example.Fianlly, I'm sick of the myth that Republicans are against protecting, preserving, or restoring the environment. They may have a different approach, but don't want dirty drinking water, dirty air, fragmented habitat etc. Protecting the environment is not about feeling good because you passed a law to force someone to behave the way you think they should. The road is paved with ideas borne out of good intentions that have terrible environmental consequences (ethanol anyone?). So we all know that ethanol is a big boomdoggle environmentally speaking, so why are you guys not demanding that the fedeal government stop subsidizing this destructive technology?
Permalink
1. veritone Posted 12:03 pm
  05 Sep 2009
  GEORGIACT: You're getting too much of your information from Fox News or some other fake source. Van Jones isn't any kind of czar whatsoever. His job is promoting the creation of clean energy jobs and awareness of their potential. But while we're on the subject of czars, can you to show us a credible list of the 30 czars you claim Obama has appointed? For what it's worth, Ronald Reagan created the first czar, he was an energy czar, as I recall.I agree that ethanol is a bad idea, but no one from either party will ever get nominated being against it so long as Iowa is the first state to hold a presidential nominating event. Ethanol is the Iowa State Religion. I guarantee you that every Democrat and every Republican who ran for president the last time around had only good things to say about it.I'm not sure you are interested in anything other than having a tirade, which seems to be Republicans favorite form of discourse, but I thought it was worth setting the record straight.
  Permalink
2. Matt Petryni Posted 2:55 pm
  05 Sep 2009
  Yeah, I'm with Veritone on this, no surprise. And as far as Constitutional transgressions go, Nixon's decision to start creating "czars" was probably pretty minor on the scale of the overpowerful executive. (It was actually Nixon who created the first Energy Czar in 1973, not Reagan - the "Drug Czar" was actually created before that, but the Energy Czar was the first person who was called a "Czar." Choice quote from the Country's first Czar: "There is only one social system that reflects the sovereignty of the individual: the free-market, or capitalist, system." I think Glenn Beck's head just exploded.Anyway, undeclared wars, detaining individuals indefinitely without charge, and supposed acts of torture would all rank higher for me as issues of Constitutional concern than creating new administrators for Congressionally-approved policy initiatives.Also, I think if you did even the most brief search of Grist, you'd find plenty of "us environmentalists" calling out problems with, and for ultimately an end to, worthless ethanol subsidies.Oh wait, I did it for you:http://www.grist.org/article/call-it-what-it-ishttp://www.grist.org/article/2009-03-30-oregon-undo-ethanol-leghttp://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-clutching-at-the-public-purseLet alone what you'll find from Sightline:http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2005/04/11/popping_corn_thOr the Sierra Club:http://sierraclub.typepad.com/mrgreen/2009/05/a-corny-question.htmlOr even the NRDC:http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/lets_not_go_backwards_on_biofu.htmlBut nevermind all that. We're just a bunch of raging hypocrites clawing for a vastly larger, czar-based form of Federal socialized government that accomplishes nothing by way of environmental conservation. Riiiiight...
  Permalink
3. randino Posted 5:18 pm
  05 Sep 2009
  The Republican Party is to the environment what the KKK is to African Americans. Wish it weren't so. But it is. The present GOP built its power as much on anti-environmentalism, as it did on white resentment of the civil rights movement. Look at the Sage Brush Rebellion. Look at James Watt. Look at too many examples to describe in this brief response.I have crossed polemical swords with Republicans who have pointed to TR, and the role that Republicans played in the passage of environmental legislation in the early 1970s. But that was then, and this is now.The GOP is the enemy of environmentalists. And given the strangle hold that the fanatical, earth hating right has on the GOP, it is going to remain so for the forseeable future. A Republican envrionmentalist is a contradiction in terms. It is no ones fault but their own.Randy Cunningham
  Permalink
Bobbe Posted 1:02 pm
05 Sep 2009
A Tempest In A Teapot. Van should see it as such and keep on with his good work.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 6:32 pm
05 Sep 2009
@Randino: I really don't think it has to be that way. The truth is, I think there is vast amounts of support for protecting, conserving and restoring the environment among the Conservative rank-and-file. Some merely would rather that environmentalism use market-driven solutions to achieve conservation. Others believe the states should be the chief drivers of environmental laws, not the ever-growing Federal government. Others feel the environmental movement is alienating based on its secularity (or Buddhism) and would rather participate in a way that uplifts their Biblical commandment to the stewardship of His creation. One such example of a traditionally conservative voting bloc taking up the issue of environmental protection is the Evangelical Climate Initiative, launched by church leaders in 2006: http://christiansandclimate.org/.The problem is that dominant conservative voices, both in media and politics, do not represent, or even for that matter talk about, these movements. It seems they're so busy just trying to defeat anything remotely perceived as "liberal" that the only way conservative ideas get into environmental initiatives is either at the hands of corporate lobbyists trying to water them down for profit, or (as I see often locally) at the hands of environmentalists playing devil's advocate to make sure articulate voices are heard from the conservative side.In the latter, environmentalists will find themselves introducing free market tools and ideas about individual freedom into their proposals simply because they want to try to build a broad-based and well thought-out coalition for environmental protection. This self-negotiation often results in more realistic and sometimes more valuable proposals, but frequently nonetheless must be rammed down the throats of the Tea Party windbags, despite many, many concessions thereto.In short, what we unfortunately lack is a serious conversation between reasonable conservatives and reasonable environmentalists about the issues at hand. Often, any conversation about environmental problems is rife with useless and ignorant fact-debating over basic high school-level science or college-level economics, interspersed with bouts of near-psychotic paranoia like that of Glenn Beck's. It's as if we were to send the Earth Liberation Front to Washington and expect them to be effective and getting our ideas into economic development proposals.At least in my community, it tends to end up, and probably should be, the responsibility of passionate environmentalists to make sure well-informed conservative voices are represented in the policy discussion even when they're not in the room, and find by themselves creative answers to legitimate conservative concerns. It's almost as a homage to the great environmental efforts of pre-Reagan Republicans like Tom McCall, Russell Kirk, and of course, Teddy Roosevelt. To be honest, it's really quite annoying. It's almost like constantly having to ask oneself the question: what would a free-market, individualist Christian conservative have to say about this idea if he wasn't a crazy and poorly informed asshole?...Well, he'd probably think it relies too much on the regulatory power of a costly, centralized government, and doesn't do enough to foster the development of individual private enterprise that is able to compete while maintaining property rights and acting on a conscience of stewardship... Okay, so how can we work on that? (etc. etc.)
Permalink
ed abbey Posted 5:17 pm
07 Sep 2009
anything van jones did or is falsely accused of doing pales in comparison to the bat-crazy stuff coming out of the repugnicans and assholes like glen beck. gives us a break! why do these people have ANY cred?? because they've leveraged enough flow to air trash like faux news? arrggghhhh! help, i've fallen down the rabbit hole!!
Permalink
msg365 Posted 8:57 am
10 Sep 2009
Lets see here, the only thing I stated on my post was that Van Jones was an active member of communist organizations. This is fact, he even stated so himself. I'm sure Keith Olbermann would probably tell you Van Jones was forced into admitting that by a space alien or something, but aliens aside, he said it himself. Could you please tell me what other "facts" I made up, cause I'm pretty sure I only talked about that. I guess though that since Fox News broadcasted what Van Jones PHYSICALLY SAID HIMSELF it should still immediately be dismissed or deemed ok since nothing Fox News reports is true or morally significant.When I posted this I apparently deleted my other comment or maybe I just can't see it anymore, not really sure why that happened. I still know I said nothing other than what I say here in my first sentence.
Permalink
1. Matt Petryni Posted 9:09 am
  10 Sep 2009
  I love how you think the right wing is the one armed with the facts in this recent debate. Simply astounding. Maybe you'd share some of these "facts" with us?
  
  I would like to know what you think they are. Because based on your post so far, they're a little more on the "cloud of nonsense" side of the whole true/false divide. (Hint: just because you hear it on Fox News, it doesn't mean it's a "fact.")
  Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

Will Glenn Beck bring down Van Jones after all? 47

Posted 8:05 AM on 4 Sep 2009
by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Will Glenn Beck bring down Van Jones after all? 47

Posted 8:05 AM on 4 Sep 2009 by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Posted 8:05 AM on 4 Sep 2009
by David Roberts