Being Green | Hearst

CARBON FOOTPRINT
“The Challenge of Global Warming
Many people believe that global warming is the No. 1 issue facing our environment and ability to sustain this planet. While automobiles and power generation are the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, we are focused on activities we can control and influence.

Determining the carbon footprint of a magazine or a newspaper is a complex task. However, based on a number of studies, some preliminary conclusions can be made.

The manufacture of pulp and paper is an energy intensive process and the majority of the carbon dioxide in the magazine manufacturing supply chain is generated at the pulp and paper manufacturing site.

Environmental Review
Hearst performs environmental review meetings with all major paper suppliers annually. During these meetings Hearst reviews specific mill environmental data that is tracked by Hearst for each supplying mill location (Energy Use, Water Use, Water Quality, Total Suspended Solids, SO2, NOX, Total Suspended Particulates, GHG Emissions, SCOPE 1 and SCOPE 2, Solid Waste and Safety).

Hearst believes that measuring these environmental mill parameters enables a conversation of continuous improvement to be achieved. To date, this continues to be the case.

Beyond Paper”

Source: Being Green | Hearst

David Lindsay:  Hearst recently purchased Media One, which includes the New Haven Register, CT Magazine, and about 8 other CT newspapers. They endorsed Ned Lamont for Governor of CT, and are leader in their field in sustainability buildings and practices. Hearst, welcome to Connecticut and New Haven County.

Advertisements

Editorial | America Needs a Bigger House – The New York Times

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

“We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why is America still operating with a House of Representatives built for the start of the 20th?

The House’s current size — 435 representatives — was set in 1911, when there were fewer than one-third as many people living in the United States as there are now. At the time, each member of Congress represented an average of about 200,000 people. In 2018, that number is almost 750,000.

This would shock the Constitution’s framers, who set a baseline of 30,000 constituents per representative and intended for the House to grow along with the population. The possibility that it might not — that Congress would fail to add new seats and that district populations would expand out of control — led James Madison to propose what would have been the original First Amendment: a formula explicitly tying the size of the House to the total number of Americans.

The amendment failed, but Congress still expanded the House throughout the first half of the nation’s existence. The House of Representatives had 65 members when it was first seated in 1789, and it grew in every decade but one until 1920, when it became frozen in time.”

“. . . . . There’s a better solution, which involves bringing America into line with other mature democracies, where national legislatures naturally conform to a clear pattern: Their size is roughly the cube root of the country’s population. Denmark, for instance, has a population of 5.77 million. The cube root of that is 179, which happens to be the size of the Folketing, Denmark’s parliament.

For all countries other than the United States, the size of the national legislature is calculated using only the larger chamber. For the United States, the number refers to the combined size of the House and the Senate. This is because the United States Senate is a more significant lawmaking body than the smaller chambers of other countries. Source: O.E.C.D.

This isn’t some crazy Scandinavian notion. In fact, the House of Representatives adhered fairly well to the so-called cube-root law throughout American history — until 1911. Applying that law to America’s estimated population in 2020 would expand the House to 593 members, after subtracting the 100 members of the Senate.

That would mean adding 158 members. To some, this might sound like 158 too many. But it’s an essential first step in making the “People’s House” — and American government broadly — more reflective of American society today.”

Opinion | Let the People Vote – By David Leonhardt – The New York Times

Image
Voters waiting in a long line to vote in the 2018 midterm general election, outside a polling station located at Robious Middle School in Midlothian, Virginia. CreditMichael Reynolds/EPA, via Shutterstock

By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist, Nov. 11, 2018, 197
Image
Voters waiting in a long line to vote in the 2018 midterm general election, outside a polling station located at Robious Middle School in Midlothian, Virginia. CreditMichael Reynolds/EPA, via Shutterstock

“The United States finally has the pro-democracy movement that it needs.

Last week, ballot initiatives to improve the functioning of democracy fared very well. In Florida — a state divided nearly equally between right and left — more than 64 percent of voters approved restoring the franchise to 1.4 million people with felony convictions. In Colorado, Michigan and Missouri, measures to reduce gerrymandering passed. In Maryland, Michigan and Nevada, measures to simplify voter registration passed. “In red states as well as blue states,” Chiraag Bains of the think tank Demos says, “voters overwhelmingly sent the message: We’re taking our democracy back.” “

Opinion | The Midterm Results Are a Warning to the Democrats – by Bret Stephens – The New York Times

“For months we’ve heard from sundry media apocalypticians that this year’s midterms were the last exit off the road to autocracy. On Tuesday, the American people delivered a less dramatic verdict about the significance of the occasion.

In a word: meh.

Are you interested in seeing Donald Trump voted out of office in two years? I hope so — which is why you should think hard about that “meh.” This week’s elections were, at most, a very modest rebuke of a president reviled by many of his opponents, this columnist included, as an unprecedented danger to the health of liberal democracy at home and abroad. The American people don’t entirely agree.

We might consider listening to them a bit more — and to ourselves somewhat less.

The 28-seat swing that gave Democrats control of the House wasn’t even half the 63 seats Republicans won in 2010. Yet even that shellacking (to use Barack Obama’s word) did nothing to help Mitt Romney’s chances two years later. The Republican gain in the Senate (the result in Arizona isn’t clear at this writing) was more predictable in a year when so many red-state Democrats were up for re-election. But it underscores what a non-wave election this was.

It also underscores that while “the Resistance” is good at generating lots of votes, it hasn’t figured out how to turn the votes into seats. Liberals are free to bellyache all they want that they have repeatedly won the overall popular vote for the presidency and Congress while still losing elections, and that the system is therefore “rigged.””

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional -By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III – The New York Times

By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Conway are lawyers.

Nov. 8, 2018, 34
Image
Matthew Whitaker, named acting attorney general on Wednesday after the forced resignation of Jeff Sessions, was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff.CreditCreditCharlie Neibergall/Associated Press

“What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.

He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.

But Professor Calabresi and the president were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very, very significant consequence today.”

Opinion | How the N.R.A. Builds Loyalty and Fanaticism – By Sahil Chinoy, Nicholas Kristof and Jessia Ma – NYT

By Sahil Chinoy, Nicholas Kristof and Jessia Ma
NOV. 8, 2018
“Another needless tragedy in America: This time a gunman opened fire in a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing at least 12 people and injuring many more.

These horrors happen far more often in America than in other advanced countries partly because of the outsize political influence of the National Rifle Association. N.R.A. candidates suffered some important defeats in Tuesday’s midterm elections, but in a broad swath of red state America it remains potent, controlling politicians who know that an N.R.A. endorsement can make or break an election.

It is not the richest interest group. The National Association of Realtors has spent twice as much in the 2018 federal election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

It is not the largest interest group. It claims about six million members (probably an exaggeration); AARP has more than six times that number.”

Why Democrats’ Gain Was More Impressive Than It Appears – By Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn
By Nate Cohn, Nov. 7, 2018, 296 comments

“It wasn’t necessarily the night of either party’s dreams. The Democrats are poised to gain around 35 House seats after Tuesday’s elections. Republicans seem likely to gain a few seats in the Senate, and they triumphed in some high-profile governor’s races.

But Democrats faced formidable structural disadvantages, unlike any in recent memory. Take those into account, and 2018 looks like a wave election, like the ones that last flipped the House in 2010 and 2006.

In the House, where the Democrats had their strongest showing, it’s impressive that they managed to fare as well as they did. In a sense, Republicans had been evacuated to high ground, away from the beach.

At the beginning of the cycle, only nine Republicans represented districts that tilted Democratic in the previous two presidential elections. Even in a wave election, these are usually the only incumbents who are standing on the beach with a greater than 50 percent chance to lose.”

Nate Cohn says that under the circumstances, it was a blue wave.

Opinion | Forget Excuses. What Counts Is Winning Elections. – by Nicholas Kristof – NYT

“In the end it was only a blue ripple, and that should prompt soul-searching among Democrats — particularly as everyone looks ahead to 2020.

Don’t listen to Democrats who portray these midterms as an important triumph. In 2016 and again this year, liberals were unrealistic in their expectations and listened too much to one another and not enough to the country as a whole; if that happens again in the run-up to 2020, heaven help us all.

The reality is that this was nothing like the 2006 midterm defeat for President George W. Bush or the 2010 repudiation of President Barack Obama. Trump was wildly exaggerating when he tweeted Wednesday morning that the election was a “Big Win” for him, but he did O.K. by historical standards. Democrats won the House but lost seats in the Senate; in the 39 midterm elections since 1862, the president’s party had lost Senate seats 24 times and House seats 35 times.

It’s great that for the first time, more than 100 women are expected to serve in the House. But of the three highest-profile Democratic candidates who were repositories of the party’s hopes — Beto O’Rourke, Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum — not a single one won. Yes, the margins were narrow. But while it’s fine to make excuses, it’s better to win elections.”

Midterm Election Results: 4 Key Takeaways – The New York Times

Nov. 7, 2018

Suburbs defect as Trump’s base holds
Image above
Abigail Spanberger flipped a House seat in the suburbs of Richmond, Va.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
“The divergent outcomes in the House and Senate — a Democratic takeover in one chamber, and Republican gains in the other — exposed an ever-deepening gulf separating rural communities from America’s cities and suburbs.

Democratic gains in the House came in densely populated, educated and diverse enclaves around the country, around major liberal cities like New York and Philadelphia and also red-state population centers like Houston and Oklahoma City. The Republican Party’s traditional base in these districts collapsed, with college-educated white voters joining with growing minority communities to repudiate President Trump and his party.

Republican victories in the Senate came mainly in the conservative strongholds where Mr. Trump’s popularity has remained steady or grown since 2016. With rural voters moving rightward and the national Democratic Party moving left, Senate Democrats like Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Donnelly of Indiana found it impossible to reassemble the political coalitions that elected them in the past.

As a long-term proposition, Democrats may be getting the better end of the bargain: They are winning over voters in growing communities that look more like the country as a whole, while Republicans are increasingly reliant on an aging population of conservative whites to hold up their electoral map. And for now, the Democrats’ eclectic coalition of white moderates, young liberals and African-American, Latino and Asian-American voters was more than enough to seize the House.”

How the House Fell: Republican Chaos and Democratic Focus – By Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin -NYT

By Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin
Nov. 7, 2018

“The message from Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, was urgent and unsparing. In a meeting with Republican lawmakers before they left Washington for the August congressional recess, Mr. McCarthy warned that time was running short: Unless they intensified their campaign efforts and forcefully delivered a coherent message, he said, Republicans would suffer grievous losses in November.

Instead of arresting their political decline, House Republicans proved unable at every turn to stay ahead of their troubles — including many of their own making.

By Labor Day, Republicans were fatally unprepared for an onslaught of Democratic campaign spending that overwhelmed their candidates from South Florida to Seattle. Party leaders on Capitol Hill and in the White House soon turned on one another and against their candidates with growing intensity. Two key groups — the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s campaign arm in the House, and the Congressional Leadership Fund, a powerful Republican super PAC — plunged into all but open warfare over messaging and money.

Democrats, in turn, delivered a message about health care with the repetitive force of a jackhammer. They cracked congressional maps drawn to favor Republicans and seized an array of open seats, while also felling longtime incumbents who had grown complacent.”