Republicans launch another attack on President
Obama for talking about economic collapse under Bush

The Republican National Committee feigns outrage that President Obama would suggest that sometimes people?himself included?forget about the magnitude of the economic crisis that Republicans caused at the end of the Bush administration:

The video begins with President Obama talking yesterday in Seattle about the economic devastation of the Bush recession, using the bolded portion of the following passage:

We?d seen a record surplus that was squandered on tax cuts for people who didn?t need them and weren?t even asking for them.  Two wars were being waged on a credit card.  Wall Street speculators reaped huge profits by making bets with other people?s money.  Manufacturing was leaving our shores.  A shrinking number of Americans did fantastically well, but a lot more people struggled with falling incomes and rising costs and the slowest job growth in a century.

So it was a house of cards, and it collapsed in the most destructive, worst crisis that we?ve seen since the Great Depression.  And sometimes people forget the magnitude of it, you know?  And you saw some of that I think in the video that was shown.  Sometimes I forget.  In the last six months of 2008, while we were campaigning, nearly 3 million of our neighbors lost their jobs; 800,000 lost their jobs in the month that I took office.  And it was tough.  But the American people proved they were tougher.  So we didn't quit.  We kept going.  Together we fought back.

The video then recites a litany of cherry-picked and questionable statistics to make the case that President Obama has failed to turn the economy around. But by starting the video with the president reminding people of the magnitude of the 2008 crisis, they are actually helping make the case for him.

As Obama said, the economy was falling off a cliff when he took office. It took several months to stop the bleeding, but since unemployment peaked in October, 2009, things have been getting better: the auto industry is back, more than 4 million private sector jobs have been created, the Iraq war has ended, and Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice.

Everybody knows that there's still much more to be done, but the point is that we're moving forward. America is in stronger shape now than it was four years ago. There's no reason to turn back now.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/9okYCDyxjrA/-Republicans-launch-an
other-attack-on-President-Obama-for-talking-about-economic-collapse-under-Bush

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Inspired But Not Read

?I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired,? Mitt Romney told a town-hall meeting in Euclid, Ohio, on Monday. It may be that, like many who like to thump sacred texts, he has simply never read it.

Media commentary has focused on Romney?s flat-footed refusal, or inability, to talk back to a questioner who suggested that President Obama should be ?tried for treason? because he is ?operating outside the structure of our Constitution.? But it?s worth taking a moment to note that ?treason? is a term Americans seem to take lightly these days (Witness Rick Perry?s remark that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former George W. Bush staffer, would be ?almost treasonous,? and perhaps guest of honor at a Texas necktie party, if he used the Fed?s legal authority to try to prevent the economy from falling back into recession).

The Framers didn?t take the term lightly, and their care is reflected in one of the Constitution?s most important, though little-discussed, provisions.

Article III, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution says, ?Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.? Notice the word ?only.? Right-wing constitutionalists are fond of finding unwritten limits in the Constitution. But here?s a genuine hard limit, one inspired by bitter experience: treason consists ?only? of the forbidden acts, both of which involve betrayal in time of war or conflict.

The English law of treason was a good deal broader than that. By the Treason Act of 1351, it was considered treason to ?compass or imagine? the death of the King. That meant that even the words, ?methinks the King doth not look well? could lead to the forfeiture of all of a subject?s property to the crown, followed by an execution in which his limbs would be torn asunder, after which he would be disemboweled while still living. In his book The Life of the Law: The People and Cases that Have Shaped Our Society, from King Alfred to Rodney King, Alfred H. Knight notes that Edward IV had a grocer executed for saying that his son would be ?heir to the Crown.? The luckless merchant meant that his son would inherit the grocery shop, called ?the Sign of the Crown,? but no matter; the statutory definition was fulfilled.

It was also treason to levy war against the realm, of course; for that matter, it was treason to sleep with the Queen. Not content with this list of offenses, the common-law courts extended the crime by inventing the idea of ?constructive treason?: anything that had a tendency to deprive the King of his authority, for example, was a capital offense. Judges applied this doctrine to, for example, reformers who petitioned Parliament to allow universal suffrage. In 1701, a colonial court sentenced Nicholas Bayard, the former mayor of New York, to disembowelment because he had written to the King complaining of the colonial governor?s corruption. (A subsequent governor remitted the punishment before steel could be interposed ?twixt gut and bladder.)

The Framers understood that ?constructive treason? was a powerful weapon in the hands of government. At the Philadelphia Convention, Gouverneur Morris warned that if the delegates failed, ?The scenes of horror attending civil commotion can not be described, and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance. The stronger party will then make traytors of the weaker; and the gallows & halter will finish the work of the sword.?

So the Framers prevented government from ?making traitors,? and succeeded better than they knew. When in 1806 Thomas Jefferson had his former Vice President Aaron Burr prosecuted for treason, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the law so narrowly that Burr?who was certainly guilty of preparing to ?levy war? against the United States?went free. No leader of the Confederacy (which really did ?levy war? against the United States) was tried for treason. One Japanese American who served as an interpreter for Japan during World War II was convicted of treason, but later pardoned. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were prosecuted and executed for espionage, not for treason. Today, one American, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a native of Oregon who has become a spokesman for Al Qaeda, is under indictment for treason?the first such indictment in half a century.

What?s the relevance for today? The cry of ?traitor? is a particularly corrosive one. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy used to like to throw it around to smear American diplomats who foresaw the defeat of Chiang Kai-Shek. We seem to be descending into a new McCarthy era, where a member of the House, Alan West, feels free to accuse ?80 to 90? of his fellow Representatives of being members of the Communist Party. (Does anyone think the CPUSA even has 90 members?) 

It is immoral and offensive to use treason as a coded term for ?someone who views the Commerce Power more broadly than I do? or ?someone who differs with me on optimal monetary policy.? Traitors are to be torn to pieces and killed, not just voted out of office. Its increasing use is part and parcel of the rising tide of vulgarity, flowing mostly from the Right, that is swamping political discourse today. It?s too bad Mitt Romney didn?t know what the Constitution says, and use his appearance in Euclid to calm down his supporters. I think those who claim to live by, even pray to, the Constitution should be aware of its language and watch their own.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/%E2%80%9Cinspired%E2%80%9D-not-read

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Poor Constitution! Inspired But Not Read

?I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired,? Mitt Romney told a town-hall meeting in Euclid, Ohio, on Monday. It may be that, like many who like to thump sacred texts, he has simply never read it.

Media commentary has focused on Romney?s flat-footed refusal, or inability, to talk back to a questioner who suggested that President Obama should be ?tried for treason? because he is ?operating outside the structure of our Constitution.? But it?s worth taking a moment to note that ?treason? is a term Americans seem to take lightly these days (Witness Rick Perry?s remark that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former George W. Bush staffer, would be ?almost treasonous,? and perhaps guest of honor at a Texas necktie party, if he used the Fed?s legal authority to try to prevent the economy from falling back into recession).

The Framers didn?t take the term lightly, and their care is reflected in one of the Constitution?s most important, though little-discussed, provisions.

Article III, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution says, ?Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.? Notice the word ?only.? Right-wing constitutionalists are fond of finding unwritten limits in the Constitution. But here?s a genuine hard limit, one inspired by bitter experience: treason consists ?only? of the forbidden acts, both of which involve betrayal in time of war or conflict.

The English law of treason was a good deal broader than that. By the Treason Act of 1351, it was considered treason to ?compass or imagine? the death of the King. That meant that even the words, ?methinks the King doth not look well? could lead to the forfeiture of all of a subject?s property to the crown, followed by an execution in which his limbs would be torn asunder, after which he would be disemboweled while still living. In his book The Life of the Law: The People and Cases that Have Shaped Our Society, from King Alfred to Rodney King, Alfred H. Knight notes that Edward IV had a grocer executed for saying that his son would be ?heir to the Crown.? The luckless merchant meant that his son would inherit the grocery shop, called ?the Sign of the Crown,? but no matter; the statutory definition was fulfilled.

It was also treason to levy war against the realm, of course; for that matter, it was treason to sleep with the Queen. Not content with this list of offenses, the common-law courts extended the crime by inventing the idea of ?constructive treason?: anything that had a tendency to deprive the King of his authority, for example, was a capital offense. Judges applied this doctrine to, for example, reformers who petitioned Parliament to allow universal suffrage. In 1701, a colonial court sentenced Nicholas Bayard, the former mayor of New York, to disembowelment because he had written to the King complaining of the colonial governor?s corruption. (A subsequent governor remitted the punishment before steel could be interposed ?twixt gut and bladder.)

The Framers understood that ?constructive treason? was a powerful weapon in the hands of government. At the Philadelphia Convention, Gouverneur Morris warned that if the delegates failed, ?The scenes of horror attending civil commotion can not be described, and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance. The stronger party will then make traytors of the weaker; and the gallows & halter will finish the work of the sword.?

So the Framers prevented government from ?making traitors,? and succeeded better than they knew. When in 1806 Thomas Jefferson had his former Vice President Aaron Burr prosecuted for treason, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the law so narrowly that Burr?who was certainly guilty of preparing to ?levy war? against the United States?went free. No leader of the Confederacy (which really did ?levy war? against the United States) was tried for treason. One Japanese American who served as an interpreter for Japan during World War II was convicted of treason, but later pardoned. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were prosecuted and executed for espionage, not for treason. Today, one American, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a native of Oregon who has become a spokesman for Al Qaeda, is under indictment for treason?the first such indictment in half a century.

What?s the relevance for today? The cry of ?traitor? is a particularly corrosive one. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy used to like to throw it around to smear American diplomats who foresaw the defeat of Chiang Kai-Shek. We seem to be descending into a new McCarthy era, where a member of the House, Alan West, feels free to accuse ?80 to 90? of his fellow Representatives of being members of the Communist Party. (Does anyone think the CPUSA even has 90 members?) 

It is immoral and offensive to use treason as a coded term for ?someone who views the Commerce Power more broadly than I do? or ?someone who differs with me on optimal monetary policy.? Traitors are to be torn to pieces and killed, not just voted out of office. Its increasing use is part and parcel of the rising tide of vulgarity, flowing mostly from the Right, that is swamping political discourse today. It?s too bad Mitt Romney didn?t know what the Constitution says, and use his appearance in Euclid to calm down his supporters. I think those who claim to live by, even pray to, the Constitution should be aware of its language and watch their own.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/poor-constitution-%E2%80%9Cinspired%E2%80%9D-not-read

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

On 'Boyish Pranks' And Half-Assed Apologies:
Mitt, You Have No Empathy

Isn't it amazing? This incident was so brutal that it still haunts the memories of most of the participants -- just not Mitt Romney. Apparently it just slipped his mind, just one more "boyish prank." I could do some armchair analysis of the type of personality that is so lacking in empathy at such an early age, but it would only be conjecture. So I'll let the incident speak for itself.

We've all known Golden Boys who felt entitled to do whatever they wanted, and so rarely suffered consequences. We've also known their enablers, who were often just as scared of these bullies as their victims were, and who carry the weight of their inaction with them.

Phillip Maxwell, an attorney in Michigan, confirmed to CBS News that the incident with John Lauber is accurately described in The Washington Post piece. Maxwell was one of the Post's four on-the-record sources. A fifth asked not to be named. Maxwell says the only thing not accurate is that the Post reporter said the incident occurred in a dorm room, but it happened in a common room.

"Mitt was a prankster, there's no doubt about it. This thing with Lauber wasn't a prank. This was, well, as a lawyer, it was an assault. It was an assault and a battery. And I'm sure that John Lauber carried it with him for the rest of his life," Maxwell told CBS News.

The Post's article details Romney's teen-age years spent at Cranbrook, a prestigious prep school in Michigan, and focuses on the many pranks played by the future presidential contender. Several were harmless but others are remembered as cruel, insensitive or frightening to the victims.

Maxwell, who is not a Republican and wasn't planning to vote for Romney, says "this isn't a politically motivated thing for me. I got asked questions by [Post reporter] Jason Horowitz and I responded honestly to him. I didn't decide to bring this thing up. But I think it probably is relevant."

"I've carried this story with me a long time. It was very disturbing. I think that view is shared by everyone involved in it," Maxwell says. "It just was a black mark on my character that I didn't stop it."

The hair-cutting incident, according to The Washington Post, was confirmed by five of Romney's classmates who described the event as "senseless, stupid, idiotic" and "vicious." Candy Porter was the victim of a well-known prank in which Romney and his Cranbrook friends posed as cops, complete with fake siren and badges, and pretended to bust some friends and their dates. Porter told the Post she was "terrified."

Romney was also remembered as having shouted "Atta girl!" when another closeted gay student tried to speak up in the classroom.

Romney said he did not recall that incident. "You know there are a lot of times, my guess is at a boys' school when one of the boys do something and people say 'hey atta girl,'... I had no idea that he was gay," Romney explained when asked about the comment. He again apologized for having offended anyone, saying no harm was intended.

When Kilmeade asked if The Post's article was meant to show that he grew up in an intolerant environment, Romney was quick to say during Thursday's interview with Brian Kilmeade that he did not, and he pointed out that the sexual orientation of the people referenced in the story was not known when they were all in high school. "I had no idea that this person might have been gay," Romney said, "and the article points out I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks in high school and some may have gone too far and for that I apologize."

"I had no idea this person might have been gay." Really, Mittens? First of all, I don't believe it. Nope. A group of adolescent boys who didn't notice that another boy committed the crime of being "different"? Second, even if I did believe it (which I don't), I'd point out that your reaction to someone's harmless differences was to impose your own values on them.

You're not a nice person, Mitt Romney. You're mean, you lack empathy, you don't seem to care about anything unless it affects people who are Just Like You.

That's not what we need in the White House. Not now, not ever.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/boyish-pranks-and-half-assed-apologie

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Despite Rahm Emanuels Best Efforts, There Will Be
Protests During NATO Summit

At a press conference at Occupy Chicago's headquarters, representatives from various groups outlined what they plan to do during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Chicago on May 20-21. They also addressed how Mayor Rahm Emanuel and[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/VD6XrkkiWVY/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

John Lewis Shames Paul Braun, The Congressional
Representative Of The John Birch Society To Withdraw A Voter Suppression Amendment

The Republican Party is in the throes of a full scale counterrevolution. They're at war with the revolution conservatives lost in 1781. They're at war with the Constitution that despised so much, especially the intimation that all men are created equal. Conservatives fought on the side of the British during the Revolution. Those who didn't flee to Canada and the Old Country after they lost-- as well as other conservatives who had remained "neutral" during the war for independence-- insisted that the Constitution preserve the privileges of wealthy white males. The ideals of a new world that had inspired so many of the patriots was trampled on by conservatives-- many from backward Southern states that were as backward then as they are today-- who held the very idea of a united nation hostage to their right-wing ideology. They threatened to tear the new country apart, not just over slavery, but over the franchise as well. No women, no young people, no poor people would be allowed to vote-- or they would walk. Only older white male property owners. The history of conservatism in this country is the history of opposing every extension of the franchise that has come down the pike.

Ironically, now that they own their own political party, well-funded by a greed-obsessed and dangerously powerful plutocracy, many of the very people who they would bar from the franchise are their keenest followers. Low-info voters, especially, though not exclusively, in the Old Confederacy can buy into a zeitgeist manufactured by right-wing wealth. They have Fox and Hate Talk Radio validating their basest instincts and stoking and manipulating manufactured fears and prejudices. Objective reality and science are now just a he-said/she-said proposition as the vilest aspects of the Republican lizard brain seem perfectly respectable to large segments of the population.

The states that the GOP controls-- and not just southern throwbacks like Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida-- but normal places that have fallen into their clutches as well-- Wisconsin being the most obvious example-- have been passing laws to suppress voter participation. They are no longer content in opposing extending the franchise, now they have deranged billionaires like the Koch brothers will to fund efforts to prevent people from voting. And how hard was it to dig up some far right congressmen to bring these efforts to the federal level. Yesterday John Birch Society Rep., Paul Broun (R-GA), tried defunding Department of Justice programs that safeguard voter participation-- particularly in the racist South. In the video above he is confronted directly by another Georgia congressman, John Lewis from Atlanta. It's a short and very powerful clip-- powerful enough to have forced Broun (and actual neo-fascist in our Congress-- to smile for the cameras and back down, withdrawing his virulently anti-democratic measure.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/05/john-lewis-shames-paul-braun.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

‘Parks and Recreation’ Open Thread:
Catch Your Dreams

In tonight’s finale of Parks & RecreationThis post contains spoilers through the season four finale of Parks and Recreation.

When I was 19, I ran to be Democratic Party co-chair of my ward in New Haven. In a lot of towns, that might have been an appointed post, but in New Haven it was a job you had to actually campaign for, and so for months, I made like Leslie Knope has for the past season of television, hitting up churches and senior centers and community meetings, and posing for some truly hilarious campaign literature. After shaking hands at the precinct for twelve straight hours on Election Day, I couldn’t bear to be in the room when the vote totals were read out, and so I waited outside in the cold. The sight of my running mate and campaign staff running screaming outside to tell me we’d won was one of the weirdest, most cinematic moments of my entire life. I was not nearly as good at politics as I trust that Leslie Knope will prove to be?there’s a reason I write?but I tell you this to explain that I feel a special kinship with this season, and with this character despite its flaws. I know how this feels, and this episode of Parks and Recreation captured this moment’s terrors and joys perfectly. And this season of Parks and Recreation pulled off an extremely tricky transition for this marvelous show beautifully.

The election itself is governed by Pawnee’s marvelously specific manifestation of the oddities that plague all local elections. “In the event of an exact tie, the seat is awarded to the male candidate and the female candidate is put in jail,” the registrar explains to the candidates and their campaign managers. “I don’t think it would hold up in court, but it is city law.” There are a lot of candidates for a relatively minor office?Leslie’s moment of despair that Brandi Maxxx might win was a perfect example of the possible spoiler, the thing every campaign can’t possibly predict or prepare for. And while the show didn’t spend time on the hilarities of checking off voter rolls (usually with all the campaigns monitoring ID checks and crossing off the names of voters who have made it alongside some doughty poll workers, it’s so fitting that Leslie’s epic contest against Bobby Newport came down to a recount. The only way it could have been more perfect is if Bobby’s support for Leslie?”Another awesome point by Leslie. It’s why I’m voting for you,” he tells a crew of reporters at a poll-opening press conference?made up for Jerry forgetting to vote in his enthusiasm to hand out Leslie’s flyers and ended up handing her the election.

Speaking of Jerry, I thought this was note-perfect, and a lovely continuation of the ways in which Leslie’s campaign have given the under-served characters on the show nice character moments. Jerry’s night in licking envelopes with Donna let us see him as someone who loves quantifiable, repetitive work, a characteristic that should be boring, but that ends up seeming rather charming instead. And similarly, while Donna found Jerry’s zen fascinatingly bizarre, this season’s found ways for her to be a hero, whether she’s sacrificing her baby to secure Leslie the vans she needs to get voters to the polls or saving April and Andy from April’s accidental erasure of all of the Parks and Recreation’s departments files. This is a vision of politics where everyone has something to give, and everyone’s contributions matter. Well, maybe except Jean-Ralphio, who shows up to declare himself ready to join city government: “Guess whose got two thumbs and was just cleared from insurance fraud.”

Things came together beautifully for Leslie’s core crew, too. Ron may be stoic, pronouncing the word care as if it’s foreign to him, but as he explains to Leslie when asking her to drive him back to her campaign party, “I’ve had eleven whiskies.” He’s as stressed as everyone else, even with a gorgeous, hand-made chair to relax him. And while I’d have been curious to see Ron and Leslie at odds if he took control of the city budget, I do think seeing them as allies, with Ron more free to be a thorn in her side should be fun. Ann may not have been the ideal campaign manager, but she’s a perfect friend, giving Leslie advice on how to deal with Ben’s job offer (“I realized this after speaking with my best friend and relationship advisor, Ann Perkins, of the department of health,” Leslie declares when she initially explains her thinking on the job to Ben), setting up a boxing lesson for her to blow off steam, and giving her an exciting, affirming, private moment of victory. But I do hope that if Ann and Tom are to continue, the show is to make him seem a more worthy partner for her.

And April and Andy’s lovely, scattershot journey towards adulthood continued on its way. Andy may have been trying to make April feel better about the possibility of being fired when he started brainstorming dream jobs, but she recognized the common threads in his jokey fantasies, pointing out “You know, almost everything you wrote on that board as a dream job was some kind of police officer.” Some critics have worried that April’s becoming too conventional a character, but I appreciate that the show’s found a way to treat her as smart instead of merely sullen, and to give us a collaborative, warm portrait of a surprising modern marriage.

Ben and Leslie’s next step in their relationship worked perfectly, too. Ben’s defenestration from city government and decision to take the mild scandal of his relationship with Leslie onto himself was a lovely act, but it did divert him from his dream of proving he’s legitimately talented enough to work in city government again. Jen’s offer of a job gave him a new path, and made a point the show’s been subtle and smart about all season: it takes more talent to make the political system work the way it ought to instead of the way it does, to make a smart, but poorly-financed, wonky candidate like Leslie Knope beat a rich, handsome, empty entrant like Bobby Newport. And even for a talented candidate like Leslie Knope, and a race for as small a prize as a Pawnee City Council seat?or as it turns out, a New Haven ward chairmanship?elections are exhausting, expensive endeavors that take everything from the candidates. There are not a lot of people with enough to give, and given our political climate, not all of them want to invest it in the miseries of the perpetual campaign cycle. Leslie Knope is a dedicated campaigner and Ben is a bright campaign manager, but even for them, this was a difficult, error-ridden process, and their glorious, marginal victory was by no means assured.

It’s also a smart way to handle the problem I laid out at the beginning of the season: this show was always going to be better if it didn’t lurch into stupid cliches about having it all. With Ben in Washington, Leslie can promise that the couple will “make out in the Lincoln bedroom, and the Jefferson memorial, and the Supreme Court balcony,” but staying together and keeping it good will take work. For their relationship to be truly equal, Leslie has to make the kind of sacrifice Ben made for her earlier this year, to recognize that “I was being selfish. You put your whole life on hold for me. I have to return the favor.” Plus, Ben’s departure sets up Leslie with someone who will have the experience to guide her to a higher stage. If, after defeating Richard Lugar in the Republican primary, Richard Mourdock makes it to the Senate, I have an idea for who might challenge him next time around. And my Knope 2012 button is starting to feel like an awfully valuable collectors item.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/11/482404/parks-and-recreation-open-threa
d-catch-your-dreams/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The Morning Pride: May 11, 2012

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT?s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here?s what we?re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you?re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

- Senator John Kerry and 16 of his colleagues have urged the White House to delay the deportation of immigrants who cannot access legal status because of their same-sex marriages.

- During this West Coast campaign tour this week, President Obama referenced his new support of the freedom to marry, telling a Seattle crowd, “We are moving forward” on equality.

- Are the Democrats rethinking whether to hold their convention in North Carolina because Amendment One passed?

- Former Sen. Bob Kerry (D-NE), who is seeking re-election after an 11-year hiatus, added his support for marriage equality this week.

- After receiving complaints, the Church of Ireland has withdrawn a motion defining opposite-sex marriage as the “only normative context for sexual intercourse.”

- The Family Research Council has released its half-hour horror film about same-sex marriage, chock full of advocacy for ex-gay therapy and representatives from hate groups.

- In case you missed it, check out this interactive infographic from the Guardian detailing where all 50 states stand on LGBT issues.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/11/482452/the-morning-pride-may-11-2012/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

May 11 News: Progressive Lawmakers Unveil Bill To
Eliminate Subsidies To Fossil Fuels

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

Progressive lawmakers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) teamed up on Thursday to introduce legislation designed to stop subsidies to the oil, coal and natural gas industries, preserving an estimated $110 billion over the next ten years. [Huffington Post]

The Australian National University has released a series of abusive and threatening emails which were sent to its climate change scientists. [ABC News]

Of a possible $1.4 billion dollars in proposed spending cuts in the Departments of Commerce and Justice for 2013, the U.S. House Representatives voted to approve none of them. None of them except a piddly $542,000 for a NOAA climate website. [Washington Post]

According to a peer-reviewed paper James Hansen has submitted to a leading scientific journal and made available to Time.com prior to publication, scientists can now state ?with a high degree of confidence? that some extremely high temperatures are in fact caused by global warming, simply because they occur much more frequently than they used to. [Time]

In California, May typically marks the beginning of a warm and dry summer season. This year, however, things are different. Not only has it been warm and dry for the past couple weeks; it?s been warm and dry for months. [Climate Central]

A proposal by California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey to change the way that “net metering” is calculated is the latest skirmish in the war between the state’s largest utilities and the fast-growing rooftop solar industry. [Mercury News]

They seldom meet on the cricket or football fields, but the world’s small island developing states are informally competing with each other to be the first to ditch fossil fuels and embrace clean energy. [Guardian]

Ottawa has waged a concerted lobbying campaign against Brussels’ proposal to rate the carbon content of tar sands. An examination of hundreds of pages of documents obtained under access to information legislation in both Brussels and Ottawa, some dating back to 2009, as well as interviews with leading officials in both Canada and Europe show just how extensive that effort has been. [Reuters]

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/11/482447/progressive-lawmakers-unveil-b
ill-to-eliminate-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Econ 101: May 11, 2012

Welcome to ThinkProgress Economy?s morning link roundup. This is what we?re reading. Have you seen any interesting news? Let us know in the comments section. You can also follow ThinkProgress Economy on Twitter.

• JP Morgan Chase announced yesterday that it has suffered a $2 billion trading loss so far in the second quarter. [Wall Street Journal]

• Facebook’s IPO is already oversubscribed, with investors indicating demand for more shares than will be available. [Reuters]

• Government support is bolstering manufacturing in the U.S. [New York Times]

• House Republicans yesterday approved legislation that would slash social safety net programs in order to prevent scheduled cuts in the defense budget. [New York Times]

• Senate Republicans yesterday blocked reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. [The Hill]

• According to a new report, nearly half of Americans aren’t saving for retirement. [CNN Money]

• Fewer than one-third of American students are proficient in science, according to the latest “nation’s report card.” [Education Week]

• The Federal Trade Commission may have opened an investigation into Facebook’s purchase of the photo-sharing app Instagram. [Huffington Post]

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/11/482435/econ-051112/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!