NAACP Officially Comes Out In Favor Of Gay Marriage

Almost two weeks after President Obama announced his support of marriage equality, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted this weekend to officially endorse gay marriage. The social issue has proved to be a divisive one in the African-American community. All but two of the members of the NAACP’s board voted in favor of a resolution yesterday that would affirm the organization’s “support [of] marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law.”

RELATED: Melissa Harris-Perry Takes NAACP To Task For Not Taking A Stand On LGBT Rights

The New York Times gives some insight into what kind of effect the resolution will have.

The practical implications of the N.A.A.C.P.’s decision are unclear. Several of its leaders have already expressed support for same-sex marriage, and local branches have repeatedly opposed measures to ban such unions, most recently in North Carolina, where voters just passed a referendum against marriages and civil unions for gay people.

The strongest opposition to same-sex marriage within the black community has come from church leaders, whose opinions may not be swayed by the N.A.A.C.P. In its resolution, the board appeared to be sensitive to those objections, reaffirming its support for religious freedom.

The N.A.A.C.P. has been grappling with the issue for several years. Among religious figures on the board, the issue was especially fraught with meaning.

Maxim Thorne, a former high-ranking official with the organization, said that “for certain people, it was a very long evolution and a very long process of reconciling their faith with this, and coming to a very civil rights understanding of marriage equality versus a theological understanding of marriage.”

As for how Obama’s personal support of gay marriage will impact his support in the black community, two recent polls show that more people are likely to vote against the president than for him as a result of his shift.

Source: Mediaite

Rep. Charlie Rangel campaign strong-armed ally for endorsement

Following a Rangel endorsement rally Saturday in East Harlem, the embattled congressman’s campaign team made an unlikely confession to the New York Post — they had strong-armed state Senator Bill Perkins for an endorsement. 




Source: FOXNews.com

What? Randi Rhodes Guesses Mark Levin Is a ‘Pothead’

The Radio Equalizer blog finds leftist radio talker Randi Rhodes slowly losing her mind over the finding that Trayvon Martin had traces of marijuana in his system when he was killed. She expected that finding "means that conservatives/">conservative pundits are going to try and turn this into a sequel to 'Reefer Madness.' The THC could have been from 30 days ago."

Somehow, this became an occasion for Rhodes to trash Mark Levin for doing his radio show from his home in northern Virginia. His convenient studio location makes him a "pothead" of some sort:

RANDI RHODES: You think that he could live in his bedroom the way he does and broadcast his show from there, never leave the house and he's not a pothead? Are you kidding me, he's not a stoner? Right!

Yeah, uh-huh, I'm down with you, Mark Levin, oh yes, oh yes baby! I get – yeah, oh I believe you have never smoked the pot you will never smoke the pot – this is why you have what, social anxiety disorder, to the point where you have like agoraphobia – you can't go out of the house – it's paranoia, honey.

Levin makes it a habit to avoid bizarre liberals">liberal hosts trying to get his attention with wacky statements like this.

Source: NewsBusters.org blogs

Two Daily Kos/SEIU polls show why Americans Elect failed

empty picture frame

Error 404: Candidate not found.

Americans Elect announced this week that it will not field a candidate in the 2012 presidential election because no potential nominee received sufficient popular support. This is an ignominious end to an effort backed by $ 35 million and many high-profile political figures who sought, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman, to create a viable, centrist, third-party force in American presidential politics.

The reason Americans Elect was unable to generate much popular support is simple: Not many moderates believe both that President Obama is too liberals">liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservatives/">conservative. Further, not many moderates feel there is no place for moderates in either the Republican or Democratic parties.

Given the narrative weight behind the idea that polarization in American politics is alienating a vast swath of the center, these claims may seem counterintuitive. However, a look at the raw data from two recent Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation polls provides strong supporting evidence.

First, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from April 26-29, only 35 out of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed indicated both that President Obama is too liberals">liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservatives/">conservative (see questions 5 and 6, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). Only 18 of those 35 respondents self-identified as moderate, or about two percent of all registered voters surveyed.

Second, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from May 10-13, only 92 of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed thought there is no place for moderates in either the Democratic or Republican parties these days (see questions 12 and 13, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). What’s more, only 14 of those 92 self-identified as moderates.

In looking to find a viable, centrist, third-party presidential candidate for moderates who feel left out by both the Democratic and Republican parties, Americans Elect was drawing on roughly two percent of all registered voters for its base of support. As such, it is unsurprising Americans Elect was unable to generate sufficient participation to produce a nominee. While the idea that the two major parties have both abandoned the center may be popular in the opinion sections of several prominent news organizations, that idea does not have much traction with the American people.




Source: Daily Kos

Protesters prepare for anti-NATO demonstration in Chicago

Protesters gathering in Chicago for the NATO summit are gearing up for their largest demonstration. 




Source: FOXNews.com

…and those other halos…?

Matt Wuerker
(Click for larger image)

Follow @DailyKosComics on Twitter




Source: Daily Kos

The end of fish, in one chart

Want to see how severely we humans are scouring the oceans for fish? Check out this striking map from the World Wildlife Fund’s 2012 “Living Planet Report.” The red areas are the most intensively fished (and, in many cases, overfished) parts of the ocean — and they’ve expanded dramatically since 1950:

Between 1950 and 2006, the WWF report notes, the world’s annual fishing haul more than quadrupled, from 19 million tons to 87 million tons. New technology — from deep-sea trawling to long-lining — has helped the fishing industry harvest areas that were once inaccessible. But the growth of intensive fishing also means that larger and larger swaths of the ocean are in danger of being depleted.

Daniel Pauly, a professor of fisheries at the University of British Columbia, has dubbed this situation “The End of Fish.” He points out that in the past 50 years, the populations of many large commercial fish such as bluefin tuna and cod have utterly collapsed, in some cases shrinking more than 90 percent (see the chart to the right).

Indeed, there’s some evidence that we’ve already hit “peak fish.” World fish production seems to have reached its zenith back in the 1980s, when the global catch was higher than it is today. And, according to one recent study in the journal Science, commercial fish stocks are on pace for total “collapse” by 2048 — meaning that they’ll produce less than 10 percent of their peak catch. On the other hand, many of those fish-depleted areas will be overrun by jellyfish, which is good news for anyone who enjoys a good blob sandwich.

The full WWF report (PDF), meanwhile, is chock full of brightly colored graphs charting the decline of wildlife across the globe. All told, global vertebrate populations have declined by some 30 percent since 1970. But that number masks a lot of variation. Wildlife actually appears to be recovering in the temperate areas, while it’s utterly collapsing in the tropics. (It seems there have been some modest conservation successes in the wealthier temperate regions — the European otter is staging an impressive comeback, for instance.)

The big thing the WWF paper emphasizes, however, is that human consumption patterns are currently unsustainable. We’re essentially consuming the equivalent of one and a half Earths each year. This is possible because we borrow from the future, as is the case with fish — one day the world’s fish population may collapse, but there’s plenty for us now. WWF doesn’t quite call it a Ponzi scheme, but that’s the first metaphor that comes to mind.

So is there any way to stop this slide? After all, it’s not like people can just stop eating fish altogether. Pauly, surprisingly, is fairly optimistic. He argues that strict government quotas on catches can help stop the slide. “There is no need for an end to fish,” he writes, “or to fishing for that matter.” (He’s not sold on aquaculture, or fish farming, since it often requires huge harvests of smaller fish to feed the big carnivorous ones in farms.)

The hitch is that when governments have tried to institute such quotas in the past — as they’ve recently attempted with Atlantic bluefin tuna — the rules tend to get, uh, watered down under intense lobbying. Or else shadowy black sushi markets
emerge
to flout the rules. But no one said it was easy, halting the end of fish.





Add to Facebook
Add to Twitter
Add to Reddit
Add to StumbleUpon




Source: Ezra Klein