Thursday, May 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Stinson Carter: When the People Are Wrong -- A Son's Defense of His Father's Gay Marriage Top
My mother flew 2,000 miles to be at my father's gay wedding. Twenty years ago she was just "his poor wife" to the gossips in our Louisiana hometown, and I was "their poor son." We lost a lot when my father came out of the closet: a business, a home, a church, a social standing -- the only thing we didn't lose was each other. A few years ago, my father and his partner of 13 years got married in Portland, Oregon. But then groups were formed, fears were stoked, and six months after their courthouse vows, they received a letter reading: Dear Messrs. Carter and Martin, We regret to inform you that your marriage is no longer valid. Enclosed is a refund of all license fees. It became more of a family joke than a family disappointment, because laughter is sometimes the strongest form of defiance. When California legalized gay marriage, my father and his husband planned a marriage here, hoping it would last longer than the six months of their Oregon attempt. They arranged for an intimate ceremony at a small hotel in the Sonoma Valley wine country. It was the first gay marriage that the officiant had ever performed, and what surprised him most about it was that my mother had come all the way from Texas to be there, and that I -- the straight son -- was as proud as I was to do a reading at the ceremony. To us it was no big deal; we learned years ago that if you don't know how to love around your differences, then you don't really know how to love. But the veteran officiant, a man who spends his life bearing witness to love, had never seen anything like it. He recognized that it wasn't just about the two gay men, but also about a family. And it was not about celebrating homosexuality as much as it was just about celebrating love. Now "the people" of California have decided that the structure of my family is a threat to their children, to their lifestyle, to the sanctity of marriage, or to some combination of them all. The political arguments supporting gay marriage have been made by people who can make them far better than I can. And still, the opposition may never change their minds. But their children will, and if not them then their grandchildren. Because the seeds of their defeat are not the gays and lesbians lining up at the courthouses; the seeds of their defeat are the same as with any other civil rights issue in history -- truth and time. If my mother and I can support the marriage of a man whose sexuality threw her life off course and jarred me into adulthood, then how is it that perfect strangers won't even do my father the courtesy of not going out of their way just to stand in his? More on Gay Marriage
 
Robert Slayton: Republicans, Immigrants and Sotomayor Top
A number of mainstream publications, including the New York Times , are reporting on the problems the Sotomayor nomination poses for the Republican Party. If the GOP stays mum, they might endanger their standing with conservative voters. If they oppose the woman who will probably become the first Hispanic Supreme Court Judge, on the other hand, they risk further alienating the most important new voting block in the country. This is not, however, the first time the Reps have faced tough choices over how to handle emerging groups in American society, and it is not clear if they will learn from the past. After the 1896 presidential election, the Grand Old Party became the majority force in American politics. The Democrats were the party of William Jennings Bryan, of farmers, of hayseeds. If you were middle class, if you were respectable, if you were an American in good standing, you were a Republican. And so it remained for several decades; to many, it seemed as if it would last forever. From 1896 until FDR won in 1932, only one other Democrat ever got elected president. But the fly in the ointment was coming in boats. Around the same time, massive numbers of immigrants were arriving from Southern and Eastern Europe. There were millions of them, leaving Italy and Poland, Russia and Slovakia, and dozens of other lands to come to America. The peak year for immigration was 1906, when over a million newcomers arrived. A second massive wave came when the First World War ended, and the sea lanes opened once again. Thus, the year 1919 saw the second highest figures for this entire generation of immigrants. The response of the two political parties was vastly different. In 1920 the census showed that, for the first time in our history, a majority of Americans lived in cities. Forget that the figure was barely 51%, or that the definition of "city" was any place with 2,500 or more residents (I've lived in apartment buildings bigger than that). True Americans, led by the Republican Party, panicked. The old America was being pushed out, replaced by a foreign element. In legislative terms, the result was the highly restrictive Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which effectively shut the door on any further immigration from the undesirable areas. In cultural terms, the newcomers were branded as 'un-American' by politicians, ministers and other spokespersons -- male and female -- of the old stock, and especially by Republicans. What did the Democrats do in the meantime? They went down to the docks and signed up the new arrivals as citizens. Then they catered to them, giving them services, and above all, respect. All in exchange for one small act, delivered for a few minutes once a year, the vote. It was a winning formula, capturing hearts and minds, and cementing millions as loyal constituents to the minority party. By 1928 the top dozen cities in the U.S. all voted Democrat, and in 1932 the Franklin Roosevelt coalition took the White House and Congress, and remained in power for decades. Today, a similar demographic revolution is occurring. Hispanic American voters, already the key block in many states, are clearly the wave of the future, the up and coming force in American politics. And what are the Republicans doing about this? They are allowing themselves to be labeled as the party of the Minutemen and Tom Tancredo, and possibly of opposition to Judge Sotomayor, alienating Hispanic voters -- and women of all races, as well. Once again, they run the risk of turning off the largest blocs of future voters. The last time the Republicans failed to deal with a major trend in American society, with long-term, disastrous results for their Party. Let's see how they do this time around. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Space Monkeys Memorialized With Bananas On Gravestones Top
In Huntsville, Ala., there is an unusual grave site where, instead of flowers, people sometimes leave bananas.
 
Child Executions Debate Roils Iran's Presidential Vote Top
TEHRAN, Iran -- The day before two of his young clients were to be hanged, lawyer Mohamad Mostafaei went to a Justice Ministry office here to request a stay of execution. Mr. Mostafaei's errand should have been routine, if solemn: He represents 30 of the 135 criminals under the age of 18 on Iran's death row. Instead, he says, he was detained and grilled for an hour and a half, part of Iran's widening crackdown on human-rights activists.
 
Sonia Sotomayor Sided With Police, Persuaded Republican Judge To Go Along With Her Top
What power does Sonia Sotomayor have to persuade other judges--especially conservatives--of her views? It's a question that will determine her future effectiveness at the Supreme Court, since winning there is all about counting to five votes, which for the liberals and moderate justices in the foreseeable future makes it all about wooing Justice Anthony Kennedy to be their fifth. Sotomayor will leave a far deeper imprint on the court if she can convince Kennedy or another conservative that she's right in cases she cares about. So what does her record suggest about how good she is at the fine art of persuasion? More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Greg Archer: Celebs and Other Opponents of Prop 8 Take to the Streets. But Is it Enough? Top
Kathy Griffin Twitter'd about it, Perez Hilton screamed "wrong, wrong, wrong," and Miss California practically did an I Told You So. What a week of mood swings. The issue? Gay Marriage. California, a state that typically sets a good example for freedom and civil rights, had many people scratching their heads on Tuesday when the court upheld Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. The contentious Prop, which voters passed by a narrow margin in the November, only seemed to re-stoke the fires of the Gay Civil Rights movement in the state. Still, there was some good news Tuesday -- the court also upheld the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California last year. Meanwhile, a gaggle of celebrities came out to voice their opinions. George Clooney told E! that, "This just should invigorate people to get it back on the ballot in 2010 and 2012 and every two years until all people are allowed a basic civil right." Still dusting herself off of that gay-marriage-remark scandal, Miss California Carrie Prejean quipped on Fox News that she was so "not the bad guy! I'm glad the people in California got to vote on this and that the decision was made." The previous most recent round of gay marriage debates in the state actually came about in May of 2008, when California courts initially approved gay marriage. But that only gave birth to Prop 8. Interestingly enough, back in November, I interviewed spoken word titan-activist and IFC talk show host Henry Rollins about Prop 8. It was a downright riveting interview, actually, and Rollins' passion -- for any cause -- was downright contagious. "When you get down to it, [Prop. 8] comes from some very hateful, ignorant beliefs," Rollins told me in an Advocate interview. "It's not coming from anything that makes any sense. It's nasty and un-American, really. Anybody that respects life and people's freedoms, Democrat, Republican, it should not matter. And it makes me angry that people spent money outside of California to try to bedevil this thing. It's just appalling. But in this day and age, I am not surprised." The bottom line? California can do better -- and ought to -- especially now that Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa have given same-sex marriages an official green light. New York may follow. I've found some noteworthy information on the Equality Action Now site for those opponents of Prop 8 who are curious to know what actions can be taken next. In the meantime, it never hurts to hear the voice of the people. At a recent rally in Santa Cruz, California -- that spirited Bay Area hamlet, which had one of the biggest voter turnouts for No on Prop 8 back in November -- former long-time assemblyman John Laird spoke out about the issue, among other things. I was on scene to gather comments. More on Miss California
 
Unprecedented Campaign Contribution Caps Approved, But Big Loopholes Remain Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Money donated to politicians would be limited for the first time in Illinois history under a plan backed by Gov. Pat Quinn but opposed by the same commission he appointed to find ways of scrubbing the state's ethical stain. The Executive Committee OK'd limiting individual contributions to $5,000 a year and $10,000 from a corporation or political organization, a proposal Quinn dubbed a "landmark" in a state whose "Wild West" reputation for campaign finance has gotten its last two governors in trouble with federal law. "Never in the history of Illinois - the state has been around since 1818 - have we had such far-reaching campaign finance reform," Quinn told the committee. It also requires quarterly reporting of political accounts - instead of twice annually - more frequent publication of large donations, and limits on the amount of money parties can contribute to candidates, a provision that opponents say will backfire. Patrick Collins, chairman of the Illinois Reform Commission, said the bill has too many loopholes and should be tightened. The measure was in line for a Senate floor vote Thursday night on a day that saw other milestone action. The Senate Executive Committee also OK'd legislation to force Quinn to review the performance of all state appointees by disgraced former governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. A House committee endorsed giving voters the power to recall unpopular governors the Senate. The campaign finance bill won on an 8-5 vote, opposed by Republicans who say it could create new funding problems and is being rushed through by majority Democrats. Democrats congratulated themselves on taking major steps toward reform in a state that has become an international laughingstock since Blagojevich, a Democrat, was arrested in December on federal corruption charges involving campaign fundraising. Blagojevich had run as a reformer when he replaced GOP governor Ryan, who's serving a 6 1/2-year federal prison sentence for similar corruption involving political cash. But Collins, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Ryan, complained there were too many holes in the current plan. "What is the rush? Let's get it right," Collins said. "This bill can be better." Collins, arguing points that included those echoed by another former federal prosecutor, Anton Valukas, said the limits were too high; that valuable in-kind contributions - offering campaign workers or a hall for a party - aren't included in the limits; and that there are no provisions to identify "bundlers," or people who collect contributions from others and have influence with the officeholder. He and other opponents complained the legislation allows for a "proliferation" of political committees that, combined, could still generate large campaign accounts for certain candidates. One problem with caps on contributions, critics argue, is that it limits the amount of money candidates can raise, making them more dependent on legislative leaders, who can consolidate power. And the bill doesn't address how much money someone can give his own campaign, giving candidates who are independently wealthy an advantage. Earlier in the day, a House committee unanimously approved legislation that would let voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to remove an unpopular governor. If it becomes law, voters would decide in next year's election whether to set up the recall system. The system would have such tough requirements that recalling a governor would be "a Herculean task," said Quinn, who supports the proposal. Recall advocates would have to get 30 Illinois legislators, including people from both parties and both chambers, to sign an affidavit supporting recall. Then they would have 150 days to collect signatures equal to 15 percent of the number of votes cast in the previous election for governor - about 520,000 signatures, based on 2006 - from at least 25 counties. Only if all that happened would the public vote on whether to remove the governor and hold a special election to select a replacement. Critics say the requirements are so onerous that recall would never be used. They also dislike the decision to limit recall to the governor and not include other statewide officials and legislators. The Senate also will vote on House Speaker Michael Madigan's bill to force Quinn to fire about 750 state employees and commission members who were named from 1999 to this year - the Ryan and Blagojevich years. Quinn could retain anyone he wants, but if he doesn't act to reappoint them, they would be fired in 90 days. One issue the Collins commission addressed - redrawing legislative and congressional districts - won't be taken up this spring. Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said Thursday his Senate Redistricting Committee will conduct four hearings this summer and fall to take testimony on the best way to draw new lines after the 2010 Census. --- The bills are HB7, HRJCA31 and SB1333. --- On the Net: http://www.ilga.gov --- Associated Press Writer Christopher Wills contributed to this report. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Bush-Clinton Tickets Not Selling Out Top
David Bester is a man willing to go to great lengths for a spectacular show. Indy rock band The Hold Steady is worth it, he says. U.S. Presidents numbers 42 and 43 are not.
 
Ralph Nader Accuses Terry McAuliffe Of Offering To Pay Him To Pull Out Of States In 2004 Election Top
Consumer activist Ralph Nader accused Terry McAuliffe Thursday of orchestrating an effort to remove him from the presidential ballot in 2004 when McAuliffe was chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: Fido or Tabby Got Your Sleep? Top
If you're still scratching your head wondering why you're not feeling as refreshed as you should in the morning, you may have overlooked a little furry sleep thief: your pet.  I get asked about pets in the bedroom pretty frequently, and it can be a hard to hear that pets in the bedroom can be problematic for sleep. Pets are like family members, and we don't like to exclude them from snuggling with us when they show so much affection and beg to be with us at night. But they can be a major cause of poor and disrupted sleep . Studies have demonstrated that a reasonable percentage of pet owners who allow their pets in bed have sleep problems. And if you think a cat is harmless, then look no further than a home video of what goes on in night when you think your furry friend acts like a stuffed animal. If only... For starters, cats are nocturnal by nature. They typically won't snooze with you for 7 or 8 hours straight. They may look harmle Dogs aren't quite so nocturnal, but because of their size, every time they move or begin to scratch and groom themselves they can wake the soundest sleeper. They can also snore as badly as a human -- ever listen to an Old English Bulldog? How about a cat or dog bed? If you've already introduced your pet to your own bed, then it's going to be pretty hard to get it to use its own special bed--no matter what the person at the pet store said or how fancy, fluffy, and "pet-friendly" the bed is. Fido and Tabby may turn their noses up at that and be in your bed faster than you can snap your fingers. To this end, let me offer some tips: Everyone has a different tolerance level for pets in the bedroom , so both bed partners must agree on who gets to sleep where. If pets don't disturb anyone's sleep, then there's usually no harm. Understand that once you allow pets to share your bed, it becomes difficult to curb or stop the habit . To stop the habit, you'll have to endure some heart-wrenching complaints from Fido or Fluffy until they learn that your bedroom is off limits. Make sure that your intimacy needs do not suffer from sharing your bed with pets. Remember the bed is for both sleep and sex; do not trade one for the other. Have your allergies checked . Over time it's quite easy to develop allergies to pets and not realize it. If you wake with a stuffy nose every day, it could be time to find Fido or Fluffy its own space. Review the habits of your beloved pet to make sure they're compatible with yours: a snoring bulldog can be a bigger problem than you might think. The good news is pets can't hold grudges the way humans can. So even though you may have to practice some tough love for a while, you won't risk losing your best friend.  Sweet Dreams, Michael J. Breus, PhD, FAASM The Sleep Doctor This article about sleep is also available at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog . More on Animals
 
Lincoln Mitchell: Supreme Courts and Party Politics Top
This has been a week of contrasts for our judiciary system. On Tuesday while the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that is the 21st century answer to Plessy v. Ferguson, President Obama announced the nomination of Second Circuit Supreme Court Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court. While the decision by the California Supreme Court upheld a discriminatory ballot initiative, it should not have been a surprise. The vote by the California Supreme Court was not even close as Proposition 8 was upheld by a 6-1 majority. The lone dissenter was Justice Carlos Moreno. Much of the coverage of the decision overlooked the important point that the vote was on, excuse the pun, straight party lines. All six judges who voted in the affirmative had been initially appointed by Republican governors. Moreno is the only Supreme Court justice in California appointed by a Democrat. The reason for this decision had less to do with constitutionality and the merits of the arguments, but more with simple partisan politics. Since Jerry Brown left office in January 1983, California has had Republican governors for 22 out of 26 years. This more than anything else has influenced the makeup of the Supreme Court, and this decision, in California. Party line votes do not occur on every vote in the California, US, or other Supreme Courts, but they are not unheard of, particularly on the bigger cases. In recent years, the most famous Supreme Court party line vote was, of course, Bush v. Gore, which landed George W. Bush in the White House. For conservatives, however, it was a mixed day. While the California decision about Proposition 8 was a victory for them, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama was a reminder that the long term looks less rosy for conservatives. While some on the left may not be entirely pleased with the Sotomayor nomination, she is, in many respects, the worst possible nominee from the perspective of the right. Sotomayor meets or exceeds the resume requirements for Supreme Court Justices in recent years. She also enjoys a good reputation, and like the president who nominated her, a compelling, and even uplifting personal story. Beating up on a Latina woman who played by the rules, worked hard and rose to the top of her profession is not a strategy that will help the Republicans get out of their current rut, yet the evidence so far suggests they may not be wise enough to put down that particular shovel and stop digging. What seems to irk conservatives is that Sotomayor, as well as many of her supporters, have suggested that her background may inform some of the ways she interprets the laws and therefore decides on future cases. Interestingly, none of these conservatives seemed to question whether the personal backgrounds of the six straight Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold Proposition 8 in California, informed their views or narrow definition of marriage. The notion that it is somehow a problem that Sotomayor's background will contribute to her decisions and views is troubling. Of course, Sotomayor's background informs her decisions, just as Chief Justice John Roberts' background, and extreme ideological views, inform his. This is why presidents make appointments to the Supreme Court, and perhaps why we have a Supreme Court at all -- so that qualified legal minds can bring a range of backgrounds and experiences to bear on difficult and important legal and constitutional questions. Although the inevitability of personal background and ideology having an impact on how justices make decisions should be axiomatic, there is still some superstition surrounding this issue. It is almost as if a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is applied to potential justices. Senators and others tacitly agree not to ask about ideology and personal views, while nominees agree not to tell too much. Instead, the issue which always seems to come up in hearings, from both sides of the aisle depending on the party which opposes the nomination, is how the nominee views the role of the court, an interesting question to be sure, but one that has become something of a red herring often obscuring the true nature of the nominee. Many Americans, are less concerned with Sotomayor's views regarding the role of the courts, but understand the import of Sotomayor's background and are pleased to see our president nominate her. Many of us voted in November so that backgrounds like Sotomayor's could inform decisions made by our highest court. This week, California showed us the judicial past where courts dominated by conservatives, unrepresentative of the people for whom they are determining laws, restrict constitutional rights. Judge Sotomayor and President Obama showed us the future. The Republicans must be aware of this too, but their desperation to try to stop this progress is already showing. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Linda Milazzo: Lt. Dan Choi Takes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Directly to Obama Top
Last evening, in an act of daring befitting a West Point graduate and veteran of Iraq, recently discharged New York National Guard Lieutenant Daniel Choi defied the orders of dozens of crowd control police and stepped into the 'no protest zone' street to ceremoniously salute his Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, who was out of site at a star-studded fundraiser at the posh Beverly Hilton hotel. (Photo by Linda Milazzo) While the Lieutenant's respectful salute was extemporaneous, the effort that generated the Lieutenant's appearance at last night's pro-gay rights/pro-equality rally outside the Beverly Hilton hotel, was anything but impromptu. It was a meticulous plan spearheaded by Rick Jacobs, one of the progressive movement's most effective organizers. Jacobs, Founder and Chair of the Courage Campaign, which boasts a membership of 700,000, is a co-founder of Brave New Films and a director of Liberty Hill Foundation. When I asked Jacobs what the tie-in was with Daniel Choi playing such a prominent role at last night's event, he offered the following: The Courage campaign seeks to make California more progressive and more governable. The state cannot possibly be progressive if we can use the Constitution to take rights away from people. So nearly two weeks ago we saw Daniel Choi on Rachel Maddow, when he "came out." He's an Orange County California native... So we got in touch with him and said, 'Hey we'd like to run a campaign to help support you, to prevent the president from kicking you and others out of the military. So we put up a letter on line. It's very simple. It says: Dear Mr. President, The time has come to end discrimination in our armed forces. We the undersigned ask you to stop the discharge of Dan Choi and any other soldier as a result of Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. We ask that you uphold your pledge and push Congress to quickly put a bill on your desk to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Sincerely, the undersigned 140,860 people. And you can see this at Courage Campaign if you scroll down to "Don't Fire Dan." A friend of ours is going to present this letter to the President inside tonight and we also are here. We're hoping the President will send a representative outside to see what we have to say. We have four big boxes - that's a lot of people - 140,000 people in a week. So the tie-in is very simple, this is all about equal rights. It's all about equality. We can win our equal rights in California but they mean nothing if we don't get them federally, so when we look at a young man like Daniel Choi who is willing to sacrifice his life for the country and gets thrown out of the military for saying I love a man, there's a problem. We elected President Obama based on a spirit of hope, bringing the country together and we expect him to do that. Later at the rally, Jacobs proudly holds up the letter being delivered to Obama: (Photo by Linda Milazzo) President Obama has been adamant about ending "don't ask, don't tell", but the longer he languishes, the more seasoned, talented specialists like Arabic speaker Lt. Choi will be victims of this discriminatory policy. It was this calculus that led Rick Jacobs and Equal Roots Coalition co-founder Matt Palazzolo, a co-organizer of last night's rally, to bring Lieutenant Choi close enough to the President to confront the issue directly, albeit not face to face. Outside the hotel on Wilshire Boulevard across from the Beverly Hilton, Lieutenant Dan Choi was surrounded by several hundred gay rights/equal rights supporters who hung on his every word. (Video by Linda Milazzo) His message was one of power and resolve: We can't wait for somebody else to give us rights. We have to stand up. If we want our rights. We gotta fight for them... Let me tell you a little bit about 'don't ask, don't tell.' It is a deadly poison. It is the most toxic. That's military talk. Civilians try to call it the closet but it's toxic poison. Do not force that toxic poison. Do not inject that toxic poison in them anymore. Let them out of the closet! [triumphant applause] It's not about my career. It's not about my pay grade. It's not about money. It's not about elections. It's about telling them [gay service members], you are not alone. So I gave a message to President Obama. Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.' Stop forcing them to lie. Stop forcing our soldiers to lie. Stop forcing our soldiers to hide. Stop forcing our soldiers to be injected with the closet. And let them be free to serve! (more applause) While Lieutenant Choi was still addressing the crowd, guests from the Obama event began exiting to their waiting cars from the front of the building. Many of the well dressed glitterati clearly supported the values of equality and civil rights held by the protesters who stood on the other side of Wilshire Blvd. Indeed, as documented in this video, one attendee charged across the street through traffic to join up with the rally: (Video by Linda Milazzo) Among the crowd on the rally side of the street was actor and human rights activist Hal Sparks, who made a lasting impact on the gay community as the character Michael in the five year Showtime series, Queer As Folk , a drama about the lives of a group of gay men. (Photo by Linda Milazzo) Hal has been an activist for gay rights and the fight against AIDS since the early days of AIDS Project Los Angeles - one of the pioneering organizations to assist AIDS victims soon after the epidemic first hit Los Angeles. Hal spoke openly with me last night about his many passions, including why Lt. Choi's appearance at the rally was so critical in the struggle for human rights: I'm here because I believe it's a civil rights issue. We cannot argue that this country is the freest country in the world and then limit the freedoms of people we don't agree with and are not like us or make us uncomfortable. That seems absurd to me... I think there's some work that needs to be done and you can't argue with that fact. Regarding Dan Choi, Hal goes on to say: First of all, how many great soldiers, translators, officers have we lost simply because people are uncomfortable with the idea of gay. How un-macho does that seem that I don't want gays around me 'cause it's icky. Here's the ironic part. One of the reasons that they used to make being gay in the service and in the DOD [Department of Defense] and the government illegal was because it was so shunned in the public circles that you could be blackmailed easily. The cure to that is not to make it more illegal or more shunned. The cure is to open it up. Nobody can blackmail a state official for being gay if nobody cares. That seems to be the logical thing. We'd take their weapon away. But we've been too afraid to do that up until now. Obviously the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a necessary moment and I do believe Obama's moving toward that. One contrast worth noting last night was the obvious separation between those who rallied earlier in the day against the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who rallied later in the day on the issues of gay rights and equality. The organizers of the gay rights and equality rally scheduled their event for 6PM, so as not to conflate issues with the peace activists and keep each group's messages separate and distinct. The rationale for clarity of message is understandable. Certainly all groups want their message understood. And sadly, both groups, the peace movement and the pro-gay marriage/anti-Prop 8 movement, have at times fallen short in their messaging. As for the failure to stop Prop 8 in 2008, Matt Palazzolo of Equal Roots Coalition, frames it this way: I think what propelled Prop 8 to be supported and to pass were two things. The first was a series of some lies and then just some heavily shrouded information from the YES on 8 side. And you know every side of a campaign has propaganda but they got really dirty and played tricks. And the other part is the blame on the NO on 8 campaign that they did a very poor job in the community... with people of color and the center of the state and because of that we failed to move enough of these people. Why Proposition 8 passed in 2008 will be the subject of much discussion as the 2010 and 2012 elections approach - just as the question of why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet ended will similarly be hotly discussed. Still there is strength in numbers. One can be certain that amongst the thousands who marched Tuesday night through California and across the nation in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Proposition 8, that there were many who've been active in the anti-war movement. After all the suppression of the weak by the strong, sorrow and injustice are hallmarks of LGBT inequality, and of war. Perhaps as the LGBT struggle for humanity and civil rights moves forward, and the common struggle for humanity and civil rights to end war also moves forward, a greater harmony will develop between these two groups - with clarified goals and a universal message that unity has more power than division.
 
Jesse Jenkins: Climate Bill's Renewable Electricity Standard Severely Weakened; May Have Little to No Impact Top
Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute Advocates of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, or "ACES" for short) argue that the bill is far more than just a climate bill. It's a comprehensive piece of clean energy, efficiency and climate legislation, and taken as a whole, they argue, it should be considered transformational -- even if the cap and trade portion of the bill may have been significantly weakened ( see Breakthrough's detailed analysis of the ACES cap and trade program here ). The ACES bill does indeed include many provisions to set a new course for our nation's energy policy, including efficiency standards and regulations, authorization for new programs aimed at modernizing the nation's electricity infrastructure and paving the way for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and a national renewable electricity standard. Many of these will move America in the right direction. But the question remains: will ACES really be transformational? And will it propel American quickly away from business as usual and towards the prosperous clean energy economy and dramatic emissions reductions we need? Breakthrough's team has taken a close look at the bill's cap and trade provision , and discovered that the combination of offset provisions and a little-known provision called the "strategic reserve pool" could allow U.S. emissions to greatly exceed the supposed emissions "cap" set by the legislation. Here we examine one of the other major provisions of the ACES bill, the national renewable electricity standard (RES) established by Title I of the bill. Unfortunately, our analysis concludes that the RES has been severely weakened since initially proposed in the discussion draft version of the ACES bill; as it now stands, the RES may barely increase U.S. renewable electricity generation compared to business as usual projections. The discussion draft version of ACES, originally circulated on March 31st, contained a renewable electricity standard with a nominal target of 25% of U.S. electricity generation from qualifying renewable sources by 2025. I say nominal target, because several exemptions and specifications mean the 25% standard does not apply to all U.S. electricity generation. An April 2009 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis of the originally 25% by 2025 standard concluded that it would really only require 21% of U.S. electricity generation from renewable sources in 2025, after excluding the small utilities exempted from the requirement (any utility that provides less than 1 billion kWh of electricity sales in a given year) and after excluding electricity served by existing hydropower (as the bill specifies). Furthermore, the original standard allowed a governor of any state to petition the federal government to reduce the renewable electricity requirement for utilities serving their state by 1/5th (to 20% by 2025) if they instead require utilities to achieve 5% energy efficiency savings as a substitute. If this provision were fully utilized, the renewable electricity requirement could have fallen to 16.8% of total U.S. electricity sales in 2025. That's where things stood at the end of March. But as the ACES bill moved through backroom negotiations and the Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee markup process, the renewable electricity standard was severely weakened. As passed by the E&C Committee, ACES (H.R. 2454) replaces the 25% by 2025 renewable electricity requirement with a combined 20% renewable electricity (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) requirement by 2020 (continuing each year thereafter). Again, this 20% target is nominal though, and after exempting small utilities and hydropower again, it really applies to just 16.8% of total U.S. electricity sales in 2020. (Actually the exemption is worse than that, since the threshold at which small utilities are exempted was expanded to exempt utilities selling less than 4 billion kWh of electricity each year vs 1 billion kWh in the discussion draft. I am unable to calculate the effect of this expanded small utility exemption however, and continue to rely on the EIA analysis as the basis of my calculations, which factors in the lower 1 billion kWh exemption figure. In short: this is a slightly optimistic analysis when it comes to exemptions.) Since this is a combined RE and EE standard, up to one quarter of the requirement (i.e. 5 percentage points in 2020) can be met with certified energy efficiency savings instead of renewable electricity generation. This means the renewable electricity requirement is really just 15% by 2020 nominally, and applies to just 12.6% of U.S. electricity sales in 2020 after exemptions. Furthermore, like the discussion draft version, the new standard allows governors to petition to allow further energy efficiency savings to be substituted for the renewable electricity requirements. If utilized, the renewable electricity requirement would be cut back to 12% by 2020 with an 8% energy efficiency requirement. After again excluding exemptions, the renewable electricity requirement would apply to as little as 10.1% of U.S. electricity generation in that scenario. The following table summarizes and compares the nominal and real targets of the ACES discussion draft version and the H.R. 2454 version as passed by the House E&E Committee (click to enlarge)... It is also worth noting that the cost containment provision in the renewable electricity standard have also been weakened/lowered (yes, like all cap and trade regulations , renewable electricity requirements always contain some form of cost containment). The provision, known as an "alternative compliance payment", allows utilities to pay a per megawatt-hour (MWh) fee instead of providing proof of qualifying renewable electricity generation. The alternative compliance payment was cut in half from $50 per MWh in the discussion draft version to $25 per MWh in the new version. That means that if complying with the standard is more expensive than simply generating dirty or non-qualifying electricity and paying the $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour) alternative compliance payment, utilities will choose to generate less renewable electricity than the supposedly required by the standard. We've updated the April EIA analysis of the discussion draft version of the ACES renewable electricity standard to reflect all of the above changes and calculate the effects of the standard now contained in H.R. 2454. We also compare these results with EIA's business as usual estimates of qualifying renewable electricity generation (recently updated to reflect the impacts of the recession and stimulus) to estimate the real impact of the new ACES renewable electricity requirements. As with all of our ACES analysis , all our calculations and assumptions are available for download as a spreadsheet (.xlsx) here , and our results are shown in the graphics below. We conclude that as it now stands, business as usual renewable electricity generation may exceed the renewable electricity requirement if the discretionary efficiency waivers are fully utilized, and will boost qualifying renewable electricity generation to just 2 percentage points higher than business as usual in 2025 if the efficiency waivers aren't utilized at all. In short, the ACES RES will have between little to no impact on renewable electricity generation through 2025 (little impact in a normal scenario and no impact in the worst-case scenario permitted by the legislation; note that this doesn't even factor in the potential use of alternative compliance payments to further reduce renewable electricity requirements...) See graphics below (and click any to enlarge)... We also compared the amount of qualifying renewable electricity required by the two version of the renewable electricity standards, and conclude that the H.R. 2454 version of the renewable electricity requirement, as passed by the E&C Committee, is 14% weaker than the originally proposed discussion draft standard in 2020 and 40% weaker in 2025 , as illustrated in the graphics below... It's no wonder neither the American Wind Energy Association or VoteSolar are particularly exuberant about the passage of the ACES bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee. Here's AWEA's remarks on the renewable electricity standard: The bill passed by the Committee includes an RES of 20% by 2020, permitting states to allow up to 8% of the standard to be met through energy efficiency improvements. AWEA has indicated that while it hails the recognition of the importance of a national RES, such a low level - less than one-half the level originally proposed by President Obama and in Chairman Markey's original discussion draft -- could severely blunt the signal to the private sector to invest billions of dollars and expand production, manufacturing, and job creation. And here's VoteSolar : Nearly any policy action that encourages more renewable energy is A-OK with us. ... However, as currently written, none of the pending RES policies will deploy significant amounts of solar. According to the Department of Energy's analysis of that 25 percent RES by 2025, which again is much stronger than the compromise goals emerging from Committees, the federal RES structure could lead to a 35 percent increase in solar compared to a 678 percent increase in wind. When you're starting at 0.001 percent, 35 percent growth doesn't amount to much. More on Climate Change
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)