Secret docs show lead anti- "gay marriage" group wanted to "fan" race war

Ben Smith at Buzzfeed sums up the secret documents that he calls "explosive":

Final line I'm amazed NOM put on paper: Goal of "fanning the hostility" btw blacks and gays

This is seriously f'd up.

A "confidential" internal document of the lead anti-"gay marriage" group, the National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), shows that the organization was not simply content at taking civil rights away from gay couples, they wanted to start a political race war between black, Latino and white Democrats, and they admitted it in writing. They outright admitted that "the" top goal of the anti-"gay marriage" movement is "fanning the hostility" between blacks and white gays, and between Latinos.

Here are their own words:

"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key..."

That last line is referring to a blow up in the gay community following Prop 8 when an exit poll showed that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans voted in favor of the anti-gay amendment. In other words, the religious right wants to fan the flames of racial hatred between blacks and whites.

They write of the black community, and Latinos, as if they're mere puppets for the religious right to manipulate. They continue:

"Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington, D.C."

What they mean is, DC is a majority black and Democratic town with a large gay community. They want to start a race war in the nation's capital.

This line was also particularly crude:

"Find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally."

Again, it's all about promoting a race war between blacks and whites in order to hurt gays and the Democratic party, to hell with what it does to the black community, the civil rights movement, or the future of this country.

None of this is a surprise. What is surprising is that they would put talk of fanning a race war in writing.

Here's a second document, below, and Joe has a third over at AMERICAblog Gay. We'll have much more on this tomorrow.

20100716 Doc 128b NOM Depo - Exhibit 2 - NOM Depo Exhibit 12 Nat'l Strategy for Winning 12-15-09 Read the rest of this post...

The Scale of the Universe, by a 14 year old

Check this out. It's a sliding scale of the smallest things and the biggest things in the universe, ending with the universe itself.  Then take note that this depiction was made by a 14 year old high school student.  Then feel terribly unfulfilled. Read the rest of this post...

Did 'Stand your Ground' affect the mind of Trayvon Martin's killer?

DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), calls for the repeal of Florida's Stand Your Ground law:

This case is further evidence that Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground Law,’ which passed in 2005, needs to be repealed. The failure of the Sanford police to further investigate this crime as a result of their interpretation of this law is an injustice to Trayvon’s family and to all Floridians.

But it seems to me that the recent discussion has been focusing on the question of whether Zimmerman might escape prosecution under the stand your ground law rather than the more important fact that Trayvon might be alive today had the law not passed.

Zimmerman had good reason to think that the law made his actions legal, and he likely acted on that belief. Whether or not he was correct in his interpretation of the law, he would not have cause to believe his actions legal had the law not been passed.

Blame is not a zero-sum quantity. Pointing out the fact that many of the deaths in 9/11 were caused by the fact that the World Trade Center did not meet building codes does not make Bin Laden any less culpable for the deaths. Zimmerman is responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin, but that does not mean that the Florida legislature, the NRA and the others behind the Stand Your Ground law are not just as responsible for the predictable and predicted result of their actions.

Use of deadly force should always be a last resort. It was not just Zimmerman who interpreted the law as allowing him to gun someone down on mere suspicion, the local police did as well. Even if that was not the intent of the law, it appears to have been its effect.

Prosecuting Treyvon's killer is important. But preventing future tragedies is even more important. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Guy enters women's gymnastics competition. Fun ensues.

Read the rest of this post...

Turkish TV ad using Hitler to sell shampoo

I'm not sure the Turks are in any position to be making light of genocide. Read the rest of this post...

North Carolina anti-gay amendment may defund domestic violence programs

Donate to help defeat Amendment One.  Join today's Money-Bomb to fight the anti-gay amendment in North Carolina being voted on in just six weeks.

The religious right is trying to pass a state constitutional amendment in North Carolina on May 8th that would not just ban marriage equality for gay couples, it would also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships for all couples, gay and straight, and would even make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the state to help unmarried women who are victims of domestic violence.

Rather than simply banning "gay marriage," the amendment seems to ban any legal recognition of any domestic legal union other than a married one.  That means that domestic violence won't exist unless the couple is married, otherwise it's not "domestic" if the law simply considers them as "shacking up."  And that means state programs that help victims of domestic violence might be required to turn away unmarried women, and that courts may not be able to help those single women either.  Nor the police.

But the amendment goes further than that.  How do you litigate partner survivorship rights, hospital visitation, and adoption if the courts are forced by the state constitution to ignore any relationship that isn't marriage?

And don't think for a minute that this is hypothetical.  Ohio and Virginia both had problems with domestic violence programs following the passage of similar amendments in those states.

For those reasons, and more, AMERICAblog has joined today's Money-Bomb to raise money for the campaign to defeat anti-gay Amendment One in North Carolina.  The gay blogs have already raised over $12,000.  Please click the image above, or here, and give to the campaign.  Thanks.

PS from Joe: We're doing a live chat with the NC campaign manager, Jeremy Kennedy, right now at AMERICAblog Gay. Come over and join in -- after you donate. Read the rest of this post...

Bernanke hints at new round of easing, dollar drops again

In predictable fashion, the dollar was strengthening early today against the euro until Fed chief Bernanke started talking about yet another round of free handouts for Wall Street quantitative easing.

Because the oil prices are tied to the dollar, these remarks only contribute to the rise in oil prices, which of course, did rise as well today.

It's a fair criticism of the recovery to say that it's not (yet) convincing but until the Fed can explicitly show how another round of easing helps anyone other than Wall Street, those policies and talk should end. CNBC:

In a speech to the National Association of Business Economics ahead of the market open, Bernanke left the door open to more quantitative easing but without actually promising any more.

While not a departure from his previous comments, traders took Bernanke's speech to mean that Fed action is still a strong possibility.

The Fed chief's comments sent stocks higher, the dollar lower, and bond yields lower.

Read the rest of this post...

Are employers who ask job applicants for Facebook usernames, passwords breaking the law?

It's still difficult to say what Facebook's actual position is on this issue of employers asking prospective employees for their Facebook username and password, so they can peruse your account as part of the job interview process.

Facebook's initial response was quite forceful, yet their follow-up later the same day suggested they may now ignore the attacks on privacy.

With the election season kicking into high gear, a few senators are calling for an inquiry. Employers demanding Facebook passwords is as outrageous as them asking for private letters or emails. It may be a soft economy and employers may have the upper hand but asking for Facebook passwords is none of their business.

"In an age where more and more of our personal information — and our private social interactions — are online, it is vital that all individuals be allowed to determine for themselves what personal information they want to make public and protect personal information from their would-be employers. This is especially important during the job-seeking process, when all the power is on one side of the fence," Schumer said in a statement.

Specifically, the senators want to know if this practice violates the Stored Communications Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Those two acts, respectively, prohibit intentional access to electronic information without authorization and intentional access to a computer without authorization to obtain information.

The senators also want to know whether two court cases relating to supervisors asking current employees for social media credentials could be applied to job applicants.

Read the rest of this post...

The Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments in the health care reform battle

From Mike Sacks at HuffPo:

And at 10 a.m. sharp inside the Court on Monday morning, the Marshal will bang her gavel, the 400 lucky spectators will rise, and the nine justices will filter in through partings in the courtroom's floor-to-ceiling red curtains in groups of three.

Over the course of three days, the justices will hear six hours of oral arguments to weigh the challenges to key aspects of the Affordable Care Act that have percolated through the lower courts in the two years since President Obama signed the 2400-page health care reform bill into law.

At the heart of the challenges is the law's "individual mandate," which, starting in 2014, requires virtually all Americans to hold health insurance or else pay a penalty on their tax returns. The challengers contend that Congress cannot constitutionally compel an uninsured person to purchase a product in the private market. The government says the mandate is within Congress' broad power to regulate interstate commerce because the uninsured's inevitable consumption of health care services helped create the nationwide problem of unaffordable premiums that the Affordable Care Act seeks to solve.

It was foolish of Democrats not to embrace health care reform, and wear it as a badge of honor, from the beginning (yeah it wasn't what we wanted, but it has some very good things that few of us can name). In the same way Democrats didn't embrace the stimulus, they did the same (or didn't do the same) on HCR. And all the while, the Republicans simply lied in a vacuum, and just like with the stimulus the public believed the lie. Which is usually what happens when only one side shows up to a debate.

What's most disturbing to me is how several of us saw this coming. We saw how Democrats were refusing to fight back against GOP lies on issue after issue, and we warned that it would come back to haunt us. And it has. The Republicans should be getting the blame for the poor economy, they were the ones who demanded a smaller stimulus. From day one the President should have warned that growth would be less because of the GOP. Instead, the Republicans are actually claiming that the stimulus created unemployment, rather than curtailed it. Just like a health care law that provides more people less-expensive coverage is labeled "death panels." If you don't fight back from day one, if you don't keep fighting the lies, the lies stick.

Some of us saw this coming, and we were belittled as the whiney professional fringe left. How'd that work out for you? Read the rest of this post...

Digby and David Dayen explain why Obama won't unravel the Mortgage Fraud Mess

David Dayen is as on top of the bank-fraud mortgage-fraud mess as anyone in the country. And this conversation between Dayen and Digby (an able interviewer) is as good an explanation of the rule of law aspect of this problem facing Obama and the legal system (both) as I've heard.

It's cogent and very listenable, despite the technical nature of the problem. Dayen is good on this subject, and I'm glad to present his walk-through. Thanks also to Jay Ackroyd and the good people at Virtually Speaking for bringing it to us.

Note that while this is a one-hour segment, the mortgage discussion lasts only till the midway point. The rest is about the War on Women, also good, but if you came for the mortgage discussion only, feel free to stop there.

(Hint: Holding down the right and left arrow keys performs an excellent fast-forward and fast-rewind. Use them for navigation.)

Listen to internet radio with Jay Ackroyd on Blog Talk Radio

For more on this topic, see here from Rachel Maddow, and this, our own primer on the fraudulent mess.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

White House accuses GOP of trying to "vilify" green energy

It's good to see the White House hitting back.  Though, like everyone else, I'd like to see this continue after the President gets re-elected, and that isn't a given. From the Hill:

Senior White House adviser David Plouffe defended President Obama’s embattled energy policies Sunday by calling GOP attacks on alternative energy sources “dangerous.”

“Sadly . . . this used to be a very bipartisan idea, sadly, the Republicans running for president, many Republicans here in Washington, kind of vilify this, almost mock it, and it is only going to determine our future. It is a very dangerous thing,” he said on Fox News Sunday.

It's difficult to win on an issue after you appear to have given up on it.  The environment is yet another issue that the left let the Republicans roll them on.  How in God's name did the GOP win on global warming, for example?  And they are winning.  They're winning because they lie, but also because our guys don't fight back adequately.  When's the last time you've heard anything from an environmental group?  I can count the crickets.  Remember when polar bears were drowning?  I remember begging environmental groups to jump on that issue - again, crickets.

There's no excuse for letting the GOP get the upper-hand on these issues.  But the organized left, the folks who get all the advocacy money in this town, tend to, on average, be rather lousy at their jobs. Read the rest of this post...

Japan shutting down nuclear reactors

Japan had used a lot of nuclear energy until the Fukushima disaster, but that changed everything. The transition from nuclear to other energy sources (fossil fuel, in this case) has been rapid and likely expensive, though there was a heavy cost to nuclear energy. BBC News:

Japan has shut down another nuclear power station, bringing it a step closer to suspending atomic energy, following the Fukushima disaster.

Only one of the 54 nuclear reactors remains in operation, and it is due to be switched off in May.

Residents have demanded reactors not be turned back on after routine maintenance due to safety fears.

In the US, nuclear looked like an increasingly popular option in certain circles before Fukushima but that has slowed significantly. Many of the US reactors are aging and need maintenance but we still desperately also need an alternative plan for the future. Read the rest of this post...