There is a name for avoiding certain issues in politics: avoiding the “third rail.” The theory is that if you touch this highly charged rail it will kill your political career. Clean energy and climate issues got that “third rail” tag during the 2010 election but the facts and the polls tell a very different story.

Senator Reid ignored the risk of clean energy being a “third rail”. He was one of the most endangered incumbents in the nation in 2010. To win, he focused on job growth with a specific emphasis on the jobs in the renewable energy sector. In fact, the very first ad produced by the campaign focused on clean energy. Brandon Hall, his campaign manager said, “Clean energy was our #1 issue in terms of a positive reason to vote for Harry Reid. It was huge with Independents – it was the #1 issue. We used it in everything we did.”

Why did it work? Clean energy is a winner across the board:

• 91% of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a priority for the President and Congress, including 85% of Republicans and 89% of independents, and 97% of Democrats. (Yale Project on Climate Communication, 5/2011)
• 86% of those polled want federal government to limit air pollution from businesses and 76% favored government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from businesses. (Stanford University, 6/2011)
• 66% of Americans consider “development of alternative energy such as wind and solar” as the preferred approach to addressing our energy concerns (only 26% chose oil, gas, or coal supplies. (Gallup Environment Poll, 3/2011)
• On average, battleground state voters were almost 20 percentage points more likely to vote for someone who supports clean energy legislation. (Public Policy Polling, 10/2010)
• When asked which energy sources we need to rely more upon, 88% of Americans said solar power, 83% said wind power, 28% said oil. In fact 71% of those polled felt like we should rely less on oil. (CNN/New Opinion Research Corp, 3/2011)
• When asked who is to blame for an increase in oil prices, 61% of respondents said that oil companies had a “great deal” to do with the price spikes. Only 24% thought environmental regulation was to blame. (CNN/Opinion Research Corp, 5/2011)

Too easily members running for office are afraid of well-funded opposition creating the “third rail”. In 2010, Texas oil companies helped fund a California ballot initiative to roll back the state’s landmark clean energy and climate law. They spent millions of dollars trying to charge that rail.

With California suffering the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, the oil companies claimed their ballot initiative (Proposition 23) would support job growth. Data quickly revealed that keeping families safe from air pollution was a top priority -- and when voters learned that Proposition 23 would lead to dirtier skies, they opposed it. Californians defeated Prop 23 by a ratio of 2 to 1 on Election Day. In fact, the defeat of Proposition 23 gained more support than everything else on the ballot, including the gubernatorial and Senate races.

Two thousand miles away in Northwest Ohio, there have been mass layoffs and everywhere you look there are empty industrial facilities. Representative Betty Sutton (OH-13-D) used clean energy to paint a hopeful future for her district saying, “We have a lot of things going on in the development of alternative and new energy that is going to be powered by American workers … we have examples to present to people. We see work happening to sort of break down those fears that we have in my district.”

Clean energy is building a new economy based on the spirit of American innovation. It will create new job opportunities, reduce our dependence on oil and protect us from pollution that threatens our health and contributes to climate change. Voters understand this - and they’re supporting elected officials who share that vision.

The strength behind the clean energy economy is so clear that it’s no longer a Democratic, Republican, or an Independent issue. Lori Weigel, a Republican strategist and pollster with Public Opinion Strategies states, “What we are seeing consistently is support for renewable energy. We ought to be doing more. Voters’ support of a Renewable Electricity Standard is 65%, across the partisan spectrum. They are coming at this from a very positive view of renewable energy.”

Clean energy represents an incredible opportunity for candidates and the communities they hope to represent. Across the country, candidates successfully used it in their campaigns, and have won. It is the best of American values, such as innovation and entrepreneurship. Candidates will be successful when they take this message forward, whether celebrating a new battery research facility in Ohio, watching a new wind turbine turn powerfully against a Texan sky, or standing with the families who breathe cleaner air.

Find out more about running on clean energy at runningclean.org

 

The trend of international land grabbing—when governments and private firms invest in or purchase large tracts of land in other countries for the purpose of agricultural production and export—can have serious environmental and social consequences, according to researchers at the Worldwatch Institute. Deals that focus solely on financial profit can leave rural populations more vulnerable and without land, employment opportunities, or food security.

The trend has accelerated as countries that lack sufficient fertile land to meet their own food needs—such as wealthier countries in the Middle East and Asia, particularly China—have turned to new fields in which to plant crops. “Growing demand and rising prices for food are leading some wealthier developing countries to seek secure access to food-producing land in the territory of lower-income ones,” said Robert Engelman, Executive Director of Worldwatch. “If all governments capably represented the interests of their citizens, these cash-for-cropland deals might improve prosperity and food security for both sides. But that’s not often the case. It’s critical that international institutions monitor these arrangements and find ways to block those that are one-sided or benefit only the wealthy.”

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) reports that some 15–20 million hectares of farmland were the subject of deals or proposed deals involving foreigners between 2006 and mid-2009. Additional land acquisitions occurred in 2010, including deals in Ethiopia and Sudan, according to Andrew Rice, author of The Teeth May Smile but the Heart Does Not Forget and contributing author to the recent Worldwatch report State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet.

Critics of large-scale land acquisitions believe that the land grabs are marginalizing the land rights of local residents, particularly indigenous populations, and compromising food security in the host countries. “[Critics] predict that the outcome will not be development but a litany of dire possible consequences: xenophobia, riots, coups, and more hunger,” writes Rice. Several organizations, including GRAIN, Oxfam, and the Oakland Institute, have reported on the negative consequences that such land deals have on developing countries.

Conversely, some experts argue that the agricultural development that occurs through land deals can provide poor countries with money, infrastructure, resources, and increases in food security. The International Institute for Economic Development, World Bank, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and International Fund for Agricultural Development all have published documents highlighting the economic possibilities associated with international land deals.

Nourishing the Planet recommends three critical considerations to help guide global land transactions to promote mutual benefit:

• Well-defined land ownership. Research shows that when land is legally titled, economic productivity improves. Figuring out who owns the land before acquisitions take place can help ensure the interests of smallholder farmers, promote local economic growth, and support community coordination with international investors. A country’s history and lack of property rights can make land titling complicated. In Ethiopia’s Gambella region, for example, much “unused” agricultural land is traveled by livestock herders, left to fallow, or used for hunting and gathering by indigenous people. These traditional land uses are easily dismissed without property rights.

• International cooperation and consent. Development experts agree that local residents should provide free, “prior and informed consent” to investors and government officials before land deals occur. But defining this consent and ensuring that deals operate within this rubric can be difficult. In the case of Mozambique, the government declared in 2007 that 30 million hectares of land was open for private investment. Although the government instituted consultations with local residents affected by potential deals, many local participants reported coercion, asymmetric information, and multiple sales of single titles. As a result, the government was forced to halt the deals altogether. 

• Complementing land deals with domestic infrastructure development. Many land deals require additional investment in infrastructure to make the land suitable for efficient agricultural production. When coordinated with local residents, this outside investment can lead to local employment and economic growth. At India’s West Garo Hills Tea Factory, for example, a government agency paid for some processing machinery, a private company offered additional machinery, factory design, and training, and local communities provided land, bricks, and labor. Not only does the partnership provide local jobs, but the processed tea from the factory is divided between the community and a private tea company.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

 

From the Restore Fairness blog-

A 32 year old Norwegian man is behind the brutal killings of 76 people in twin attacks that have shocked the world. We mourn the loss of those that lost their lives in this senseless violence. And as the shock wears off, we are slowly beginning to learn the motives behind the attack, much of which has been linked to a hatred of immigration and multiculturalism.

The man, Anders Behring Breivik, left behind a 1,500 page manifesto where he talks about the need to start a revolution against multiculturalism, fueled by the failure of Norwegian politicians in protecting the country from the influence of outsiders, with a particular focus on Muslim immigrants. The main target of his attacks were government buildings and a youth camp run by the ruling Labour Party, symbols of the government he felt were the largest obstacles to his ideal society- one without any immigrants.

In many ways, the killings have focused attention on the anti-immigrant rhetoric voiced openly in Europe. As a BBC article ‘Norway and the politics of hate’ reports,

Some of Europe’s leaders, from Angela Merkel to David Cameron, have questioned multiculturalism. The danger, of course, is that such statements can encourage extremism. Others say that in Europe the debate needs to be had, openly and transparently about immigration and multiculturalism.

A Reuters article ‘Norway massacre exposes incendiary immigration issue’ explains an even more extreme version of this questioning.

Many far-right European groups have shifted away from overtly racist rhetoric and have instead focused their argument on stressing what they see as the incompatibility of Islam and European values….Anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic parties have gained traction in Nordic and Scandinavian countries in recent years, tapping public anxiety over the relatively recent phenomenon of mass migration, particularly of Muslims, to their region.

It goes on to explain the political scenario in Sweden where the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats, despite having roots in neo-Nazi movements of the last two decades, were elected to Parliament for the first time. And although “there may be no direct link between violence and comments by politicians, the rhetoric creates a fertile environment for ethnically motivated attacks.”

The attacks also spotlight anti-Muslim thought in the U.S. as Breivik’s manifesto credits many American bloggers and writers who talk about the dangers of Islam to the west, with angry posts creating fear and hatred.

His manifesto cited Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture…Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.

There is never an explanation for senseless acts of violence such as this that take the lives of innocent people. While Saturday’s shooting can be seen as an isolated action of an individual, it can also be seen as emblematic of an international landscape that is often angry, divisive and intolerant. As the world churns with change, globalization has led to the shrinking of the world, often placing different cultures together. And yet, while divisive rhetoric thrives, little attention seems to be paid to the importance of diverse societies, the richness offered by immigration, and the necessity of their contributions to growing economies.

As the world reels from this violent tragedy, we must remember that the responsibility for not allowing the politics of hate to spread lies with each and every one of us. If anything, this tragic moment should become a turning point for a more honest conversation that uplifts each other and upholds the rights for everyone to live fairly with dignity and equality and justice.

Photos courtesy of nytimes.com

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

 

 

We fight for the free indigenous peoples of Europe, for those not yet born and for the memory and wishes of our forefathers, our martyrs. We fight to preserve our culture, our identity, our country and for Christendom.

All participants in the current Phase 1 civil war will be remembered as the courageous few, the immortal pioneers, true European heroes who had the courage when no one else did, who stood up against, and still stand up against an oppressive Marxist tyrant.

We must rise and claim what is rightfully ours! By September 11th, 2083, the third wave of Jihad will have been repelled and the cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist hegemony in Western Europe will be shattered and lying in ruin, exactly 400 years after we won the battle of Vienna on September 11th, 1683. Europe will once again be governed by patriots.

from Anders Behring Breivik's "2083: A European Declaration of Independence"

Under the pseudonym of Andrew Berwick, Anders Behring Breivik posted online a 1,500-page document written in English hours before his twin attacks in Norway that claimed the lives of nearly hundred people. In this Breivik takes a page from the anarco-primitivist Theodore Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber, who penned a manifesto entitled Industrial Society and Its Future voicing his displeasure with the state of human affairs back in the mid 1990s. Breivik's opus is titled 2083 - A Declaration of European Independence. It is technically a compendium, half of the document is written by Breivik, the rest is a compliation from various sources.

It is a document that took nine years to research and write. Its last entry is dated Friday July 22nd 12:51 PM about 2 hours before the detonation of the car bomb. Eerily, the last part of the documents details his preparations for the bombing and the massacre, all rather matter of factly and seemingly without any concern for the devastation that he was to cause. It's not clear how long these attacks had been planned but he seems to suggest that he had been thinking about it for about six years. It took him about 80 days to actually build the bomb.

Another portion is autobiographical detailing his life and revealing among other things his phase as a graffiti artist, various assaults suffered at the hand Muslim immigrants, his run for the Oslo City Council as a candidate for the right wing populist Progress party (Norway's second largest party) and that despite his visceral hatred of Islam that he had several Muslim friends including one of Pakistani heritage.

He discloses other details of his life. He is the son of Norwegian public servants who divorced when he was still a boy. His father served in Norway's foreign service. Both of his parents were members of the Labour party. He spent summers in France with his mother and step-father. He was baptised at age 15 in the Norwegian Lutheran Church and attended services regularly. His godmother was a Chilean exile. He chose not to attend university and is largely self-educated. He has started several businesses including a farm which he used to purchase the fertilezer used to create his bomb. He's travelled widely in Europe and has visited the Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, Turkey and the United States (Las Vegas, which he enjoyed but did not like as he considered it vapid). His political epiphany and radicalization seems to have been a result of the war in the Balkans and in particular the EU isolation of Serbia.

Breivik claims to belong to a group of some one hundred European nationalists that resurrected the Knights Templar/PCCTS (Latin for Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici  English: Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Solomon Temple) of medieval Christendom. He envisions himself as being in the vanguard of pan-European pan-Christian resistance movement that aims to restore what he calls cultural conservatism. If he is to believed, the Knights Templar is divided into single or duo cells across Europe. The Norway attacks are intended as a recruiting event and a wake-up call for Europeans. Noting that "the time for dialogue is over," Breivik writes that the Knight Templar aim to “seize political and military control of Western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda.”

It's hard to slice through the document but he seems to envision a sixty year struggle to throw Islam out of Europe. He literally aims to deport every last Muslim after a civil war. Among the more outlandish aims are the reconquest of Constantinople, the establishment of three Christian states in the Levant (he laments the demise of Maronite Lebanon), a Coptic state in the Sinai and the creation of a greater Armenia, a Greater Greece and a Greater Serbia. Bosnia and Albania would be wiped off the map. All Turks would be deported to a rump Turkey in central Anatolia. Israel would annex the West Bank in toto.

He rails against multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, moral relativism, political elites, political correctness. He is particularly angered by Turkish denials of the Armenian genocides. He admires Japan, South Korea and Taiwan for eschewing multiculturalism and emphasizing their monocultures. He professes admiration for Winston Churchill, Otto von Bismarck and Vladimir Putin. He is not a fan of Lady Gaga, Madonna or Christina Aguilera. He considers the HBO series Sex and the City to be a cultural peversion.  He does not consider himself a racist but a nationalist. He doesn't seem to have Nazi sympathies; he's not a Holocaust denier. On Judaism, he does seem conflicted. Many of the European intellectuals he blames for the demise of European civilization happen to be Jewish but on the other hand he professes admiration for Israel. 

While it seems that he is broadly well-read, many of his sources are typical right wing media. Robert Spencer, who with Pamela Geller led the opposition to the Parc 55 Mosque in Manhattan, is a frequent citation. Surprisingly, I have yet to run across a citation of Pamela Geller. He does cite blogs like Brussels Journal (a conservative website critical of Islam and its effect on European society), JihadWatch and the Gates of Vienna. Many of the additional essays in the compendium are the work of Fjordman, the anonymous Norwegian blogger who writes for various blogs that are critical of Islam. Brevik takes pains to note that while he admires Fjordman, they have never met. 

Among academics, he quotes Gertrude Himmelfarb (the wife of Irving Kristol, the mother of William Kristol and a historian in own her right), Bernard Lewis (the Princeton historian on Ottoman Empire), Samuel Huntington (the Harvard political scientist and author of The Clash of Civilizations) and Daniel Pipes. He attacks Edward Said, the now deceased Columbia professor who wrote the landmark work Orientalism. He also critical of thinkers such as Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci. 

While most of the document relates to Europe and the role of Islam in Europe, there are a number of passages that touch on the United States. He calls for the withdrawal of all American troops from Europe calling the presence of US troops sixty-five years after the end of WWII "unacceptable." He also bemoans American cultural domination of Europe. 

Below the fold, I've pulled some of the parts the struck me. I have chosen not to provide a link to document as frankly it strikes me as a primer for committing acts of terrorism. 

In terms of my general reaction to the document, I'll say this. It is a manifesto that will likely find a receptive audience among a very small of group of anti-Islamic activists in Europe and perhaps even in the United States though it is hard to conceive that Breivik will convince many to join a reconstituted Knights Templar to wage a sixty year war on behalf of Christendom. I've heard Congressman Allen West, among others, speak of the threat from Islam and to be frank Allen West would find the portion on Islam wholly consistent with his views. The New York Times has additional information on this story.

There's more...

Eighty-seven dead is the latest toll from Friday's twin attacks in Norway. Seven died in the bombing of the government buildings in Oslo and another four score, almost all teenagers, died at the summer jamboree of the governing left of centre Norwegian Labour party in Utøya, some 25 miles northwest of Oslo. All at the hands of a single gunman, a 32 year old right wing conservative Norwegian Christian named Anders Behring Breivik. Thus, it's time to round up all the right wing Christians.

Clearly, I'm not serious but had yesterday's attacks been perpetuated by Islamists there would have been incessant calls from the right, here and abroad, to deprive Muslims of their rights. In fact even before all the facts were established, right wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection were doing all they assign blame on Islam as a whole and engage in willful hateful misinformation. I can only imagine what the vile Pamela Geller had to say. Neither sanity nor reason are hallmarks of the American right wing, but the rush to judgment based on unadulterated hate is.

It was fairly evident to me from the start that the bombing in Oslo was not the work of Islamist jihadis, notwithstanding a claim of responsibility by a group called Ansar al Jihad al Asam. Theirs is more wishful thinking that perhaps some lone jihadist had acted. However, Islamist jihadis tend to blow themselves up in executing their perverse acts of terror. They also tend to attack civilian transportation targets. Neither was the case in Oslo. From the start, the bombing reminded me more of Oklahoma City, a car bomb against a government target. That, of course, was the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil before September 11.

We will learn more today about the gunman and his motives but one thing is for certain. On both sides of the Atlantic right wing Christian populism is a threat that must be confronted. I suspect that in Europe they will rise to that occasion. Indeed, Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was unbowed stating that "our answer to violence is more democracy."

That should scare the bejesus out of the Christian right.

 

 

 

 

 

While a jihadist group called Ansar al-Jihad al Alam has claimed responsibility for the twin attacks today in Norway that included a powerful car bomb in Oslo's city centre that ripped apart several blocks of government office buildings followed by an attack on a youth jamboree in nearby Utøya of Norway's governing leftist Labour party, Norwegian police do not believe that international terrorism lies behind today's carnage. Indeed, Knut Storberget, the Norwegian justice minister, has confirmed at a news conference that the suspect arrested today at the youth camp in Utøya was a Norwegian.

It is telling and shameful to see much of the media and the blogosphere jump to conclusions. While we should not discount the threat from Islamist groups, the specter of right wing violence is just as much a threat to Western civilization. Back in February of this year, Janne Kristiansen, the head of Norway's state police intelligence unit PST (Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste), warned that neo-nazism and right wing extremism were on the rise in Norway. It should not thus surprise if today's twin attacks are tied to right-wing extremism.

Full coverage at The Guardian.

 

Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the key demo ratings. He also shares his thoughts on Rachel Maddow and Fox News.

 

Take a listen:

 

So the above rather innocuous, though certainly partisan, speech on the House floor by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz leads to this email rant from Tea Party favorite Congressman Allen West:

Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior......which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

 

According to Talking Points Memo, the email was sent to Congresswoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and West's Chief of Staff. It's hard to believe that any Congressperson would use such disrespectful language and here's hoping that Allen West is censured or reprimanded though I won't hold my breath.

But Allen West wasn't done ranting. In his weekly letter to his constituents published on the conservative website Red County, Rep. West in another bizarre tirade called Obama supporters "a threat to the gene pool." 

I also want to point out just how wrong on the facts these Tea Party folks can be. Allen West served in the US Army for over 20 years advancing to the rank of colonel. One would think that such a person could get basic facts correct. Instead, Congressman West writes the following:

In the area of foreign policy, the United States has officially recognized the Libyan rebels as the “legitimate” government of Libya. Now, I am just a simple fella from down South, but I recall a previous Democrat President recognizing a bunch of undefined ideological zealots called the Taliban…and we all see how that ended up!

The Taliban came to power in October 1996 when they finally captured Kabul after a near two year siege. The Taliban regime was called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and it only gained diplomatic recognition from three countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Clinton Administration did not recognize the Taliban government. It's truly mind-boggling that a Congressman, especially one with a two decade military career, can get such basic facts wrong. 

And then there is this tidbit:

I believe we are headed towards the ultimate ideological clash in America. There is a widening chasm which has developed between those who believe in principled fiscal policies and those desiring the socialist bureaucratic nanny-state. An unfortunate aspect to this is the complicity of a mainstream media which does not report facts, but rather ideological bias. This clash will determine the future and legacy of our Constitutional Republic.

One has to wonder just how demented is Allen West.

Gay marriage has been a contentious issue for decades now, especially among more conservative, religious groups, but recently there has been an important shift in public opinion. According to a recent poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post, more than half of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to legally marry. In a similar survey, CNN/Opinion Research found that 51% of respondents said that same-sex marriages should be legal.

Even though the opposition to gay marriage is more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, there has been a decline in opposition to gay marriage among these groups in the last few years, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll. Other more traditionally conservative groups such as Catholics and moderates, adults in their 30’s and 40’s, and men, have shown increasing support for the issue in recent years. Furthermore, the generational/gender disparity remains in tact, as 60% of Americans under the age of 50 still support gay marriage, but only four in ten of those individuals over 50 also support same-sex marriage. A recent CNN/Opinion Research survey found that more than half of men are against the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 57% of women are in favor of it. 

Furthermore, a recent Gallup Poll  found that 56% of people say that they believe that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable, which is the highest percentage it’s been since the question was first asked in 2001. Yet, when it comes to the origins of same-sex orientation, there is an almost even split among Americans. 42% say that being a lesbian or gay is “due to factors such as an upbringing and environment,” whereas 40% believe that it is “something a person is born with.” The trend over time demonstrates that since 1978 the majority of Americans (56%) believed that homosexuality was a product of one’s environment. Throughout the years, however, there has been a significant shift in the beliefs around the origins of homosexuality, and now in 2011 there is an almost even division among Americans regarding the nature vs. nurture argument. 

However, due to a particularly polarizing political climate surrounding the issue, the fight for the legalization of gay marriage is far from over. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in five states and the District of Columbia since 2003, but many other states still prohibit it. Last February, the Obama administration said that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a 1996 law banning federal recognition of gay marriages (please see ABC News/Washington Post Poll for more info). Therefore, although some states recognize the legalization of same-sex marriage, there is still important work to be done.

Despite some remnant opposition, this upward trend in support of gay marriage reveals some major shifts in the hearts and minds of Americans, as compared to several years ago. With this kind of progressive thinking in conjunction with legal action, we may be one step closer in achieving equal opportunity for all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. 

The debt limit is a largely symbolic check on excessive borrowing which in the past has been frequently raised with little to no controversy. Such periodic increases are necessary to keep the government running and paying its bills, regardless of ideology.

However, Congressional Republicans are now demanding that certain conditions must be met in order to win their approval of a debt ceiling increase. They have termed their list of demands Cut, Cap and Balance, and claim it is a necessary measure in order to keep the government debt from spiraling out of control, and thus keep the country functioning.

Yet the Cut, Cap and Balance Act scheduled to reach the House floor this week is anything but necessary to keep the country functioning. Rather, it is the crown jewel, the final step of conservatives' long-pursued "Starve the Beast" strategy to downsize government. It would radically limit the flexibility of the federal government to provide a social safety net, buttress the economy in tough times and respond to great national challenges, now and into the future.

But don't take my word for it. Check out this week's 90 Second Summary and decide for yourself:

 

There's more...