ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

State LGBT Watch: Retaining Inequality In Texas, Advancing Inequality In Minnesota And Tennessee

Despite how politically unpopular anti-LGBT views are becoming, efforts are still underway in various states to roll back rights. Others, like California, are making what small strides they can, and a new study about Massachusetts shows us there are consequences for not advancing equality:

- CALIFORNIA: A bill passed this week by the Senate would require that for contracts over $100,000, the State of California can only work with businesses that provide benefits to same-sex spouses of their employees.

- MASSACHUSETTS: A new study by the Williams Institute reports that Massachusetts, by not protecting its transgender citizens from employment discrimination, loses millions of dollars annually to public health insurance coverage and lost income tax revenues.

- NEW YORK: Following Monday’s rally in Albany, Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell (D) has introduced a marriage equality bill in the General Assembly. The General Assembly has passed such bills twice before.

- MICHIGAN: Over 100 graduates of the University of Michigan Law School walked out of Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) commencement speech because of his votes against same-sex marriage and adoption.

- MINNESOTA: The Senate today passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. If the House passes it as well — as it is expected to — it will be sent to the people for a referendum. Faculty from the University of Minnesota law school recently spoke out against the ban.

- TENNESSEE: The Senate State and Local Government Committee has advanced a bill that would void Nashville’s LGBT employment protections. Both this bill and the “Don’t Say Gay” bill will be voted upon by the Senate tomorrow.

- TEXAS: A number of pro-LGBT bills will not be passed in Texas this year, including one that would remove the unconstitutional law against “homosexual conduct.”

- VIRGINIA: A new poll finds that a plurality of Virginians support marriage equality and the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, despite the fact a provision to allow adoption by same-sex couples was soundly rejected last month.

Keep track of how LGBT issues are advancing in the states at our State LGBT Watch.

Climate Progress

Indian Point boss laughs off nuclear safety threat with quotes from alcohol-and-sex comedy “The Hangover”

Slide 2 of nuclear safety presentation from Entergy CEO Wayne Leonard

Energy Hangover

Yes, Leonard is the winner of this month’s “What Were They Thinking” Award:

The clueless CEO in charge of the upstate Indian Point nuclear plant had a stunning meltdown in judgment when he kicked off an investor meeting by displaying the quote from the movie “The Hangover,” “By the way, we’re all gonna die!”

In a bonehead attempt to ease fears about potential disaster, Wayne Leonard, the boss at New Orleans-based energy conglomerate Entergy, littered his 111-page presentation with pictures and lines from the hit 2009 movie.

The slides, making up the first five pages and then randomly scattered throughout, included the characters discussing how to pronounce “retard” and the question, “Would you please put some pants on? I feel weird having to ask you twice.”

The slug from the Daily News piece says it all:  nuclear_knucklehead.

In case you think that U.S. nuclear safety concerns in general — and at Entergy in particular — are a laughing matter, read the Sunday NYT piece, “Nuclear Agency Is Criticized as Too Close to Its Industry” and the new ProPublica expos©, “NRC Waives Enforcement of Fire Rules at Nuclear Plants,” excerpted below.

In case you think Entergy’s Leonard didn’t pull a Charlie Sheen — a guy who knows his way around a Vegas hangover — go through the full PPT yourself.  This slide in particular has that Sheen sheen to it:

Read more

Politics

VIDEO: Bush’s Failed Hunt For Bin Laden

One of the more staggering developments to emerge in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s elimination has been the attempt by many on the right to shoehorn George W. Bush into the narrative of how the terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 was successfully tracked down and ultimately killed. Soon after Obama’s announcement of Bin Laden’s death, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) attempted to spin the accomplishment as a continuance of Bush’s “vigilance,” Sarah Palin thanked the former president without even mentioning Obama, the news shows on the Sunday following the event featured no less than five former Bush administration officials (versus only two from the Obama administration), and Bush himself reportedly declined an invitation to a commemorative ceremony at the World Trade Center because he reportedly felt like he did not receive enough credit for Bin Laden’s death.

But attributing Bin laden’s death to “vigilance” on Bush’s part is a stretch (to put it kindly) as an analysis and a timeline by ThinkProgress demonstrate. Bush’s missteps included not focusing on Bin Laden prior to 9/11, undermining the search for Bin Laden by abandoning the fight in Tora Bora, and above all, by shifting resources away from a focus on al Qaeda and into the massive folly that was the invasion of Iraq. Watch a ThinkProgress video documenting Bush’s failures:


Update

Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on Wednesday night that President George W. Bush wasn’t interested in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. “I don’t think they really wanted to get bin Laden,” Wilkerson said.

Economy

Republican AG’s Take Bank Money, Repeat Bank Talking Points On Foreclosure Fraud Settlement

A bipartisan groups of attorneys general have been working on a settlement with the nation’s biggest banks over the foreclosure abuses that came to light several months ago, including the widespread use of “robo-signers.” The AG’s have been pushing for the banks to pay a monetary penalty — in the form of reducing loan principal for troubled borrowers — but eight Republican AG’s have broken with the group and sided with the banks, saying that they shouldn’t have to pay for their mortgage abuses. One Republican AG — Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli — even derided principal reductions as “welfare.”

The Republican AG’s claim that principal reductions would create an incentive for borrower’s to default on their loans. As it turns out, according to a report today in Bloomberg, the Republican AG’s say this because it is exactly what banking lobbyists tell them to say:

Some of those attorneys general met yesterday in Atlanta to discuss the issue, said Adam Temple of the Republican State Leadership Committee. Bob Davis, an executive vice president with the American Bankers Association, spoke to the group in Atlanta, telling them principal reductions don’t work, he said in an interview. Loan balances must be reduced so much for borrowers struggling to make payments that it’s a better deal for lenders to foreclose instead, he said.

Dave Dayen pointed out that principal reductions are the most sustainable form of loan modification, while the IMF has said that banks can aggressively write down loans with “limited” effect on their balance sheets. As economist Paul Krugman explained, “the proposed settlement only calls for loan modifications that would produce a greater ‘net present value’ than foreclosure — that is, for offering deals that are in the interest of both homeowners and investors. The outrageous truth is that in many cases banks are blocking such mutually beneficial deals, so that they can continue to extract fees.”

Several of the eight AG’s who are pushing the bank line, in addition to receiving face to face briefings from bank lobbyists, had their campaign coffers filled in their last election cycle by the financial services industry*:

ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT (R-OK): Pruitt received $115,000 from the finance/banking/real estate industry in 2010, his largest contributing industry, including $27,000 from securities and investment firms and $17,000 from commercial banks.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOT (R-TX): Abbot received more than $1 million from the finance industry, his largest contributing industry, including almost $185,000 from securities and investment firms and $225,000 from commercial banks and lending institutions.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN CUCCINELLI (R-VA): Cuccinelli received nearly $300,000 from the finance industry, his largest contributor after the Republican party, including $58,000 from securities and investment firms.

ATTORNEY GENERAL SAM OLENS (R-GA): Olens received $195,000 from the finance industry, his second largest contributing industry, including $17,000 from securities and investment firms and $35,000 from commercial banks.

ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI (R-FL): Bondi received nearly $300,000 from the finance industry, including $57,500 from securities and investment firms.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON (R-SC): Wilson received almost $120,000 from the finance industry, his second largest contributing industry, including $11,350 from commercial banks.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN BRUNING (R-NE): Bruning received almost $71,000 from the finance industry, including $12,540 from commercial banks.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LUTHER STRANGE (R-AL): Strange received almost $550,000 from the finance industry, his largest contributing industry, including $235,375 from securities and investment firms and $82,700 from commercial banks.

Republicans in Congress have also come out against the proposed settlement, falsely claiming that helping troubled homeowners would “impede” the economic recovery.

*Totals compiled by ThinkProgress using data from The National Institute on Money in State Politics. All totals are for the 2009 or 2010 election cycle.

Security

New UN Report Rebuts War Hawks’ Argument That Iran Sanctions Aren’t Working

In their case for ever-more-severe measures against Iran, Washington hawks incessantly push the notion that sanctions aren’t “working,” with the obvious upshot being a need for more aggressive action against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. It’s something neoconservative pundits and other hawks hammer home on a nearly daily basis and a point that resonates with moderate analysts.

Constantly hitting on this theme, however, belies the complexity of various types of sanctions levied against Iran and their respective effectiveness. A new report from a UN experts panel appears to shed a little light on the misleading talking point.

According to the AP, which acquired a copy of the still-unreleased report, the eight-member expert panel convened to assess international sanctions concluded that:

sanctions have made it harder, costlier and riskier for Iran to acquire items needed for its banned nuclear and missile activities. [...]

“Overall, the panel has found that sanctions are constraining Iran’s procurement of items related to prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile activity and thus slowing development of these programs,” the panel said.

The panel did note several caveats. Despite increased difficulties that have slowed its progress, Iran continues to use fronts to attempt and sometimes to acquire materials and equipment for its nuclear program. Furthermore, the panel acknowledges that sanctions are “not yet having an impact on the decision calculus of its leadership with respect to halting uranium enrichment.”

Nonetheless, contrast the UN expert panel’s nuanced position with a late-March post titled “Are sanctions really ‘working’?” by the Washington Post’s neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, who supports a military strike on Iran:

The administration consistently points to the international and unilateral Iran sanctions as proof of its effectiveness in thwarting the regime’s nuclear program. But the program hasn’t slowed and now we learn how ineffective, on its own terms, the sanctions legislation may be.

The UN panel casts doubts on Rubin’s unequivocal statement that “the program hasn’t slowed.” She conflates the international nuclear sanctions with the U.S.’s coordinated energy sanctions, extensively quoting the Foundation for Defense of Democracies‘ Mark Dubowitz, who focuses on broad-based energy sanctions designed to punish the Iranian economy and not the international sanctions specifically aimed at thwarting nuclear progress.

David Albright, a physicist and former nuclear inspector now with ISIS, told ThinkProgress that “sanctions have multiple purposes and one of them is making it harder for Iran to proceed on a technical level and industrial level, and that’s working better.” He added that the international sanctions buy time: “It’s going to be a lot longer before they can get to the point where they can decide to build a nuclear weapon.”

Reza Marashi, the research director of the National Iranian American Council and a former State Department official, also told ThinkProgress: “What the UN sanctions allow the U.S. to do is take our national security strategy and get international agreement around it. When Turkey says we will adhere to the UN sanctions to the letter of the law, that is working.” Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

Morpheus in this hip-hop matrix:

— David Brooks is still wrong about the sources of unemployment.

— Single-payer health care sneaking in from the north.

— The 18th century meaning of “commerce” was much broader than the one that’s prevailed since the New Deal.

— “Obi-Wan Kenobi is Dead, Vader Says”.

— Rush Limbaugh is a huge racist.

— Is the iPad killing PC sales?

— Buy:rent ratios still look very high in a number of metro areas.

Common, “The 6th Sense”.

Economy

Rep. Mulvaney (R-SC) Promises GOP Will Push Every Part Of Ryan Plan Through Committee

Late last week, the Washington Post reported that House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) backed away from the most divisive part of the Republican budget plan, the effort to end Medicare as we know it by transforming it into a privatized voucher program with limited benefits. Although Cantor’s office has denied the Post report, other Republicans, including Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have been reluctant to embrace the budget plan. Perhaps most troubling for backers of the so-called “Ryan Plan,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) has said he will not bring up the bill in his committee.

Freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) is a rising star in the GOP who has made a name for himself on budget issues. A strong proponent of the Republican budget, Mulvaney told ThinkProgress last Friday that he is determined to see the GOP carry the “separate bills through committees” to “put the Ryan plan in place.” Asked about reports of reluctance by his colleagues, including Camp and Cantor, Mulvaney was undeterred. “I’m hoping they do what they said,” Mulvaney told us:

MULVANEY: I’ve heard a lot of things. I know what leadership told us Thursday, which was that as we move into discussion of the debt ceiling, the Ryan plan is the plan, and that everything is still on the table. We’re not taking Medicare off, we’re not taking Medicaid off. Really seriously, if you’re serious about balancing the budget, you have to be serious about entitlement reform. [...]

FANG: Do you think they will move it through all the relavant committees to bring it to fruition as a serious proposal?

MULVANEY: I hope so! Listen, you and I both know the only way to put the Ryan plan into place, the policies, is to move those separate bills through committees. So I’m hoping they do what they said.

Watch it:

ThinkProgress attended one of Mulvaney’s town hall meetings last month, where he gave a presentation on the Ryan budget to a small audience in Florence, South Carolina. Although the crowd that day was largely receptive to Mulvaney’s message, the same could not be said in nearly identical town halls across the country. Republicans, from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) himself, to lawmakers from as far south as Florida and as far north as New Hampshire, have faced a backlash because of toxic elements of the GOP plan, which cuts taxes on the rich, lowers the corporate income tax rate, and radically diminishes Medicaid, in addition to ending Medicare. Even Tea Party firebrand Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has refused to endorse the Medicare-ending provisions of the plan (which she voted for) recently.

While Mulvaney, who has been picked by GOP leaders as a spokesperson on budget-related issues, remains committed to the plan, it is still unclear if his colleagues will sustain the same wherewithal to slash services for the poor and elderly.

Politics

REPORT: Koch Fueling Far Right Academic Centers At Universities Across The Country

Yesterday, ThinkProgress highlighted reports from the St. Petersburg Times and the Tallahassee Democrat regarding a Koch-funded economics department at Florida State University (FSU). FSU had accepted a $1.5 million grant from a foundation controlled by petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch on the condition that Koch’s operatives would have a free hand in selecting professors and approving publications. The simmering controversy sheds light on the vast influence of the Koch political machine, which spans from the top conservative think tanks, Republican politicians, a small army of contracted lobbyists, and Tea Party front groups in nearly every state.

As reporter Kris Hundley notes, Koch virtually owns much of George Mason University, another public university, through grants and direct control over think tanks within the school. For instance, Koch controls the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, an institute that set much of the Bush administration’s environmental deregulation policy. And similar conditional agreements have been made with schools like Clemson and West Virginia University. ThinkProgress has analyzed data from the Charles Koch Foundation, and found that this trend is actually much larger than previous known. Many of the Koch university grants finance far right, pro-polluter professors, and dictate that students read Charles Koch’s book as part of their academic study:

West Virginia University: As ThinkProgress reported last year, Koch funds an array of academic programs at West Virginia University, a public university. One Koch-funded academic at WVU, economics professor Russell Sobel, has written a book blasting regulations of all types. He even argues that less mine safety regulations will make coal miners more safe. As the St. Petersburg Times reported, a similar arrangement has been made with WVU as with FSU in accepting at least $480,000 from Koch.

Brown University: The Charles Koch Foundation funds the Political Theory Project at Brown, which provides funding for “Seminar Luncheons for undergraduates, academic conferences, research fellowships for graduate students, support for faculty research, and a postdoctoral fellowship program.” Amity Shales, a pop-conservative writer who argues that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse, an odd theory promoted by Charles Koch himself, has been a featured speaker at the Koch-funded Project at Brown. Moreover, Koch’s donation of at least $419,254 to Brown has underwritten a number of research projects in the Economics and Political Science deparments, including a paper arguing that bank deregulation has helped the poor.

Troy University: The Charles Koch Foundation, along with the Manuel Johnson and the BB&T Foundation, provided Troy University, a public university, a gift of $3.6 million to establish the Center for Political Economy last year. The Center’s stated goal is to push back against the belief following the financial crisis that markets need regulation. Notably, the entire Advisory Council for the Center is made up of Koch and BB&T-funded professors at other universities, including Russell Sobel at West Virginia University and Peter Boettke at George Mason University. Currently, the Center’s only staffer, Professor Scott Beaulier, is a board member of the ExxonMobil-funded attack group, American Energy Alliance, and a former staffer for Koch’s think tank at George Mason.

Utah State University: The Charles Koch Foundation has given nearly $700,000 to Utah State University, mostly for the Huntsman School of Business. The money has been used to hire five new faculty members, and establish a program for undergraduates to enroll and learn about Charles Koch’s “Science of Liberty” management theory. Professor Randy Simmons, the “Charles G. Koch Professor of Political Economy” at the school, helps select students — who must provide information about their ideological interests in their application form — to the Koch program. Simmons also works for several Koch-funded front groups, and writes papers against environmental regulations. Charles Koch’s book, “The Science of Success,” a book Forbes mocked for proclaiming a “Marxist faith in ‘fixed laws’ that govern ‘human well-being,’” is part of the required reading list for the program. A representative for Utah State did not return ThinkProgress’ calls about conditional strings attached to the Koch grant.

Charles Koch Foundation grants, along with direct Koch Industries grants, are distributed to dozens of other universities around the country every year, to both public and private institutions. Some of the programs, like the Charles Koch Student Research Colloquium at Beloit College, are funded by grants of little over $130,000 and simply support conservative speakers on campuses. We have reached out to several of the schools to learn more about the agreements, but none so far have returned our calls.

Budget constraints and other problems at universities have allowed a small set of oligarchs to use school donations to interfere with academic integrity on campuses. A group of hedge fund managers, working through the Manhattan Institute’s Veritas Fund, have created entire departments dedicated to advancing failed supply side ideas and climate skepticism. John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T Bank, a bailout recipient, has used his corporation’s money to force college campuses to adopt Ayn Rand readings into their programs.

Overall, Koch is still a dominant player when it comes to meddling with academic integrity. Part of the effort is coordinated through operatives like Richard Fink, who doubles as a vice president at Koch’s corporate lobbying office. Through an organization called the Association of Private Enterprise Education, Koch organizes these corporate-funded university departments into a powerful intellectual movement. The organization allows Koch staffers in Washington DC to request certain types of studies, interfere with hiring decisions, and reward loyal free market academics with hefty research grants.

Politics

Presbyterian Church Lifts Ban On Gay And Lesbian Clergy

Presbyterian Church (USA), the nation’s largest Presbyterian organization, voted yesterday to overturn its ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians for church leadership positions, reversing more than three decades of official policy.

The organization’s General Assembly approved the change last summer, but a majority of the church’s 173 regional organizations, known as presbyteries, had to affirm the change before it became official. Yesterday, the Minneapolis-based Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area provided the deciding vote, becoming the 87th presbytery to approve the change in the church’s constitution.

Rev. Chaz Ruark, the executive presbyter of the Twin Cities presbytery, told ThinkProgress that debate about the ban primarily stemmed different interpretations of Biblical scripture.

RUARK: It’s a difference in how Scriptures are understood. … This is something about which good people of faith are disagreeing. I don’t fully understand why that is. We’re going through a time of transition in this world, and this is an issue where, for whatever reason, the spirit has allowed good people of faith to disagree.

The approved change will remove the requirement that all ministers, elders, and deacons live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” Instead, it will say, “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” The new policy will not force different presbyteries to ordain gays if they choose not to.

While this is a “major change” in church policy, leaders will “still have to stand by basic tenets of our faith,” Ruark said. “What this does is, if the people of Minneapolis feel Joe Smith is right to lead this church they have the right to make this call,” even if “Joe Smith” is openly gay.

Ruark is “hopeful” that members who opposed lifting the ban, which includes many of the organization’s more conservative presbyteries, will give the new policy a chance. “I don’t know anyone who agrees with everything in our constitution,” he said. “The question is, can you accept it and still operate in the faith with integrity.”

The change in the church’s constitution will take effect July 10.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up