ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

President Of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Says Death Penalty Is About Affirming The Sanctity Of Life

Albert Mohler

This week marked the execution of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis, whose case was considered by many to be deeply flawed. Davis’ execution has served as a wake-up call to the inequities and dangers of capital punishment in the United States.

Yet one influential religious leader appears to have been unphased by the global uproar over Davis’ death and critical examinations of the death penalty. Mohler argued in a Sept. 22 podcast that the death penalty is actually pro-life in a way, because it is intended to “affirm the value [and] sanctity of every single human life“:

A Southern Baptist seminary president says that according to the Bible, capital punishment is pro-life. “The death penalty is not about retribution,” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a podcast Sept. 22. “It is first of all about underlining the importance of every single human life.”

Mohler, who has a Ph.D. in theology, said in Genesis 9, where capital punishment is mandated for murder, “it is precisely because the taking of one human life by another means that the murderer has effectively, morally and theologically, forfeited his own right to live.” “The death penalty is intended to affirm the value [and] sanctity of every single human life, and thus by the extremity of the penalty to make that visible and apparent to all,” Mohler said.

Mohler is an influential figure in Baptist circles in the United State. As he notes on his website, he is president of the “flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world” and is a board member of the right-wing Focus on the Family. His position on the death penalty stands in stark contrast to that of many other Christian leaders. For example, the Catholic Church, which represents the largest Christian denomination in America, has been generally opposed to the practice since Pope John Paul II declared so in 1995.

Economy

Gov. Rick Scott Brags About Laying Off 15,000 Government Workers After Decrying Florida’s High Unemployment

The GOP presidential candidates and other prominent conservatives spoke today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Florida. This afternoon, Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) took to the stage to talk about “successes” in his state, including decreasing the state’s unemployment rate to 10.7 percent — which he noted is still well above the national average.

In the next sentence, though, Scott touted another “success” — laying off 15,000 public sector workers, which of course increased the unemployment rolls in his state. Scott then declared, “government can’t create jobs”:

SCOTT: We’ve had plenty of success so far. Not enough…In Florida, unemployment rate’s gone from 12 percent down to 10.7. We’re still above the national average, but we’ve generated 87,200 private sector jobs — private sector! And we have 15,000 less government jobs in the state of Florida. [Applause] Government doesn’t create jobs.

Watch it:

Scott’s reminder that he laid of thousands of Floridians drew big applause from the conservative crowd. At least 600,000 government workers have lost their jobs since the recession began, but Republicans nevertheless keep scapegoating public employees who have shouldered more than their fair share of economic pain.

In fact, massive job losses in the public sector are one of the main factors keeping national unemployment so high. In August, a gain of 17,000 private sector jobs was completely negated by 17,000 public sector job losses. According to David Leonhardt, if state and local governments had continued to hire at their previous pace, they would have added half a million jobs to the economy. In other words, government austerity over the past two years “has cost the economy about one million jobs.”

Alyssa

Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding Jr. On Racism in Hollywood

At an event the Congressional Black Caucus put together to honor the Tuskegee Airmen and to promote George Lucas’s new movie about them, Red Tails, the movie’s stars, Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr., had some pointed things to say about the way Hollywood approaches black actors and directors. Howard said that Lucas had put together the movie with his own money, and that it would be a critical litmus test for a system that systematically devalues black actors and black stories:

The…problem, and what becomes the undercurrent is that it’s an all-black cast, and the villains are white. Now, Hollywood, for a number of years has maintained the status quo by saying black films do not have an international value. Therefore we’re able to pay black actors less, we can give them less money to make their films…If this film, if George Lucas, who is basically the Parrish of the film industry, as Col. Noel Parrish did for the Tuskeegee Airbase, he put his entire career on the line and stood behind these black pilots, these American pilots. What George Lucas did, he put his entire career on the line…when they wouldn’t distribute it, he put $30 million into distribution. If this film is not successful, it will become a stumbling block for all time where they can say that black films do not have value or merit. It’s important that this film is supported…if George Lucas does not profit from this, then the rest of the industry will see no profit in black people.

And Cuba Gooding, Jr. said that George Lucas had pointed to Tyler Perry as an example of the only way a black director can force Hollywood to listen to him—and even then, Perry faces hurdles to finding advertisers and distributors. And he described his own process of trying to find and cultivate African-American talent:

To strive to promote black independent filmmakers, I go to festivals, I meet them, and then when people offer me projects that don’t have directors, I tell them, what about this guy? [People like director Lee Daniels, with whom Gooding's made several movies], these are the new voices in Hollywood…With Spike Lee, this black director, now that we have him, we don’t have to look anymore. We’ve got one. I’m with CAA, and I tell [Gooding's agent], who’s the next voice? Men and women, let’s get them. Let’s support them in a big studio project.

It was a potent reminder of how high the hurdles for even well-established African-American stars can be. Last week, numbers from the Directors Guild of America revealed that during the last television season, women of color directed just 1 percent of episodes. There remain huge persistent pay gaps between men and women who write for Hollywood, and between white people and people of color. Even hugely bankable stars like Will Smith have been unable to convince Hollywood as a whole that black stars can be consistent box-office draws. I hope Howard is right that huge success for Red Tells could help tear down the barriers that treat black actors, writers, and directors like second-class citizens in Hollywood, though I’m not sure anything will. But I agree with his fears that if the movie tanks, thinks could continue to get worse.

Yglesias

Fantasy Central Banker Draft

Ryan Avent and I were joking about doing a fantasy central banker draft on Twitter earlier today, and I thought it might make for a good post. The real Federal Reserve Board of Governors is supposed to have seven members (though right now there are only five) and I suppose I’d actually keep Sarah Bloom Raskin (who’s there for consumer protection expertise rather than monetary policy) on hand along with Ben Bernanke himself who, despite my many complaints, has in fact pushed the Fed to do a lot of controversial actions in the face of some stiff political resistance. Then the clear number one pick, as both of us agreed, is Lars Svensson from the Riksbank in Sweden and formerly of Princeton University. Sweden hasn’t been a great power since the 17th Century and he desperately needs to be called up to the majors.

Then I want Stanley Fischer from the Bank of Israel. He’s doing a great job and also needs a non-tiny country to be involved with. Besides which, as I read his biography he’s more American than Israeli (he was born in what’s now Zambia, but I don’t think you’d call him Zambian) and it’s a shame for the USA to be squandering that kind of talent. Then we’ll round it out with Christina Romer, who now knows a thing or two about Washington politics along with macroeconomic stabilization, and Adam Posen who’s America, but for some reason is serving on the Bank of England’s board rather than ours.

Climate Progress

Getting the Facts Straight on Green Jobs

by Kate Gordon

The past few weeks have seen a perfect storm of misinformation on green jobs:  what they are, how many there are, how much they contribute to the economy.  Many of those throwing numbers around have relied on one source, a recent report from the Brookings Institution, which worked with Battelle’s Technology Partnership Practice to attempt to define, evaluate, and count green jobs as a part of the economy from 2003-2010.

It is clear to those of us who have been deeply engaged in making the case for green jobs for years that the Brookings report has been almost universally misunderstoodHence this post to try and clear up some of the details.  But first, a digression about green jobs.

The phrase “green jobs” does not stand for, and in fact has never stood for, one specific set of occupations that can be set aside and easily counted.  In this, green jobs are not unique.  Think about “high tech jobs,” for instance.  There are jobs in inventing and developing software, to be sure.  But there are also jobs in using software to make existing companies more productive and efficient.  There are manufacturing jobs associated not only with the hardware in our computers, but with the servers we use to store data.  There are construction jobs that would not exist were it not for the need to build server farms.  All the jobs that have come about because of the invention of the computer, and the transformation of our economy from a low-tech to a high-tech one, are arguably “information technology jobs.”

Similarly, “green jobs” go way beyond the obvious jobs, like the wind turbine operators.  They span huge numbers of industries and occupations, and touch nearly every sector of the economy because they can include all those who use cleaner or more efficient energy and fuel, as well as those who invent, manufacture, install, operate, and maintain those things.  Just like the phrase “high tech jobs” has come to stand for an entire economic transformation toward computerization of nearly everything we do, so does “green jobs” stand for a huge transformation in the kinds of energy we use to underpin our long-term economic growth.

So, back to the Brookings report.  In that report, Brookings researchers tried valiantly to pin down at least some of the industries and occupations that are most clearly associated with the green economy transformation.  They did an admirable job, and here’s what they actually found:

Read more

Health

Expanded Coverage, Better Patient Protections Mark First Year Of The Patient’s Bill Of Rights

Today marks one year since the Affordable Care Act’s Patient’s Bill of Rights went into effect. The White House unveiled the regulations in 2010 to expand coverage and better control costs for patients before the full health care reform law goes into effect in 2014. And so far, people are seeing a difference, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Patient’s Bill of Rights prevented insurance companies from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions (this protection goes into effect for adults in 2014), and it allowed young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance plans until age 26 — allowing 1 million young adults to have health insurance in the last year. And the report highlights how regulations in the Patient’s Bill of Rights have allowed states to have more authority over health care costs in its state, using these examples:

-Connecticut’s Insurance Department rejected a proposed 20 percent rate hike by one of the State’s major insurers.
-In August 2010, a major insurer in Massachusetts agreed to a significant reduction of proposed increases – less than 13 percent instead of the nearly 23 percent they initially requested.
-In 2010, Oregon disapproved health insurance premium requests of 10 percent, 18 percent, and 20 percent in the individual market.
-Rhode Island’s Insurance Commissioner used his rate review authority to reduce a proposed rate increase by a major insurer in that State from 7.9 percent to 1.9 percent.
-Nearly 30,000 North Dakotans saw a proposed increase of 23.7 percent cut to 14 percent following a public outcry.
-In 2010, Californians were saved from rate increases totaling as high as 87 percent after a California insurer withdrew its proposed increase after scrutiny by the State Insurance Commissioner.

The report also outlines the stories of people who were helped by the Patient’s Bill of Rights, like Kylie Lodgson who was able to stay on her father’s insurance and receive a heart transplant. Providing the new regulations has helped families and individuals get insurance and keep their coverage, all while holding the insurance companies accountable. “By cracking down on insurance industry abuses and making sure we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely in our health care programs, we are ushering in a new day for American consumers,” writes Richard Sorian in an HHS blog post about the one-year anniversary of the regulations.

LGBT

Rep. Tammy Baldwin: Soldiers Serving Openly ‘Changes The Dynamic Forever’

Thanks to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for inviting ThinkProgress to report live from its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Day Celebration.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has been a trailblazer for LGBT advocacy as the first out lesbian to serve in the House of Representatives. She is now running for the Senate, and if elected, she’d be the first openly gay or lesbian senator in U.S. history. As one of the founding chairs of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, she is at the forefront of legislative efforts to fight oppression of the LGBT community, and she was delighted to join in Tuesday’s celebration of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Baldwin thinks that one of the driving forces behind the repeal process was gay soldiers’ testimony:

BALDWIN: I think if people watch the struggle, they will see that one of the turning points was servicemembers beginning to tell their stories. And especially since our country has been in a time of war for so long, it is something that changed the hearts of Americans. When they see people willing to put their lives on the line and be in harm’s way, and then they see them discriminated against, that’s what turned public opinion, and of course that’s what turned the political scenario in Congress so that we could pass the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

She went on to say that the effect will compound, and the repeal itself will continue to change America:

BALDWIN: I think young people get it. There is such a generational divide on issues of full equality for the LGBT community. And I think the event that we’re celebrating today — the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — is one that’s really going to change America. Once we see openly gay servicemen and women serving proudly in uniform, risking their lives for their country that they love and believe in, I think that just changes the dynamic forever.

Watch the clips:

Alyssa

‘Neuromancer’ Book Club Part III: Theology And Technology

This post contains spoilers through “The Straylight Run.” If you want to spoil beyond that, please label comments as such. And for next week, let’s finish the novel.

As something of a theology nerd, I particularly liked the parts of this section that are about the ways, both beautiful and terrifying, that technology brings us closer to the divine — or at least, redefines the boundaries of what’s considered possible and what’s considered miraculous. The Turing authorities who come to arrest Case are both literally and metaphorically advocates of those boundaries. They hold the guns to the AIs heads not simply because of practical concerns, because they see unincumbered artificial intelligences free to pursue their will to knowledge as a way evil comes into the world. As one of them says: “You have no care for your species. For thousands of years men dreamed of pacts with demons. Only now are such things possible. And what would you be paid with? What would your price be, for aiding this thing to free itself and grow?”

Of course Case doesn’t accept that conception and forges forward. Wintermute kills his pursuers, freeing him to dive into the ice and encounter Wintermute’s opposite number, a boy on a beach in a dream, as untechnological a vision as we have in the entire novel:

“You’re the other AI. You’re Rio. You’re the one who wants to stop Wintermute. What’s your name? Your Turing code. What is it?” The boy did a handstand in the surf, laughing. He walked on his hands, then flipped out of the water. His eyes were Riviera’s, but there was no malice there. “To call up a demon you must learn its name. Men dreamed that, once, but now it is real in another way. You know that, Case. Your business is to learn the names of programs, the long formal names, names the owners seek to conceal. True names . . .” “A Turing code’s not your name.” “Neuromancer,” the boy said, slitting long gray eyes against the rising sun. “The lane to the land of the dead. Where you are, my friend. Marie-France, my lady, she prepared this road, but her lord choked her off before I could read the book of her days. Neuro from the nerves, the silver paths. Romancer. Necromancer. I call up the dead. But no, my friend,” and the boy did a little dance, brown feet printing the sand, “I am the dead, and their land.” He laughed. A gull cried. “Stay. If your woman is a ghost, she doesn’t know it. Neither will you.” “You’re cracking. The ice is breaking up.” “No,” he said, suddenly sad, his fragile shoulders sagging. He rubbed his foot against the sand. “It is more simple than that. But the choice is yours.” The gray eyes regarded Case gravely. A fresh wave of symbols swept across his vision, one line at a time. Behind them, the boy wriggled, as though seen through heat rising from summer asphalt. The music was loud now, and Case could almost make out the lyrics.

I think part of what I like about this moment is that it is, in a way, a strong statement in support of the appeal of the irregularity, mysticism, and oddness of humanity. An AI’s invested in the power of names, the life story and tragic death of the woman who dreamed him into being, whose youthful experiences he incorporated into the world he’s created for his ghosts. There’s something almost generous about Neuromancer’s wistful desire to provide a refuge for what’s left of Linda. Even technology strives towards heaven.
Read more

Climate Progress

Sen. Landrieu Reads Darrell Issa’s Letters Begging For Taxpayer Clean Energy Loans On The Senate Floor

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) investigation of clean energy loan programs was undercut this week by a revelation, first reported by Bloomberg, that he had also requested money from the same program for companies in his district. A follow-up story by ThinkProgress found that an investor to the firm Issa had asked to subsidize had donated several times to Issa, including a check just shortly before Issa sent his letter to Secretary Chu.

Today on the Senate floor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) mocked Issa’s hypocrisy. She carried with her copies of the letters signed by Issa, as well as other letters by Republicans asking for money for the clean energy program they had just voted to cut, and read them into the Congressional Record:

LANDRIEU: He’s a member from California, he’s a very powerful member of the House. I’m going to read his whole letter. [...] And maybe the press even writes, ‘Darrell Issa, the Republican leader, is promoting manufacturing in California.’ Because this is what he says in his district. And this is the letter he sends to the Secretary. But when he’s in the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this program. That’s what this debate is about!

Watch it:

Earlier this week, Republicans tried to make hay out of the Solyndra controversy by taking an axe to clean energy programs. Landrieu made short work out of the GOP’s shameful gimmick.

Landrieu continued tearing into Republican hypocrisy. She noted that the cuts were purely political because the supposed offsets for FEMA only required $175 million, not $1 billion. She then continued to read Republican letters asking for clean energy loan cash, including yet another one signed by Issa (asking for money for battery-maker Quallion LLC):

LANDRIEU: I’m going to do this all week, so I hope the press gets ready to ask these Republican leaders how could you possibly have the gall to hold press opportunities in your district promising people that you’re helping them to create jobs and then come back to Washington and cut the rug out from under their feet with a bogus excuse that you have to come up with a billion dollars [...] when the real need for FEMA in 2011 is $175 million. But under the guise of having to provide a billion dollars, they want to gut this program that’s creating jobs and they themselves have asked for these loans to be made in their district. [...]

Several members, and I am going to submit their names to the record [...] In addition — this is the killer, this is the killer — in addition Quallion think that this funding will create more than two thousand three hundred new and long-term jobs nationwide. And this is the program that Representative Cantor decided to use as an offset so he could fool the American people.

Yglesias

Today Is A Good Day To Guarantee Loans

I keep not really writing anything about substantive Solyndra, though I think it does illustrate the general point that taxing dirty energy is going to be a more sustainable and effective policy than trying to subsidize clean energy even though public opinion polls say the reverse. But let’s imagine the government had a “crazy” response to these events and decided that the real lesson here is that we need way more federal loan guarantees.

Imagine basically, that the government is willing to guarantee loans to anyone who wants to quit his job and start a new business. Or anyone who’s unemployed and wants to start a new business. Or any business owners who wants to expand his operations. Basically the whole country gets a chance to make a “heads I win, tales the taxpayer loses” bet on the entrepreneurial idea of his dreams. There’s going to be no oversight of this, no real scrutiny of what you’re doing. Of course if you go bust and default on the loan your credit score will be hurt going forward and if you quit your job to start a business that fails there’s no assurance you can go back, so there should still be some restraint. Insofar as possible, it makes sense to try to think of a good idea rather than a bad one. So what happens?

Well let’s say you own some Chili’s franchises in Arizona. You’ve been saying to yourself “rents are cheap and interest rates are low, but I don’t want to open up any new Chili’s franchises because there are so many unemployed people around here and nobody can afford to eat out.” Now you’re saying to yourself “there are so many unemployed people around here with nothing to lose that there’s sure to be a huge spurt of borrowing and hiring as people take advantage of this new Boondoggle Initiative,” it’s probably a good time to open up a new Chili’s. Naturally, even though your Chili’s expansion is based on a totally sound business plan and isn’t even slightly a boondoggle, you decide to take advantage of the low interest rates involved in the Boondoggle Initiative to finance your expansion. And so it goes throughout the state. Everyone operating a profitable small business realizes that this lending boom combined with cheap money makes it a good time to expand. And both the expansion of existing businesses and the new startups reduce joblessness and raise incomes, creating customers for these new businesses. Obviously, 18-36 months later it’s going to turn out that a lot of these firms are terribly managed or lousy ideas and the taxpayers will lose money on the loans. But plenty of the businesses—and especially the banal expansions of existing banal businesses—will be fine. The taxpayers will lose a bunch of money, but by the time the businesses start going bust we’ll be back in the equilibrium where non-incompetent people (and some of the incompetent ones) who work for firms that fail just go get new jobs someplace better-managed.

This is not to say a National Boondoggle Initiative is an optimal stimulus policy. But pondering illustrates, I think, what’s so harmful about the Federal Reserve continually taking steps to make it cheaper to borrow money while also waving all kinds of red flags about the economic outlook. That’s precisely pushing on a string territory. Responsible people don’t want loans—even cheap loans—that they don’t think they’ll be able to pay back. The key thing about the Boondoggle Initiative is that if you think lots of other people are going to take the loans, then you want one two. And the coordinated expectation that everyone is going to start employing idle resources becomes self-fulfilling.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up