ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

Colorado Activists Turn In Nearly Twice As Many Signatures As Needed For Marijuana Legalization Amendment | Yesterday, Colorado activists campaigning to place a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot that would legalize “limited possession of marijuana for recreational use” turned in 160,000 signatures. The campaigners only need 86,000 valid signatures to place the amendment on the ballot. If approved, “the initiative would put a proposed constitutional amendment before voters to legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for any purpose by people 21 or older. People would also be able to grow up to six plants in their homes.”

LGBT

Santorum Insists On Comparing Marriage Equality To Polygamy In Heated Exchange With Students

Addressing a college student convention in Concord, New Hampshire moments ago, Rick Santorum was put on the defensive by numerous members of the audience who pressed him about his opposition to marriage equality. Santorum tried engaging in a Socratic dialogue on gay marriage, parrying the student’s responses with nonsensical theoretical tangents.

“So if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?” Santorum asked one student. “Reason says that if you think it’s okay for two [individuals to marry], then you have to differentiate for me why it’s not okay for three,” he argued later. Watch a compilation:

To be clear, Santorum’s offensive and circuitous responses are all meant to reject the natural desire of two same-sex individuals to join in a union and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Update

SiriusXM’s Mike Signorile points out on his radio show: Santorum “seems to be saying I don’t have a problem with gay marriage per say, it’s just that it would lead to polygamy and the answer to that is…we can say marriage is by definition two people.”

Climate Progress

Murdoch Press Coverage of Aussie Carbon Price So Negative in 2011, “It’s Fair to Say They’ve Campaigned Against It”

The top six newspapers most negative about the Australian government’s carbon policy are all owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I was struck by a recent analysis from Daily Climate showing a substantial drop in the number of stories covering climate change in 2011. In spite of the dramatic increase in extreme weather events and the white-knuckled political tension around government investments in energy, there was still a 20% drop in coverage of climate-related issues last year.

One of the exceptions to that drop, however, was Australia. News outlets like the Australian Broadcasting Corp. and the Sydney Morning Herald saw a 60% increase and a 21% increase respectively. Australia was a particularly important country to watch in 2011 because of the dramatic political battle that unfolded over a comprehensive climate bill.

But experience in that country illustrates a hole in analysis that simply tracks the quantity of articles — it ignores the quality of those stories.

A recent report from the Australian Center for Independent Journalism attempts to fill in that hole. The researchers looked at climate policy stories in 10 major newspapers from February of 2011 through July of 2011 and tracked how positive or negative those stories were, who was quoted, and what kid of language was used. The results were overwhelmingly negative. Here are some highlights:

  • Overall, negative coverage of the Gillard government’s carbon policy across ten newspapers outweighed positive coverage across ten Australian newspapers by 73% to 27%. (Note: After neutral items were discounted).
  • After neutral items were discounted, negative coverage (82%) across News Ltd newspapers far outweighed positive (18%) articles. This indicates a very strong stance against the carbon policy adopted by the company that controls most Australian metropolitan newspapers, and the only general national daily. [Note: This is an organization owned by Rupert Murdoch.]
  • Headlines were less balanced than the actual content of articles. Neutral articles were more likely to be headlined negative (41%) than positive (19%).

In an interview with Climate Progress at the Durban climate talks, Christine Milne, the Deputy Leader of Australia’s Green Party, lamented the domination of negative stories in Murdoch publications:

“The Murdoch press is a very big problem in Australia. It owns 70% of the print media and has run a massive campaign against the climate science and against the climate pricing policy that we’ve delivered in Australia. And it will continue to do so in the hope that the opposition is elected and the whole thing is repealed. This is a critical time in Australian politics and for the climate.”

Remarkably, even though the Green Party provided the political catalyst for getting a climate bill considered in the first place, members of the party only received 5% of quotes in stories on the issue.

When journalists reached out to the business community, which sector got the most quotes? By far, sources directly or indirectly representing the fossil fuel industry, “often without any critique or second source”:

Read more

Health

Newt Gingrich: I’ll Tell African-Americans That They Should ‘Demand Paychecks And Not Be Satisfied With Food Stamps’

The GOP presidential candidates are becoming more comfortable trafficking in stereotypes when it comes to African-Americans and welfare benefits. Surprise Iowa frontrunner Rick Santorum recently declared (and later denied) that “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” The NAACP blasted Santorum for “inaccurate and outrageous” remarks that “lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance.”

Today in New Hampshire, another GOP presidential hopeful offered his own take. Consistently slamming President Obama as “the best food stamp president in history,” Newt Gingrich tried to paint himself as a more desirable alternative to town hall attendees, insisting he’d be “the best paycheck president in American history.” Singling out African-Americans, Gingrich declared that he’d attend the NAACP just to tell African-Americans why they should “not be satisfied with food stamps”:

GINGRICH: More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history. Now, there’s no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, “Would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks,” you wouldn’t [SIC] end up with a majority saying they’d rather have a paycheck.

And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which should be particularly good for African-American males — because they’re the group that gets the smallest return on Social Security because they have the shortest life span.

Watch it:

Not only is his perception of food stamp beneficiaries prejudicial, it’s false. The majority of people who participate in the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are white. Most of the participants are also either children (who can’t earn a paycheck unless Gingrich gets his way) or seniors who are of retirement age. In 2010, working-women represented only 28 percent of SNAP beneficiaries, and working-age men represented only 17 percent.

What’s more, an increasing number of SNAP beneficiaries actually do have jobs and receive paychecks that are the primary source of their income. Unfortunately, only 15 percent of those incomes are above the poverty line. Thus, SNAP benefits provide a necessary safety net to families trying to stay afloat in a sluggish economy. But rather than seeing America’s most vulnerable populations as deserving of aid, Gingrich prefers to see them as lazy drug-users who prefer to put their benefits towards a Hawaii vacation.

Alyssa

Sneaking Women Into Video Games

Topless Robot hasan awesome post on video game characters whose genders started out ambiguous and were eventually revealed to be female. I have mixed feelings about this as a tactic generally: obviously it would be nice to assume that consumers in any media see a character’s specific traits in the foreground and their gender in the background (unless, of course their sex or gender performance is the most important thing about them). But if this is a way to force those traits to the foreground and deliberately sideline gender for a minute, or to set up a situation where gender expectations are subverted, then it seems like a worthwhile tactic at least some of the time. Eowyn’s gender reveal to the Witch King remains a gold standard in gender-subverting awesome, and if we can get joy and surprise along with the monster-conquering, so much the better.

Economy

Romney’s Tax Plan Gives Millionaires A $150K Tax Cut, Raises Taxes On Low-Income Families

ThinkProgress has already found that 2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic plan would explode the deficit to the tune of more than $6.5 trillion over the next decade, while doing next to nothing to help middle class or low-income Americans. In fact, Romney’s tax cut that is supposedly “focused” on the middle class gives literally no benefit to most middle class households.

The Tax Policy Center released an analysis today showing that, contrary to Romney’s rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of the benefits under the plan would go to the wealthy. In fact, compared to the policy in place today, Romney’s plan would give millionaires a $150,000 tax cut, while raising taxes on many low-income families:

A sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable credits.

About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.

Almost every millionaire would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, those making $1 million or more would receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.

Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.

And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit.

This flies directly in the face of Romney’s assertion that he isn’t focused on helping the rich. “If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people,” Romney said in an October debate. If that is the case, why do the ultra-wealthy receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax cuts annually under his plan, while a middle class family could very well see its taxes go up?

NEWS FLASH

Where The Real Job Creation Is: Obama’s Energy Initiatives Create 68,000 Jobs To Keystone XL’s 6,000 | Two of the Obama administration’s clean energy initiatives are poised to create more than 68,000 jobs, and even more temporary jobs, over the next few years. Both initiatives — which include the Environmental Protection Agency’s toxic pollution rule and the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program for renewables — are under attack from the right, labeled as job-killing programs. However, the data shows the programs are poised to create far more jobs than the much-touted Keystone XL pipeline numbers. Although pipeline proponents claim it will create “tens of thousands of jobs,” upon closer examination, the pipeline would only lead to an approximate 6,000 temporary jobs:

Sources: Department of Energy, EPA 12/21, Washington Post 12/14,

Justice

Two Ex-Scott Walker Staffers Arrested In Ongoing Investigation

An expansive “John Doe” corruption investigation targeting employees and former employees of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has led to its first arrests today, nabbing three people, including two former aides to Walker. The investigation centers around Milwaukee County workers during Walker’s tenure their as executive, and has previously involved an FBI raid on the home of a fourth person, one of Walker’s top aides.

Today, police arrested former county employees Kevin Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Walker, and Tim Russell, who served on Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. The AP reports:

Former county housing director Tim Russell, 48, was charged with two felony and one misdemeanor embezzlement charges, according to the criminal complaint from the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office.

Kevin Kavanaugh, Walker’s appointee to the Milwaukee County Veteran Service Commission, was charged with one felony embezzlement charge of taking more than $10,000 from a business and four felony counts of fraudulent writings by a corporate officer.

Russell and Kavanaugh each face up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the most serious felony embezzlement charge.

A third person, who worked for six months for the state Department of Public Instruction, was charged with two counts of felony child enticement in a case the county prosecutor said was discovered while investigating the others.

Walker has been charged with no wrongdoing and there’s no evidence suggesting that he has personally been a target of the secret probe, now a year and half old.

LGBT

White House Doesn’t Know If Obama Opposes Repeal Of New Hampshire’s Marriage Equality Law

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he didn’t know President Obama’s position on the GOP’s effort to repeal New Hampshire’s 2009 marriage equality law, during a press briefing this afternoon. “I haven’t spoken to him about that state issue, so I would have to take the question to see if I could get anything back to you,” Carney told the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson. Watch it:

Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum are all on record as supporting the repeal effort, despite significant public support for marriage equality in the state. Obama, who is still evolving on marriage equality, has previously shied away from weighing in on state issues, but did promise to “work hard to oppose” efforts to “enshrine discrimination into state laws and constitutions” during an address to the Human Rights Campaign in October. The state legislature is expected to take up the measure this month.

Security

Bank Stops U.S. Money Transfers To Somalia, Risking Greater Instability

Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress.

With millions of Somalis still reeling from the 2011 famine, the recent decision by the Minnesota-based Sunrise Community Banks to shut down its Somali remittance service is particularly difficult to bear. Sunrise’s wire services have enabled Somali-Americans to send more than $100 million back home on an annual basis. Globally, the Somali diaspora sends about $530 million home each year, which, according to a joint CAP-One Earth Foundation report, tallies that up to be about $17.3 billion since the country collapsed in 1991. Somalia is one of the most remittance-dependent countries in the world.

Sunrise’s decision came about because of fears of violating existent terrorist financing regulations. Even while upholding all compliance requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act — which requires financial institutions to assist with the detection and prevention of money laundering, without additional protection — the bank deemed the risks as too high.

Sunrise’s closure tracks closely with the findings of a recent CAP report, Unintended Roadblocks, which illustrates how the numerous convoluted executive orders and vaguely defined laws related to counterterrorism present a host of expensive and ambiguous compliance challenges for organizations and companies doing business in places like Somalia. A climate of instability and unpredictability develops due to the absence of legal clarity. In a country like Somalia, which hasn’t had a central government in two decades and has been devastated by ongoing violence and political upheaval ever since, the inability — or perhaps unwillingness — of the Obama administration to clearly state what would constitute a violation of the law puts innocent lives at stake.

The Treasury Department has blogged about the Somali remittance issue recently which is an indicator of its attention to this issue, but it is no substitution for actual guidance — or even a policy memo. Similarly, simply noting that Sunrise bank has a “good compliance program, and [that] it would be rare for [the Justice Department] to prosecute a bank” does little to shift the onerous burden that results from ambiguous legal language. Humanitarian organizations like Oxfam America and American Refugee Committee released a statement in an attempt to call attention to the issue and delay the decision — but to no end.

The Obama administration should be applauded for the $870 million spent to meet ongoing and urgent humanitarian needs in the Horn of Africa, including nearly $205 million for Somalia. Over the holidays, President Obama announced another $113 million to help those in need. In addition, USAID has launched an unprecedented relief campaign, which even includes TV ads, as it attempts to raise awareness about the crisis.

This relief assistance is of tremendous importance but it has not been able to genuinely reach those in need, in part because of the brutal nature of violence in Somalia but also because ambiguous counterterrorism restrictions have rendered humanitarian groups extremely risk-adverse. Without additional protection, Sunrise felt it had no option but to shut down its wire service. With more than 250,000 people at risk of starvation, this means a vital lifeline has vanished. Ultimately, cutting off remittances won’t make us any safer, but it may contribute to greater instability in Somalia and require even more spending on humanitarian assistance.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up