ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

Obama Responds To Solyndra Attacks: ‘I Will Not Walk Away From The Promise Of Clean Energy’ | “Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail,” President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, responding to the Koch-fueled criticism of his administration’s investments in dozens of clean-energy companies that have created 60,000 jobs. “But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.”

NEWS FLASH

Maine Education Committee Advances Anti-Bullying Bill | The Education Committee of the Maine Legislature has advanced an anti-bullying bill (LD 1237) that enumerates protections based on sexual orientation. A similar bill faltered last year, but Rep. Terry Morrison (D) is optimistic that some of the technical hurdles have been overcome. The bill would create a model bullying policy for all Maine schools, which under current law can define their own student codes of conduct.

Climate Progress

Enacting President Obama’s Manufacturing Blueprint Means Sustained Economic Growth

How to Build America’s Energy Future

Schott Solar employee trims a photovoltaic panel in a glass room at the company's plant in Albuquerque, NM. A strong clean energy industry will give rise to more American manufacturing jobs and in turn will help rebuild our struggling middle class and create a more sustainable and fair economy. AP Photo

by Kate Gordon

President Barack Obama last night presented in his State of the Union address a blueprint for sustained growth in our economy consisting of four key parts: manufacturing, energy, worker preparedness, and American values. When it comes to America’s global leadership on clean energy, these four are inextricably linked.

A strong clean energy industry will give rise to more American manufacturing jobs, especially for skilled workers. This in turn will help rebuild our struggling middle class and reinforce the basic American idea that the economy must work for everyone, not just a wealthy few. Here’s how the four parts work together to build what the president says is an economy that can last.

Scaling up America’s clean energy sector

America is already in a leadership position on clean energy. In 2011 we reclaimed the title of “World’s Largest Energy Investor” from China. U.S. investment in these technologies rose a staggering 33 percent to nearly $60 billion, whereas investment in China remained steady at about $47 billion. Globally, U.S. venture capital dominates the cutting-edge clean energy investment market, with U.S. venture dollars accounting for 76 percent of the $2.2 billion in clean-technology venture investments across the world in 2011. Visionary programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s targeted subsidies to renewable energy developers have catapulted us into this leadership position, and contributed to bringing renewable energies to a place where they are nearly cost-competitive with the much more established, much longer-subsidized traditional fossil fuels.

The president’s energy recommendations in his State of the Union address will continue this trend. As my colleague Dan Weiss writes, the speech included important recommendations to increase renewable energy development on public lands, provide incentives to businesses to upgrade their buildings and factories, and support the U.S. Navy in its goal of making the largest purchase of renewable energy in history. President Obama also called on Congress to show similar leadership by passing a clean energy standard, and by finally extending the Production Tax Credit for clean energy development.

Read more

Security

Students React To Alleged Anti-Muslim Ad In OSU Newspaper: ‘Incredibly Offensive And Ignorant’

A portion of the ad that ran in the OSU student newspaper

An advertisement in Monday’s issue of the Ohio State University (OSU) student newspaper the Lantern touched off a controversy pitting what critics allege was an anti-Muslim bias against the rights of individuals to voice their opinions freely.

The ad’s top line read, in bold letters, “Where Are They Now?” and then listed former members of the national campus group Muslim Student Association (MSA) who’ve faced allegations of ties to terrorism. After the list, the ad carried a picture for a pamphlet called “Muslim Hate Groups On Campus” by Daniel Greenfield, which is on sale for $3 (or $1 a piece in bulk orders) from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. “All 10 individuals listed in the ad appear to have been linked to terrorism by authorities,” reported the Columbus Dispatch, “but they have not all been convicted of a crime.” One OSU student told the Dispatch there may have been some “bad apples” among former members of the MSA, which has been around since 1963 and likely boasts sizable membership alumni rolls.

Greenfield is a fellow at the Freedom Center, which purchased the ad and whose website Frontpage Magazine reproduced the ad in a blogpost. Horowitz and the Freedom Center have faced accusations of Islamophobia in the past, as in the Center for American Progress’s “Fear, Inc.” report.

OSU students and even the paper itself reacted to Monday’s Lantern ad. Jana Al-Akhras, an 18-year-old OSU student and MSA member, told the Columbus Dispatch:

I am offended not only as a Muslim or as a general-body member of the MSA, but as a member of the OSU community. We do not stand for discrimination, hate or intolerance here.

I am extremely disappointed in The Lantern for allowing this ad to run. It was paid for. It is not an op-ed, and they had every right to deny it as hate speech.

A faculty adviser for the Lantern told the dispatch that “the ad did not violate the policy” that ads must not denigrate individuals or groups.

The staff of the Lantern, in an editorial published Tuesday, disavowed responsibility for the ad, saying many staffers were unaware it was in the paper until they picked up their own copies. The editorial went on:

Our staff found the ad to be incredibly offensive and ignorant. We do not agree with the content of the ad and we are not happy that so many of our readers were hurt by its content.

But we, as a staff, also hold the right to free speech near and dear to our hearts. Though we do not endorse or agree with the views in the ad, we do believe that Daniel Greenfield, the author of the pamphlet pictured in the ad, has a right to his opinions.

Another Muslim OSU student wrote Tuesday in a separate opinion piece on the Lantern’s website that “the majority of students overreacted over the ad.” Ayan Sheikh, a former Lantern editor who wrote that the “ad, without a doubt, is controversial and offensive to Muslims,” also cited the separation between the editorial content and the ad sales side of the paper, and said labeling the editorial staff “anti-Islam” was incorrect. Adding that Greenfield should enjoy the freedom of speech and lamenting the publicity for “his irrelevant and highly offensive $3 pamphlet,” Sheikh wrote: “If there’s someone we should all be mad at, it’s Daniel Greenfield who wrote the pamphlet, not The Lantern staff.”

NEWS FLASH

House GOP Plans To Replace Affordable Care Act With Provisions Already Part Of Reform | GOP lawmakers plan to present an alternative to President Obama’s health care reform law after the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law this June. Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA) listed a number of policy ideas Republicans would consider in a replacement bill, “such as giving the tax break for health insurance to the employee instead of the employer, medical liability reform, creating high-risk medical ‘pools’ and allowing insurers to sell their products across state lines.” Still, it’s been over a year since the GOP pledged to “repeal and replace” Obama’s health care law, and the party has yet to produce a concrete plan or consider any legislation in committee. What’s more, the Affordable Care Act already includes variations of the provisions Pitts is proposing. The law provides tax credits to help individuals and families afford insurance, invests in studying alternatives to the malpractice system, has enrolled at least 44,852 Americans in high-risk pools and yes, even allows insurers to sell policies across state lines. — Fatima Najiy

Alyssa

The Triumphs And Tragedies Of Spike Lee’s ‘Red Hook Summer’ — And The Fear Of Truly Challenging Movies

It’s difficult to encapsulate Red Hook Summer, Spike Lee’s new movie about an Atlanta teenager and potential future documentarian named Flik spending the summer in Brooklyn’s housing projects with his preacher grandfather. To some, the return of Mookie, dispensing advice about proper pizza conveyance and wondering about a sold-out condo across the street from the projects, makes it a sequel to Do The Right Thing. To many critics, it appears to be an uneven and overlong combination of coming-of-age story, love letter to Brooklyn, exploration of the black church, and strikingly dark twist. To me, Red Hook Summer is likely to be one of the most misunderstood movies in years. And I’d be willing to lay money that it will be one of the most intriguing, moving things I see this year, a profound challenge to the apolitical whiteness and cliche storytelling that define so many mainstream movies.

For a movie significantly set in and around a church, there’s something fitting about the structure of Red Hook Summer, which follows two narratives that rise together like the arcs of a masonry vault, each held in place by the keystone that is Clarke Peters’ performance as Enoch Rouse, bishop of struggling Red Hook church Little Piece of Heaven.

The first arch involves the search for a villain, or at least a source of menace in the neighborhood where Flik finds himself spending the summer. The first candidate is a white gentrifier in the neighborhood who is outraged when Flik and Chazz, the neighbor girl who attends Little Piece of Heaven faithfully with her mother Colleen, write their names in the fresh cement outside her house. “Are you two out of your minds?” she screams at them, all out of proportion to the slight, which a less proprietary homeowner might view as a sweet touch of the neighborhood. “Come on, show me what you got! Go back to your home and stay there!” as if by confining Flik and Chazz to the housing projects, she can have the Red Hook that she wants.

Later, the sense of menace shifts from gentrifiers to a new generation of neighborhood residents, specifically Box, a Blood gang leader who used to attend Little Piece of Heaven with his mother, Sister Augustine. On his arrival, Enoch warned Flik to stay away from Box, but Flik can’t resist trying to interview Box as part of his neighborhood tapestry. “What kind of questions?” Box wants to know when Flik makes his request. “Like what you do to make my granddaddy so mad?” the boy explains. Enoch told Flik from the beginning that he should “be careful with that thing out here,” when his grandson seemed determined to see the world through the lens of his iPad 2, and it’s Box who proves that the power to witness, and to record, can be threatening, and make the observer a target.

The second arch revolves around a series of three services at Little Piece of Heaven, which seem likely to be the most misunderstood parts of the movie (and already one place many critics are suggesting cuts), but are a powerful and subtle exploration of the growth of faith, the role politics play in people’s lives, and the power and fragility of community. There are three important elements in each of these sermons, each of which contributes in a significant way to the movie’s powerful denouement, which happens at the end of the third church service.
Read more

Economy

Watch Mitt Spin: Romney Claims His Real Tax Rate Is ‘Closer To 45 Or 50 Percent’

During an interview with Univision, Romney was pressed on whether it was fair for him to pay about 13 percent of his income in taxes — as he did in 2010, according to his recently released tax returns — when many middle class families pay far more. Romney proceeded to claim that his actual rate is “closer to 45 or 50 percent.”

To justify his figure, Romney relied on his belief that “corporations are people.” When Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked Romney if his 13 percent tax rate is “fair,” Romney suggested adding the maximum corporate tax rate (35 percent) to his personal taxes to calculate his real rate:

RAMOS: You just released your tax returns. In 2010 you only paid 13 percent of taxes while most Americans paid much more than that. Is that fair?

ROMNEY: Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, particularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community. One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.

RAMOS: But is it fair what you pay, 13 percent, while most pay much more than that?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I go back to the point that the, that the funds are being taxed twice at two different levels.

Watch it:

Romney glosses over the fact that he is not a corporation and doesn’t pay corporate taxes. Additionally, most corporations pay far lower than a 35 percent rate. In fact, many profitable corporations pay nothing at all.

In the alternative, Romney suggested that his tax rate should be considered “almost 40 percent” because he gave a substantial amount of money to charity, mostly to the Mormon church. Romney should be lauded for his charitable contributions — and received a tax deduction for them — but charitable contributions are not taxes.

LGBT

Anoka-Hennepin Might Finally Pass A Policy That Respects Its LGBT Students

The bullying-riddled Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota might finally replace its don’t-say-gay “neutrality” policy with one that actually respects and protects its LGBT students. Replacing a problematic alternative that would have treated homosexuality as a “controversial topic” that teachers could not discuss, the newest proposal calls for age-appropriate discussions that “affirm the dignity and self-worth of all students,” regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. Four of the six school board members have already indicated their support for the new alternative, the Respectful Learning Environment Curriculum Policy:

The Board is committed to providing a safe and respectful learning environment and to providing an education that respects all students and families.

It is the professional responsibility of the teacher to follow the Board-adopted curriculum, which is designed to meet Minnesota state standards.

Political, religious, social, or economic issues may become contentious in a learning environment in which conflicting views are held by a broad segment of people in our schools, our community, and the nation.

It is not the District’s role to take positions on these issues. Teachers and educational support staff shall not attempt in the course of their professional duties to persuade students to adopt or reject any particular viewpoint with respect to these issues.

Curricular discussions of such issues shall be appropriate to the maturity and developmental level of students; be of significance to course content; and be presented in an impartial, balanced and objective manner, allowing respectful exchange of varying points of view. Lessons shall be designed to help students think critically and develop decision-making skills and techniques for examining and understanding differing opinions.

In the course of discussions of such issues, district staff shall affirm the dignity and self-worth of all students, regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex/gender, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, age, family care leave status or veteran status.

This policy is definitely a big step forward for the district, but it may not yet be perfect. Requiring an “impartial, balanced, and objective” presentation on sexual orientation could open the door to the kind of harmful and unscientific views that a conservative group of parents support. The fringe group, the Parents Action League, favors maintaining the troublesome “neutrality” policy, but also seeks to promote harmful ex-gay therapy and teach that homosexuality is “unhealthy behavior.” Even if the new policy has gaps, calling for all students to be affirmed makes a lot more sense than pretending that some of them simply don’t exist.

The board will vote on February 13.

Justice

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Raises Millions Thanks To A Loophole Allowing Unlimited Donations

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is raking in millions of dollars to fund his campaign against a recall effort to remove him from office. Out-of-state donors have poured money into his campaign coffers, making up more than 60 percent of the $4.5 million Walker raised in five weeks. And that includes the $1 million he received from four out-of-state donors alone, who donated $250,000 each — all thanks to a loophole in state law:

Normally, a governor or candidate for governor can accept a maximum of $10,000 from an individual during a four-year campaign cycle. But a quirk in state law lifts all limits for recall targets while petitions are circulated and election officials determine how many signatures have been submitted.

Walker’s most recent campaign finance report covers December 11 to January 17, the day Walker’s opponents filed petitions with more than 1 million signatures to recall him from office — when only 540,000 were needed. It could take up to 60 days for the Government Accountability Board, which runs state elections, to review the signatures.

Walker’s campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews contended that he only is trying to counter the money national out-of-state unions will spend on the recall effort, but there is little evidence that unions are even capable of competing with the kind of deep pocketed groups and wealthy individuals that support Walker. Last year, corporate interest groups sprang to the rescue of a Walker ally on the state supreme court, Justice David Prosser, after polls began to show Prosser’s reelection bid in trouble. This influx of corporate money rapidly overwhelmed the much smaller donations made by groups supporting Prosser’s opponent, and he managed to squeak out a narrow victory.

So far, Walker has an enormous fundraising lead over potential opponents. In the same time period where Walker raised millions, the state Democratic party raised more than $394,000, with $40,000 being the largest donation to the party. United Wisconsin, the group spearheading the recall effort along with the Democratic party, raised $86,379. And former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who has announced she is running against Walker, had $27,000 in her campaign account as of June 30.

While it’s not clear if Walker’s opponents will match his millions in campaign donations, it is perfectly clear that Walker is benefiting from an unfair loophole in state law allowing just a handful of wealthy individuals to drown out the more than a million Wisconsin residents who want to see him recalled.

Climate Progress

Did The White House Mean To Call Uranium, Natural Gas, And Coal ‘Renewable Energy?’

Our guest blogger is A. Siegel, of Get Energy Smart.

In association with the State of the Union address, the White House released “A Blueprint for An America Built to Last.” Within it, “A Blueprint to Make the Most of America’s Energy Resources,” from which we learn that “nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and clean coal” are “renewable energy” sources:

The President called on Congress to build on our success in positioning America to be the world’s leading manufacturer in high-tech batteries and reiterated his call for action on clean energy tax credits and a national goal of moving toward clean sources of electricity by setting a standard for utility companies, so that by 2035, 80% of the nation’s electricity will come from clean sources, including renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and clean coal.

This is, almost certainly an issue of poor writing. It could have read “nuclear power, efficient natural gas, clean coal, and renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower.” That rewrite, however, would have put renewables at the back of the line and hurt the President among those strongly supportive of greater investment in renewable energy deployment and research — that is to say, the majority of Americans. Yet, in last year’s State of the Union address the President said that “clean energy jobs” meant nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and “clean coal.”

All the uranium on planet Earth was formed 6.6 billion years ago and is not “renewable.” Now, if we wish to speak in terms of tens of millions of years, one could argue that coal, natural gas, and oil are renewable. Today’s biomass will, over that sort of geologic time, create (renew, one might say) new fossil fuel supplies. However, in any rational discussion, these are not “renewable” fuels within any context of human civilization.

This section, however, has far more serious problems — most importantly, the President’s whole-sale throwing in the hat with the “natural gas is good for the environment and economy” propaganda that is a Potemkin village when it comes to addressing the nation’s real challenges.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up