ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Washington Gov. Gregoire Pledges To Personally Lobby Christie On Marriage Equality

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) — who is scheduled to sign marriage equality legislation on Monday — has personally pledged to contact fellow Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and convince him to sign legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey. Christie has threatened to veto the bill currently under consideration in the state legislature.

During a radio interview with Wall Street Journal’s The Daily Wrap with Michael Castner, Gregoire said she has received an outpouring of support from people around the world since coming out for equal marriage rights, including a note from a 16-year-old girl who had contemplated suicide:

GREGOIRE: One that sticks in my mind is a 16-year-old who had finally disclosed to her parents that she was lesbian and they had accepted her and she still contemplated suicide. And then to have me come out, a person in a position like I’m in to say that she’s okay and that she’s to be respected for who she is, meant the world to her.

CASTNER: I never do this, but I’m going to ask you anyway because I have an opportunity and most people don’t get to talk to governors. Would you pick up the phone and call governor Christie and tell him what you just told our audience?

GREGOIRE: Yes, I would because I feel a good working relationship with Governor Christie. I respect him as a fellow governor, I have worked with him on a number of issues, so yea, I would feel very comfortable sharing with him, my personal journey the overwhelming response that I’ve received and how good I feel about myself today and I have not felt good about this issue and about where I stood for a number of years.

Listen:

Climate Progress

Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

”The sexual and reproductive health and rights community should challenge the global architecture of climate change, and its technology focus, and shift the discussion to a more human-based, rights-based adaptation approach,” said a Lancet editorial in 2009. ”Such a strategy would better serve the range of issues pivotal to improving the health of women worldwide.”

Increasing women’s reproductive rights should be at the heart of the climate discussion, in the same basket as strategies like increasing energy efficiency and researching new technologies,” Robert Engelman of Worldwatch said in 2010.

As Nick Kristoff said in 2011, family planning is a solution to “climate change to poverty to civil wars,” but it has become a “victim of America’s religious wars.”

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

Climate Progress

Breaking News Stunner: DOE Loan Guarantee Program Will Cost $2 Billion Less Than Initially Expected

In an independent review, John McCain’s former National Finance Chairman finds the loan guarantee program was cost-effective for taxpayers

by Richard W. Caperton

Take a deep breath, because what I’m about to tell you may be shocking: loan guarantees for energy have been successful, cost-effective investments.

That’s the message from Herb Allison, former national finance chairman for John McCain, who led a team of accountants and auditors in conducting an independent analysis of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program.  Allison and his team found that, despite the hysteria around Solyndra, this program will cost $2 billion less than initially expected.

Today, the White House released Allison’s review.  It includes an analysis of every loan guarantee issued from DOE, as well as recommendations for managing this portfolio of guarantees going forward.  This independent review was requested by the White House in late 2011, to make sure that the DOE loan guarantee portfolio was cost-effective for taxpayers.

The Allison review confirms what we already know, thanks to the Congressional Research Service and Bloomberg Government.  Instead of looking at individual investments, CRS examined the entire DOE portfolio, and concluded that the overwhelming majority of the portfolio was in electrical generation projects, which DOE structured to have very low risk.  Bloomberg Government took that a step forward, and concluded that the media’s incessant focus on Solyndra was “not proportional to its impact.”

There are multiple reasons why the risks to taxpayers from this program are so low.  First, most of the guarantees went to support projects that have very secure contracts to sell their power to investment-grade rated utilities. Allison and his team of independent auditors endorsed the methodology that DOE initially used to evaluate these types of projects, writing, “The Independent Consultant used the same Nine Criteria as did DOE because, in the opinion of the Independent Consultant, they comprise the salient factors for evaluating the credits and are substantially similar to the criteria that would be employed by private sector credit analysts for these types of loans.”

Read more

Alyssa

Brandon Jacobs’ Non-Apology to Gisele, And the Sexism of Silencing Athletes’ Wives

I suppose it’s nice for New York Giants running back Brandon Jacobs to apologize for telling Gisele Bunchen, the model who is married to New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady, that rather than expressing her upset about the Patriots’ Super Bowl loss that “She just needs to continue to stay cute and shut up.” But I’d rather he apologize to Gisele than to Brady:

“Given the fact that it’s a colleague of mine’s wife, I do apologize for saying that, because I shouldn’t have said that,” Jacobs said of Tom Brady’s spouse in an interview on “The Doug Gottlieb Show.” “It’s his wife and I should respect that just as much as anyone else.”…However, while Jacobs apologized for telling Bundchen to hush up, he refused to express any remorse about calling her cute, saying that Brady should “take that as a compliment.” “If he finds something wrong with that, then that’s his problem.”

Which means he really doesn’t get what he did, and why it was wrong. Jacobs’ comments were obnoxious not because he was impugning Tom Brady’s wife. They were obnoxious because they implied that the role of a woman was to be attractive, rather than to have opinions. The question is not whether Tom Brady has a problem with his wife being reduced to her looks. It’s whether Gisele does.

And I’ve honestly been dismayed by the idea that Gisele is obligated by contract or custom not to speak ill of her husband’s teammates or the team’s performance. Tom Brady is her husband, not her keeper. She is an independent woman who makes an income that does not leave her dependent on the Patriots. Whether she speaks publicly about his work is a matter for their marriage, not our judgement.

It’s an attitude that treats women who are married to athletes as if they’re like another set of women who are often treated as if they’re helpmeets first, and individuals second: political wives. No matter how accomplished Gisele or Hillary Clinton are in their own fields, as long as their husbands are or were preeminent figures in their fields, what Tom or Bill were up to was understood to be the priority—no matter what role those men feel comfortable having their wives take on. God forbid Gisele have opinions about football. God forbid Hillary have something to add on health care. I understand that it makes strategic sense, given the persistent and virulent sexism directed at women in politics, particularly those cast as if they’re malevolent powers behind the throne, for political wives to take on anodyne issues that are removed from the substance of the political mainstream. But that norm isn’t something we should be proud of.

NEWS FLASH

Maryland Delegate Calls Gay People A ‘Lifeform’ | Today during the Maryland House hearings on same-sex marriage, Del. Pat McDonough (R) sought to suggest that opponents of marriage equality can be respectful of gays and lesbians. In doing so, he revealed he isn’t quite clear on how to do even that, saying, “You don’t have to dislike gay people or dislike the gay lifeform to be opposed to the marriage concept.” Take a listen:

Justice

Supreme Court Asked To Double Down On Citizens United

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Late last year, the Montana Supreme Court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s erroneous Citizens United decision and upheld that state’s longstanding ban on corporate money in politics. Although we criticized that decision shortly thereafter — a lower court must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions even when they are obviously and tragically erroneous — the Montana justices’ overreaching does not excuse the Supreme Court’s far greater sin in handing down Citizens United in the first place. As we said before, “[t]he U.S. Supremes will doubtless decide they need to review the Montana decision. They should do so, and they should reverse their error in Citizens United as soon as possible.”

The day has now come for the Supreme Court to fix its most egregious error since Bush v. Gore:

Challengers to Montana’s ban on corporate independent expenditures—recently upheld by the Montana Supreme Court—have asked Justice Anthony Kennedy to put a hold on the state court’s ruling and have urged the full Court to reverse it. . . .

“The Montana Supreme Court held the Ban constitutional despite the holding in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), that `[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.’ Immediate relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the Corporations’ First Amendment free-speech right. Montana’s primary elections are on June 5, making it vital that planning begin now for independent expenditures before the election.”

Citizens United was wrong the day it was decided, and it has only succeeded in refuting itself during the two years it’s been in effect. One of the core conclusions in Citizens United was the majority’s statement that so-called “independent expenditures” — as opposed to contributions directly to campaigns — “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

It’s unclear how anyone could have ever believed this was true, but it’s impossible to believe this now. Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s family, for example, gave $11 million to a Super PAC intended to elect Newt Gingrich, and Gingrich met personally with Adelson after this money started flowing. Mitt Rommey has also met with Adelson, and, while it will never be known what the two men said to each other, Romney managed to extract from that meeting an assurance that Adelson “will be behind him 100 percent should he become the nominee.”

Maybe there really were five justices who didn’t understand that this was bound to happen when Citizens United was handed down in 2010, but, in the wake of these backroom meetings between top funders and their candidates, the justices cannot possibly deny the fact that Citizens United leads to corruption or at least the appearance of it. It’s time for the justices to simply admit they were wrong the first time around and overrule Citizens United.

Media

REPORT: By A Nearly 2 To 1 Margin, Cable Networks Call On Men Over Women To Comment On Birth Control

TP interns Zachary Bernstein and Fatima Najiy conducted the research for this report.

President Obama’s regulation mandating that health insurance plans offer free birth control is an issue that most directly affects women. And yet, the cable news chatter over this controversy has been driven mostly by men, according to a new ThinkProgress analysis.

From Monday through Thursday evening, the leading cable news channels – Fox, Fox Business, MSNBC, and CNN – invited almost twice as many men as women onto their shows to discuss contraceptive coverage.

Out of a total of 146 guests who discussed contraception, the cables invited 91 men compared to 55 women as commentators. In other words, males comprised 62 percent of the total guests who commented on contraception. Fox was the most gender stratified network – on the Business network, 10 of 11 guests were male; on the News side, male pundits took up 65 percent of the guest lineup (28 men vs. 15 women). Sixty percent of MSNBC’s lineup was male (44 men vs. 31 women). And while CNN was more evenly balanced, it was still slightly tilted in favor of male perspectives (9 men vs. 8 women).

A note on methodology: The survey did not include male or female hosts of shows who happened to comment on the controversy. Some guests, like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), appeared more than once during this stretch, but on different programs and networks. Each appearance was counted separately.

Contraceptive coverage is an issue where female perspectives should be heeded and understood. When it comes to contraceptive coverage, adding women’s voices on everything from their experiences with insurers to the decision’s impact on women voters can only make for a richer conversation. Hopefully, those individuals responsible for booking television guests will be more cognizant of gender sensitivities going forward.

Economy

U.S. Loses More Revenue To Corporate Tax Havens Than It Spends On Several Agencies

The Congressional Budget Office noted last week that U.S. corporate tax revenue has hit a 40 year low, driven down by corporate tax cuts and the widespread use of loopholes and tax havens. While corporate profits have rebounded to their pre-recession heights, corporate revenue has yet to even remotely follow suit.

One of the big factors helping corporations avoid taxes is their ability to report profits earned all over the world in low- or no-tax jurisdictions like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. As Center for American Progress Director of Fiscal Reform Seth Hanlon noted, corporate profit shifting costs the U.S. more in revenue every year than the country spends on the entire Department of Education or Department of Homeland Security:

Profit shifting erodes the corporate revenue base, draining the United States of tens of billions of dollars in revenue every year. And it is getting worse. The U.S. government was estimated to have lost about $90 billion in revenue in 2008 from profit shifting, up from $60 billion in 2004. To put that figure in perspective, the corporate income tax only raised an average of $300 billion per year during the 2004-08 timespan, suggesting that profit shifting is draining the U.S. Treasury of a significant share of corporate tax revenues.

The U.S. currently has the second lowest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world. In the last three years, at least 30 major corporations paid no federal corporate income tax at all, despite making $160 billion in profits. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for a minimum tax on corporations, saying, “no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.”

Alyssa

The Sexual Humiliation of Sitcom Women

Over at NPR’s Monkey See blog, Linda Holmes has a provocative essay up chronicling the decline of Liz Lemon, the harried comedy showrunner who is the star of NBC’s sitcom 30 Rock, from competent if overwhelmed woman to cringing child:

A recent storyline featuring James Marsden as Criss, Liz’s boyfriend who drove a hot-dog truck, was very reminiscent of Dennis the pager salesman. But this time, she didn’t break up with him because Jack gave her the side-eye and forced her to come to terms with the fact that she didn’t want him. She broke up with him because Jack appeared to her as an apparition — her spirit guide, basically — and mocked Criss, mostly for not having any money…Over the course of six seasons, Jack has been fully transformed into a condescending, all-knowing daddy, and Liz has been fully transformed into a needy little girl who is eternally terrified of displeasing him. She’s always had a grudging respect for him, but now she simply reveres him and trusts his judgment more than hers. She was once frazzled but smart, harried but competent, capable of wrangling a bunch of crazy people and then slumping at the end of the day, exhausted but minimally victorious. Now, she’s just dumb, incapable of making her own decisions, and her relationship with Jack is entirely out of balance.

For me, the tipping point with 30 Rock actually came last season when the show decided the next logical place to go in finding ways to be funny about Liz was to utterly sexually humiliate her. Liz was, at the time, dating a commercial pilot with the unfortunate name of Carol and an unfortunate moustache, played by Matt Damon, and they were having bedroom issues. Or, as Liz put it “I freaked out and my junk closed for business. It’s like Fort Knox down there.” The reason? An incident involving a Tom Jones poster, roller skates, the worst haircut anyone could bestow on a child, and a pair of flowered underpants. Liz can’t just have garden-variety intimacy problems: she has to be utterly freakish—and of course, to have Jack help her reach her breakthrough.

The decline of Liz Lemon may be a particular tragedy given how great 30 Rock once was. But when it comes to sex, it’s hardly unprecedented. A number of television comedies have decided to get laughs out of suggesting that their female leads are sexually freakish, and not in a Ludacris-approved kind of way. New Girl‘s done this to Jess twice. First, when she was finally about to sleep with her new boyfriend, the show had Jess overcome her jitters by getting her tangled up in ridiculous lingerie and then had her act out so many exaggerated versions of so many fetishes that she almost scared the poor man to death. More recently, Jess, in an effort to prove that her perennial optimism is always well-founded, ended up almost having a threesome with her creepy landlord. Her inability to read signals in any rational way—and her dancing around her bedroom doing jazz hands after the man proposed a threesome—were not the actions of a rational person.

And Parks and Recreation, which has done an admirable job of making its public servant heroine Leslie Knope into a sex symbol, had a weird slip last season when Leslie’s boss, Ron, discovered that she was dating their immediate superior, Ben. Her big secret was revealed when she accidentally dialed Ron during foreplay with Ben, a leadup that involved the two of them pretending to be historical weird leaders. Ron was disconcerted by the fact that Leslie had kept a secret from him, but the joke was clearly Leslie’s sexual proclivities.

Now, it’s not as if there’s an entirely clear double standard on these shows. On Parks and Recreation, Ron, normally a manly, independent libertarian is reduced to jelly and silliness by the sexual wiles of his ex-wives, to whom he is dangerously susceptible. Jess’s roommates on New Girl are not uniformly romantically successful. But Jack’s sexual quirks are generally treated as evidence of his prowess and manliness. When Liz is shocked that Jack’s girlfriend Avery likes a particular sex act, Jack explains that she appreciates it when it’s well-executed. And during his relationship with liberal Congresswoman C.C. Cunningham, he consistently credits for being sexually adventuresome. It’s too bad that someone like Leslie, who’s otherwise competent, aggressive, smart and attractive couldn’t get credit for sexual creativity rather than becoming the butt of jokes for having specific tastes.

NEWS FLASH

How ‘Overcooked Prawn’ John Abraham Took Down Lord Monckton | A University of St. Thomas profile explains how mechanical engineering professor John Abraham took a stand against prominent global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton and single-handedly demolished the lies of the conservative conspiracy theorist with “science and civility.” Monckton was reduced to threatening lawsuits and calling Dr. Abraham an “overcooked prawn.”

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up