ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

After Voting To Repeal Obamacare, Republicans Turn Their Attention To Golf | Immediately after the Republicans spent their 89th hour trying to take away health coverage from middle class Americans by voting to repeal Obamacare, the GOP turned their attention to a topic perhaps less consequential to their constituents: Golf. Democrats have argued that Republicans are wasting their time by revisiting the Obamacare debate instead of focusing on jobs and the economy. Today, the GOP went a step further in proving them right by having a long discussion about their two Congressional golf teams. Watch it:

LGBT

Medical Groups Attack Faulty Parenting Study In Anti-DOMA Amicus Brief

The nation’s major mental health organizations have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act stigmatizes against gays and lesbians and should be overturned. The brief recounts the scientific evidence that explains the nature of sexual orientations, but also takes time to debunk Mark Regnerus’ flawed study that attempts to draw negative conclusions about gay parents. Proponents of DOMA have already used the paper to defend their arguments, but the medical professionals explain why it should be ignored:

Amicus American College of Pediatricians — not to be confused with amicus herein, the American Academy of Pediatrics — seriously mischaracterizes a recent study (“the Regnerus study”) as having compared children of married heterosexual parents with those “raised by same-sex couples.” The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc.  There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother  or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.”

Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner.  Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.” Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples  — as Regnerus himself acknowledges — and thus it is gravely misleading to say, as the American College of Pediatricians does (p. 6), that the study involved 175 participants who “were raised by two women and 73 by two men.”

Accordingly, the conclusions by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect a consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.

So says the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Justice

Justice Department and FBI Launch Largest Ever Post-Conviction Review

In an attempt to reassess the validity of the nation’s crime labs, the Justice Department and the FBI have launched a sweeping review of thousands of criminal cases. The Justice Department will initially focus on 10,000 hair and fiber analyses, many of which are believed to have led to a wrongful conviction. According to the Washington Post, “the undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available.”

The review follows an April panel of the National Academy of Science that urged Congress to overhaul the current crime lab system and the methodological standards of forensic evidence. The Post also reported on the issue in April, finding that flawed forensic evidence has likely led to widespread wrongful convictions of innocent people.

Both reports found that forensic examinations such as hair and fiber analyses were “subjective and lacked grounding in solid research and that the FBI lab lacked protocols to ensure that agent testimony was scientifically accurate.” The lack of standards for effective examinations and convictions has allowed forensic analysts to base their conclusions on very few matching characteristics. The Post reported that out of about 30 possible traits used to determine hair matches, analysts often based their conclusions on only 6 or 7 matching characteristics. In one case, an FBI scientist based his testimony — which landed a defendant 28 years in prison before being exonerated — on only three characteristics: “it was black, it was a human head hair, and it was from an African American.” A former Justice Department official said in support of the review that:

“These recent developments remind us of the profound questions about the validity of many forensic techniques that have been used over the course of many decades and underscore the need for continuing attention at every level to ensuring the scientific validity and accuracy of the forensic science that is used every day in our criminal justice system.”

The last time the FBI overhauled a standard forensic practice was in 2005, when it stopped using the chemical composition of bullets to draw conclusions on their manufacturers. While many details of how the newest review will be conducted remain unclear, it will include help from both the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project, a group that seeks to exonerate people based on DNA testing.

Nina Liss-Schultz

Election

Romney Adviser Says Romney Received ‘Thunderous Applause Over and Over Again’ At NAACP

After his speech to the NAACP today elicited several rounds of boos from the audience, Mitt Romney’s campaign staff insisted that he was, in fact, received very well.

Romney staffers told press that they were “pleasantly surprised by the positive reception.” Tara Wall, a policy adviser, even declared, “I think actually there was a lot more applause, he had a standing ovation at the end, there was a lot more applause than disagreement.”

Wall went on to praise Romney for “saying tough things,” arguing with reporters, “I’ll take three boos out of thunderous applause over and over again.”

ThinkProgress reporters found a somewhat different response; attendees called the speech “patronizing” and Romney’s Obamacare comments in particular “a serious misjudgment.”

Even Romney himself admitted to Fox Business that he “expected” the boos, but wanted to deliver the same message he does to everyone else.

The longest and loudest boos came when Romney promised to repeal Obamacare, which he called “a non-essential expensive program.” Watch it:

NEWS FLASH

Former Iranian Interior Minister: Put Nuclear Issue To A Referendum | A former Iranian interior minister from the government of President Mohammad Khatami suggested in a talk to a group of student activists that Iran put the nuclear issue to a referendum, according to a report in BBC’s Persian service. According to an online translation, Abdollah Nuri told the students that “a decision must be based on general consent” — a contention he supported with the Islamic Republic’s constitution. Though Iran’s nuclear program has in the past gotten widespread public support, according to unreliable polling, respondents to a recent online survey on Iran’s state-run news site overwhelming supported nuclear concessions in order to strike a deal with the West (until the poll was taken down).

Climate Progress

The ‘No More Solyndras Act’: Rep. Stearns Wants To Turn a Good Program Into A Bad One

by Richard W. Caperton

Imagine a government program that had produced dozens of success stories, cost less than expected, and helped build an industry of the future. Wouldn’t you want to expand that program?  Yes, you probably would.  Unless, of course, you were Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

If you were Rep. Cliff Stearns, you would introduce legislation to end the program.  And, if the program somehow did survive, your legislation would make sure that it operated with more bureaucratic red tape and weaker financial standing.

Welcome to the bizarre politics around the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. Tomorrow, two subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider a piece of legislation written by Stearns called the “No More Solyndras Act.”  Every aspect of this bill is bad. If Congress really wants to improve the loan guarantee program, they should do so by allowing it to fund many more projects with a full portfolio of financial tools. Let’s look at why.

The Loan Guarantee Program has been a success

First, some background. DOE’s loan guarantee program was created in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was strengthened in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill). The program is built to provide financing to new clean energy technologies that the private sector is unable to finance.  These companies are trying to cross the “Valley of Death,” where they need many millions — even billions — of dollars to build new projects.  Traditional lenders won’t finance these projects because they’re generally the first-of-a-kind, and venture capitalists who would finance innovative projects simply don’t have enough money to meet these companies’ needs.  So, the government stepped in and guaranteed that they’ll pay back a loan if the company is unable to.  This guarantee unlocks capital.

The program has been an overwhelming success.  The loan guarantee program alone financed 32 projects in more than 20 states, ultimately creating 22,000 jobs directly. Best of all, the government only spent $2.5 billion to mobilize more than $20 billion in private capital.

Even projects without guarantees have benefited from the process. For example, the due diligence process helped bring in a $1 billion investment from Bank of America for the largest residential solar project in U.S. history. The chief executive officer of the solar company deploying the project said that without the due diligence process to attract private lenders, “We would not have been able to make the economics of this project work.”

Enter the “No More Solyndras Act”: A potential disaster

Despite the fact that the Title XVII loan guarantee program has been a success and should be expanded, Rep. Stearns’ legislation would effectively end the program, mandate unnecessary and duplicate consultations, and tie the government’s hands behind when it’s representing taxpayers.

The “No More Solyndras Act” does three main things:

  1. It sets a retrospective deadline by which applications must have been received in order to be considered for loan guarantees. No application that was submitted after December 31, 2011, is eligible for a new guarantee.
  2. It creates a new process for the Secretary of the Treasury to influence the outcome of a decision on a guarantee, and requires the Secretary of Energy to explain why he or she did or did not follow Treasury’s recommendation.
  3. It says that taxpayers must always be the senior debt holder, even after a restructuring of a guarantee for a troubled company.

Each of these is a mistake.

Read more

Health

House Republicans Spend 89 Hours Trying To Take Away Health Coverage From 30 Million Americans

In a vote of 244 to 185, the House of Representatives has repealed the Affordable Care Act — just days after the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

This is the 31st attempt by Congressional Republicans to eliminate the measure. The GOP has spent an estimated “88 hours and 53 minutes” since January of 2011 trying to undo the reform, an analysis by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office finds, though this latest bill is expected to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Prior to Wednesday’s repeal vote, Democrats introduced an amendment that would have forced members of Congress to forego the same protections that Republicans are seeking to eliminate for their constituents, including gender-based premium rating, prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and allowing young people to remain on their parents’ health plans until age 26. The amendment failed along party lines, as the GOP prevailed, ignoring the consequences of repeal:

Update

5 Democrats supported the GOP effort. They are: Reps. Boren (OK), Kissell (NC), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), and Ross (AR)

NEWS FLASH

NOM Defends Kirk Cameron’s Condemnations Of Homosexuality | It seems the National Organization for Marriage has found its latest “non-cognitive” elite to champion. The anti-gay organization’s Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance today highlighted child-actor-turned-fringe-evangelical Kirk Cameron as a victim of “frequent and merciless harassment by the mainstream media for his outspoken Biblical views.” Cameron most recently told Piers Morgan that homosexuality is “unnatural… detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Those are the values NOM insists on defending under the sugar-coated guise of a “champion of marriage”:

Economy

Manchester United Shows How The JOBS Act Opens The Door To Fraud

A longstanding Republican canard is that overregulation has deterred companies from doing business in the United States. Now, thanks to the economic safeguard-destroying Jumpstart Our Business Start-Ups (JOBS) Act — crafted by House Republicans and signed into law in April — America’s newly deregulated IPO market has become an unfortunate haven for companies seeking lower compliance costs.

One such international company, the English soccer club Manchester United, is filing to go public on the New York Stock Exchange, and will benefit from the lax regulation that America now offers. The JOBS Act weakens protections put in place in the early 2000s after Enron and similar scandals. Under the law, Manchester United — which earns less than $1 billion in revenue — classifies as an “emerging growth company,” thus avoiding more stringent business regulations.

As the New York Times’ Dealbook notes, United will be exempted from many American securities laws:

Manchester United will not need to file quarterly reports, report material events, file proxy statements or disclose extensive compensation information, all of which American companies must do. Under a different S.E.C. rule adopted in 2008, Manchester United also does not need to report financials under the generally accepted accounting principles used in the United States, but can instead rely on international financial reporting standards.

Critics of the JOBS Act warn that the slackening of reporting requirements of IPO companies increases the likelihood of fraud and manipulation. Even a majority of bankers believe the law opens the door to accounting scandals.

For the Glazers, the American family that owns Man U., the U.S. can also offer a much more attractive shareholder structure than other nations. As it stands, United’s ownership is saddled with $655 million of debt and is largely unpopular with fans. The Glazers may be willing to sell shares to reduce their debt, but they do not want to relinquish voting control over the company. America’s “dual-class” shareholder structure — where the Glazers could get 10 votes per share versus one vote for a public investors’ share — would mean they won’t have to.

Steven Perlberg

Alyssa

Law & Disorder, Or, On Loving Judge Dredd and She-Hulk

“Every woman adores a fascist.” -Sylvia Plath

“We drove past the hatchery, / the hut that sells bait, / past Pigeon Cove, past the Yacht Club, past Squall’s Hill, / to the house that waits still, / on the top of the sea, / and two portraits hung on the opposite walls.” -Anne Sexton

I’m not going to Comic-Con this year, but I have been reading a lot of comics lately, plowing through 2000 AD’s editions of Judge Dredd: The Complete Case Files and Savage She-Hulk #1-25. They’re wildly different comics projects—Judge Joseph Dredd is the main character in a long-running futuristic comics saga that doesn’t reboot, letting a year pass in his life for every one of ours, while She-Hulk is a mid-level character in the complex Marvel Comics universe. And even more important, they explore wildly different values. And over the past couple of weeks, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about why, as a feminist and a civil libertarian, I like both a fascist cop who originated as a British satire of American authoritarian tendencies and a green feminist defense lawyer who was created to preempt a television rip-off of both the Hulk and the Bionic Woman so much.

In coming to terms with the cop, it help that Dredd is a satire of the yearning towards authoritarianism, and that the writing is often very funny. In a confrontation with the Dark Judges, undead villains dedicated to eradicating all life, Judge Fear attempts to drive Judge Dredd mad by telling him, “Gaze into the face of fear!” “For a moment the icy chill of terror courses down Dredd’s spine,” the comic tells us. “The shock of this gaze can kill an ordinary man. But Dredd is a judge—and Judges are not ordinary men!” His response? A solid punch, delivered with the retort: “Gaze into the fist of Dredd!” In another story arc, called Block Mania, Mega-City One’s inhabitants, cramped into massive apartment buildings with strong internal identities, are drugged with a chemical that leads to city-wide riots. Dredd leads the response, but ultimately gets hit with a heavy dose of the substance himself. It’s hilarious watching this highly controlled man go as bonkers as his neighbors, hollering at the Judges under his command, “Now there’s just one thing I gotta know. I’m with Rowdy Yates Block! Who you fighting with?”

The comic also regularly punctures Dredd’s stoicism, particularly with regard to Walter, his lisping, worshipful robot butler who is an obvious stand in for stereotypically gay functionaries. Walter adores Dredd, and embraces subservience and slavery (something that causes him real psychological struggle down the line). But even though Dredd finds Walter irritating, Walter often inadvertently saves him. When Dredd is infiltrating the inner circle of a corrupt Chief Judge, the leader of the Department of Justice, which lead a coup and now rules Mega-City one in a dictatorship, Walter helps him sneak through a secret passageway in the Hall of Justice. During the Apocalypse War arc, Walter, who is trying to help Judge Dredd’s landlord Maria get cured of her Block Mania, finds out that invaders from East-Meg One, the nation that’s replaced the Soviet Union, are flanking Dredd’s forces and about to destroy them. Walter’s decency ends up being more crucial to Dredd’s survival in that moment than Dredd’s competence or authority.
Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up