Hmmm, I just can't help but get this feeling there's something missing from the article below. Hmmm.... what could it be...what could it be?
Oh yeah, I know, how about some statistics that actually show how the economy is doing. Which is well, extremely well and nowhere near a recession in fact quite the opposite.
So why does nearly half the country think we are in recession when we are in an economic boom? Could it be shitty biased journalism from the likes of CNN? Uh yeah. I do believe so.
October 18, 2007
Poll: Nearly half think U.S. in recession
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly half of Americans feel the U.S. economy is in a recession, marked by a significant decline in economic activity, according to a survey released Thursday.
The poll by the CNN-Opinion Research Corporation found that while 46 percent of Americans hold that belief, 51 percent don't.
Black citizens were more pessimistic than whites, findings show.
Sixty-nine percent of black Americans feel the United States is in a recession, while only 42 percent of white Americans feel the same way.
The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales."
The GDP measures the economy's output. It represents the total market value of all goods and services produced in the United States during a specified period.
According to the bureau, "a recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity, and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades."
The recession findings may be having an impact on President Bush's approval rating.
The CNN-ORC poll finds Mr. Bush's approval rating remains steady at 36 percent, but his approval rating among black Americans is just 15 percent.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland says "a majority of whites also disapprove of Bush, although four in 10 have a favorable view of his administration. The president's approval rating has been stuck at 36 percent since late summer."
The sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points for all but the black vs. white breakdowns, which have a sampling error of 5.5 percentage points.
– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Two of 'Jena Six' defendants present BET award
Two of the teens enmeshed in the nationally known "Jena Six" case helped present the most anticipated award during Black Entertainment Television's Hip Hop Awards show broadcast Thursday night.Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis were introduced by Katt Williams, a comedian and the awards show's host, as two of the students involved in a case of "systematic racism."
"By no means are we condoning a six-on-one beat-down," Williams said during his introduction of the teens, one of whom is still facing attempted murder charges in connection with the attack on white student Justin Barker. "... But the injustice perpetrated on these young men is straight criminal."
As Jones and Purvis walked onto the stage at the Atlanta Civic Center, where the awards show was filmed on Saturday, they were greeted by a standing ovation.
"They don't look so tough, do they?" Williams joked as the teens stepped up to the podium.
Both Jones and Purvis thanked a number of people, including family, friends, the "Hip-Hop Nation" and the thousands who came to their small hometown to rally behind their case.
Purvis said the Sept. 20 rally proved "our generation can unite and rally around a cause."
The teens assisted Williams in presenting the Video of the Year honor to Kanye West for "Stronger." Purvis handed the award to West, who in turn shook hands with both teens.
'Should be humbled'
Some have been critical of the appearance, saying the teens -- accused of knocking Barker unconscious and then stomping and kicking on him until another student intervened -- shouldn't be made out to be celebrities. Barker was treated at a local emergency room for close to three hours and then released.
"If anything, they should be humbled and go home and not be trying to get celebrity status off a tragedy," one person wrote on a BET blog post.
Another wrote on the blog, titled "What's wrong with this picture?" featuring a picture of Jones and Purvis on the red carpet, "... this is what I was protesting for! So that later you could show up at the BET awards and style and profile?"
But Tina Jones, Purvis' mom, said BET contacted the Jena Six families to come to the awards show "to get away for a relaxing weekend."
Also attending the show was Mychal Bell's father, Marcus Jones; Carwin Jones' parents, John Jenkins and Dwanda Jones; and Theo McCoy, the father of Theo Shaw, another defendant.
"You can't get caught up in what people say," Tina Jones said. "They are going to say something no matter what you do."
She said her son was most excited about meeting rappers Birdman and Lil Wayne.
Court allowed the trip
Some have questioned if Carwin Jones and Purvis were allowed to leave the state legally, but Bill Furlow, a spokesman for LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, said the boys sought and received the court's permission before going.
Jenkins said the past few months have been stressful for everyone involved and that it was "good to see the kids go out and have fun and laugh."
"I'm just praying that everything turns out OK for everybody," he said.
But the criticism has been extensive, including comments from those who said they made the trek to Jena for the rally.
"They can find somebody else to march for them (be)cause I will not be there the next time, and whoever invited them to this should be slapped," one person wrote on the BET blog. "(You're) not setting a good example for the justice that everyone is fighting for. You look like the thugs they said the Jena 6 are. Thanks for making us look stupid!"
A poster who said he was from near Jena said it is "sad making the Jena 6 out as heros."
But Tina Jones emphasized that the appearance was only an opportunity to get away from the stress of the case and Jena -- not about raising awareness or gaining celebrity status.
Purvis' attorney, Darrell Hickman, declined to comment about his client's appearance and said he doesn't know of any others scheduled in the future.
Messages left Thursday for Carwin Jones' attorney, Mike Nunnery, went unreturned.
Calls placed Thursday to the Barker family for comment went unanswered.
Carwin Jones and Purvis were charged initially with second-degree murder, along with Bell, Shaw, Robert Bailey and Jesse Ray Beard, in connection with the Dec. 4 beating of Barker at Jena High School.
Bell, who was 16 at the time of the attack, is the first of the six defendants to have been tried and was convicted in June of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit that crime. Both of those felony convictions later were vacated and sent back to juvenile court.
Bell is currently at the Renaissance Home for Youth in Alexandria , said the Rev. B.L. Moran of Jena, who has actively advocated for the teens, including testifying at a congressional hearing earlier this week.
Bell had spent almost 10 months incarcerated in a LaSalle Parish adult facility before being released on bail in September. He was free for two weeks before being taken back into custody and sentenced to 18 months in connection with two previous juvenile adjudications, the Rev. Al Sharpton said.
Charges against Bailey, Carwin Jones and Shaw have been reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit that crime, which they will face in adult court. Current information about Bell's and Beard's cases are unknown as they are being handled in juvenile court and aren't open to the public.
Purvis is scheduled for arraignment on Nov. 7.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Media myths about the Jena 6
A local journalist tells the story you haven't heard.
By Craig Franklin
Jena, La. - By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.
There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.
I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.
The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue.
The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It's time to set the record straight.
Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class.
Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events.
Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime. It also did not meet the standard for Louisiana's hate-crime statute, and though widely condemned by all officials, there was no crime to charge the youths with.
Myth 4: DA's Threat to Black Students. When District Attorney Reed Walters spoke to Jena High students at an assembly in September, he did not tell black students that he could make their life miserable with "the stroke of a pen." Instead, according to Walters, "two or three girls, white girls, were chit-chatting on their cellphones or playing with their cellphones right in the middle of my dissertation. I got a little irritated at them and said, 'Pay attention to me. I am right now having to deal with an aggravated rape case where I've got to decide whether the death penalty applies or not.' I said, 'Look, I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With the stroke of a pen I can make your life miserable so I want you to call me before you do something stupid.'"
Mr. Walters had been called to the assembly by police, who had been at the school earlier that day dealing with some students who were causing disturbances. Teachers and students have confirmed Walters's version of events.
Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.
When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.
Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches. No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist.
Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.
Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)
When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head. Police speculate that the motivation for the attack was related to the racially charged fights that had occurred during the previous weekend.
Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions.
Myth 9: Mychal Bell's All-White Jury. While it is true that Mychal Bell was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury in June (a conviction that was later overturned with his case sent to juvenile court), the jury selection process was completely legal and withstood an investigation by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Court officials insist that several black residents were summoned for jury duty, but did not appear.
Myth 10: Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records. Bell had at least four prior violent-crime arrests before the December attack, and was on probation during most of this year.
Myth 11: Jena Is One of the Most Racist Towns in America. Actually, Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks. The media's distortion and outright lies concerning the case have given this rural Louisiana town a label it doesn't deserve.
Myth 12: Two Levels of Justice. Outside protesters were convinced that the prosecution of the Jena 6 was proof of a racially biased system of justice. But the US Justice Department's investigation found no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the percentage of blacks and whites prosecuted matches the parish's population statistics.
These are just 12 of many myths that are portrayed as fact in the media concerning the Jena cases. (A more thorough review of all events can be found at www.thejenatimes.net – click on Chronological Order of Events.)
As with the Duke Lacrosse case, the truth about Jena will eventually be known. But the town of Jena isn't expecting any apologies from the media. They will probably never admit their error and have already moved on to the next "big" story. Meanwhile in Jena, residents are getting back to their regular routines, where friends are friends regardless of race. Just as it has been all along.
• Craig Franklin is assistant editor of The Jena Times.
By Craig Franklin
Jena, La. - By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.
There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.
I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.
The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue.
The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It's time to set the record straight.
Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class.
Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events.
Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime. It also did not meet the standard for Louisiana's hate-crime statute, and though widely condemned by all officials, there was no crime to charge the youths with.
Myth 4: DA's Threat to Black Students. When District Attorney Reed Walters spoke to Jena High students at an assembly in September, he did not tell black students that he could make their life miserable with "the stroke of a pen." Instead, according to Walters, "two or three girls, white girls, were chit-chatting on their cellphones or playing with their cellphones right in the middle of my dissertation. I got a little irritated at them and said, 'Pay attention to me. I am right now having to deal with an aggravated rape case where I've got to decide whether the death penalty applies or not.' I said, 'Look, I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With the stroke of a pen I can make your life miserable so I want you to call me before you do something stupid.'"
Mr. Walters had been called to the assembly by police, who had been at the school earlier that day dealing with some students who were causing disturbances. Teachers and students have confirmed Walters's version of events.
Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.
When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.
Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches. No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist.
Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.
Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)
When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head. Police speculate that the motivation for the attack was related to the racially charged fights that had occurred during the previous weekend.
Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions.
Myth 9: Mychal Bell's All-White Jury. While it is true that Mychal Bell was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury in June (a conviction that was later overturned with his case sent to juvenile court), the jury selection process was completely legal and withstood an investigation by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Court officials insist that several black residents were summoned for jury duty, but did not appear.
Myth 10: Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records. Bell had at least four prior violent-crime arrests before the December attack, and was on probation during most of this year.
Myth 11: Jena Is One of the Most Racist Towns in America. Actually, Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks. The media's distortion and outright lies concerning the case have given this rural Louisiana town a label it doesn't deserve.
Myth 12: Two Levels of Justice. Outside protesters were convinced that the prosecution of the Jena 6 was proof of a racially biased system of justice. But the US Justice Department's investigation found no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the percentage of blacks and whites prosecuted matches the parish's population statistics.
These are just 12 of many myths that are portrayed as fact in the media concerning the Jena cases. (A more thorough review of all events can be found at www.thejenatimes.net – click on Chronological Order of Events.)
As with the Duke Lacrosse case, the truth about Jena will eventually be known. But the town of Jena isn't expecting any apologies from the media. They will probably never admit their error and have already moved on to the next "big" story. Meanwhile in Jena, residents are getting back to their regular routines, where friends are friends regardless of race. Just as it has been all along.
• Craig Franklin is assistant editor of The Jena Times.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Brownback to drop '08 bid
WASHINGTON - Republican Sam Brownback will drop out of the 2008 presidential campaign on Friday, people close to the Kansas senator told NBC News Thursday.
Trouble raising money was a main reason for his decision, said one person close to Brownback, who requested anonymity because the candidate had not yet announced his plans.
Brownback, a lesser-known conservative contender, is expected announce his withdrawal in Topeka, Kan.
The senator is widely expected to seek the Kansas governor’s office in 2010, when his term—his second—expires. He had promised in his first Senate campaign to serve no more than two terms.
Brownback had raised a little more than $800,000 from July through September and around $4 million overall. He is eligible for $2 million in federal matching funds.
Besides money, Brownback’s support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants hurt him in Iowa, an early-voting state that has struggled to provide education, medical care and other services as the number of immigrants has more than doubled since 1990.
Brownback spent a good chunk of his money on the Iowa straw poll, an early test of strength whose significance diminished after Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani decided not to compete. He finished third behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
People close to Brownback said it was unlikely he would endorse another candidate on Friday.
It’s uncertain how much weight a Brownback endorsement would carry. While he is a favorite of religious conservatives, he failed to become their consensus candidate and ranks low in national polls and state surveys.
Still, a nod from Brownback could bolster the conservative credentials of a candidate such as McCain or Huckabee.
Those two rivals appear most likely to receive Brownback’s support. Brownback and McCain are close Senate comrades and have refrained from criticizing one another, instead assailing Romney.
While McCain has a voting record similar to Brownback’s on cultural issues, McCain prompts skepticism on the right flank of the party because he isn’t a high-profile crusader against abortion rights and gay marriage. Brownback’s backing could signal to Christian conservatives that they can trust McCain.
Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher, is another favorite of religious conservatives. But like Brownback, he has struggled to get that voting bloc to rally around him with political support. He, too, could benefit from Brownback’s backing.
It’s harder to imagine any other Republican in the field getting a Brownback nod, although former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is a possibility. The Kansas senator has bitterly criticized Romney, and Giuliani is detested by the religious right for his abortion rights and gay rights positions.
Trouble raising money was a main reason for his decision, said one person close to Brownback, who requested anonymity because the candidate had not yet announced his plans.
Brownback, a lesser-known conservative contender, is expected announce his withdrawal in Topeka, Kan.
The senator is widely expected to seek the Kansas governor’s office in 2010, when his term—his second—expires. He had promised in his first Senate campaign to serve no more than two terms.
Brownback had raised a little more than $800,000 from July through September and around $4 million overall. He is eligible for $2 million in federal matching funds.
Besides money, Brownback’s support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants hurt him in Iowa, an early-voting state that has struggled to provide education, medical care and other services as the number of immigrants has more than doubled since 1990.
Brownback spent a good chunk of his money on the Iowa straw poll, an early test of strength whose significance diminished after Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani decided not to compete. He finished third behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
People close to Brownback said it was unlikely he would endorse another candidate on Friday.
It’s uncertain how much weight a Brownback endorsement would carry. While he is a favorite of religious conservatives, he failed to become their consensus candidate and ranks low in national polls and state surveys.
Still, a nod from Brownback could bolster the conservative credentials of a candidate such as McCain or Huckabee.
Those two rivals appear most likely to receive Brownback’s support. Brownback and McCain are close Senate comrades and have refrained from criticizing one another, instead assailing Romney.
While McCain has a voting record similar to Brownback’s on cultural issues, McCain prompts skepticism on the right flank of the party because he isn’t a high-profile crusader against abortion rights and gay marriage. Brownback’s backing could signal to Christian conservatives that they can trust McCain.
Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher, is another favorite of religious conservatives. But like Brownback, he has struggled to get that voting bloc to rally around him with political support. He, too, could benefit from Brownback’s backing.
It’s harder to imagine any other Republican in the field getting a Brownback nod, although former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is a possibility. The Kansas senator has bitterly criticized Romney, and Giuliani is detested by the religious right for his abortion rights and gay rights positions.
Sarkozy and wife announce divorce
PARIS, France (CNN) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife, Cecilia, have divorced by mutual consent, the couple's attorney told a French radio network."A judge heard it, and the judge pronounced the divorce," Michele Cahen told Europe 1 radio. Europe 1 reported the divorce was finalized Monday.
Cahen said all matters dealing with finances and custody of the couple's five children -- four from previous marriages -- have been resolved.
"There is no problem. It went very well, there was not the least bit of trouble," Cahen said.
Elysee Palace announced Thursday the Sarkozys were separating, but offered no further details. The announcement followed weeks of speculation and rumors that the couple's marriage of 11 years was in trouble. The office said the couple would be making no further statements.
Cecilia Sarkozy has been increasingly absent from her husband's side since he came to power in May.
Rumors about the marriage intensified this week after a presidential spokesman said Cecilia Sarkozy would skip a state visit to Morocco next week. The spokesman played it down as a simple scheduling announcement.
Cecilia Sarkozy was a smiling figure at her husband's inauguration in May as she stood with the children. But she has since said the role of a first lady was not something she was comfortable with, and recently, she said she didn't see herself as having any role at all.
Nicolas Sarkozy said at the start of his term that he had no worries as president, except for his wife.
The divorce comes as Sarkozy, in Portugal for a European Union summit, faces crippling public sector strikes at home. The walkout has shut down France's transit system and poses the first big challenge for Sarkozy's government.
For the French public, news of the divorce is unlikely to come as a shock. French presidents and their spouses have a long tradition of leading separate lives, even while carrying on the functions of state.
Former President Francois Mitterrand not only lived apart from his wife, Danielle, but he maintained a secret second family that turned up in public only at his funeral.
Jacques Chirac, who stepped down when Sarkozy was elected this year, hinted at a number of affairs. He and his wife lived largely separate lives, appearing together only at presidential functions.
The Sarkozys themselves have had a tumultuous marriage, staying together despite public affairs and rumors of infidelity.
Bush veto of child health bill sustained
WASHINGTON - House Democrats were unable Thursday to override President Bush's veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children. The bill had bipartisan support but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds that majority supporters needed to enact the bill into law over Bush's objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program now subsidizes health care insurance coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most of them from low-income families, to the program at an added cost of $7 billion annually.
To pay for the increase, the bill would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1.00 a pack.
"This is not about an issue. It's about a value," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said just before the vote. "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we can provide SCHIP coverage for 10 million children for one year."
Forty-four Republicans voted to override Bush's veto — one fewer than GOP members who voted Sept. 25 to pass the bill. Only two Democrats voted to sustain Bush's veto compared with six who had voted against the bill. The two were Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.
"We won this round on SCHIP," White House press secretary Dana Perino said after the vote. She said a million-dollar lobbying campaign by several labor unions and advocacy groups to turn enough Republican votes for a successful override "didn't work."
Bush, anticipating that his veto would stand, has assigned three top advisers to try to negotiate a new deal with Congress. One of them, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said: "It's now time for us to get to the hard work of finding a solution and get SCHIP reauthorized. We also have a larger task, to provide every American with the means of having an insurance policy."
Republican opponents said the bill would encourage too many middle-income families to substitute government-subsidized insurance for their private insurance. The bill gives states financial incentives to cover families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level — $61,950 for a family of four.
"That's not low-income. That's a majority of households in America," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.
The bill specifically states that illegal immigrants would remain ineligible for the children's program, but Republicans seized on a section that would allow families to provide a Social Security number to indicate citizenship. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said it's too easy to get a false number, which would give an opening for thousands of illegal immigrants to enroll.
But Democrats said the bill's original focus remained intact. States would be given bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled.
"Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. "Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty."
The president said his veto gives him a chance to weigh in on the future of the program.
"Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation and the president can then use the veto to make sure he's a part of the process," Bush said Wednesday.
Leading the discussions for his administration are Mike Leavitt, the health and human services secretary; Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council; and Jim Nussle, the White House budget chief.
Supporters of the bill said they already had compromised in winning passage of the bill last month in both houses. The House originally had proposed a $50 billion increase over five years.
The bill is bipartisan, and the Senate has shown it could override a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has replied with an emphatic "no" when asked if he would seek a compromise with the administration.
Both the House and Senate have to override a veto for a bill to become law over a president's objection.
Through the program, the government and the states subsidize the cost of health coverage for families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase in the program, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion — half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.
Proponents emphasized that the program still would focus on low-income families. Dingell said more than 90 percent of families covered have incomes that are below $41,300 for a family of four. That is the range that the program was originally designed to help.
"There will be no wealthy people covered," Dingell said.
Some public opinion polls indicate support for expanding the program. Sixty-one percent said Congress should override Bush's veto of a bill expanding the program, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday. Blacks were more likely than whites to favor overriding Bush's veto.
Feminists Have More Fun
Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests. Busting stereotypes that peg feminists as ugly lesbians, a new study shows that having a feminist partner is linked with healthier, more romantic heterosexual relationships.
The study, published online this week in the journal Sex Roles, relied on surveys of both college students and older adults, finding that women with egalitarian attitudes do find mates and men do find them attractive. In fact, results reveal they are having a good time, maybe a better time than the non-feminists.
Both men and women are prone to holding negative views of feminists, the authors say. Along with the sexually unattractive stereotype, some women also view feminism as a movement for victims, or for women who aren't competent enough to achieve success on their own merit, according to the Rutgers University researchers.
Psychologists Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan carried out a laboratory survey of 242 Rutgers undergraduates and conducted an online survey of 289 older adults who had an average age of 26 and typically had been in their current relationship about four years.
Older adults have more life experience "and thus may be more likely to show an incompatibility between feminism and romantic relationships," Rudman and Phelan write. While younger females likely grew up with the attitude that "women can have it all," the researchers note older women may have come of age in the era following U.S. women's suffrage (1919) or during the women's movement that emerged in the 1960s.
The researchers looked at people's perception of their own feminism, their partner's feminism and whether they had positive views of feminists and career women. Other survey measures included overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
For example, relationship quality was measured with questions such as: How often do you and your partner laugh together? And how often do you and your partner quarrel? For stability measures, participants answered how often they considered terminating the relationship, as well as how often they thought their romantic relationship had a good future.
Among the findings:
College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners.
College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships.
Older women who perceived their male partners as feminists reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction.
Older men with feminist partners said they had more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
Overall, feminism and romance do go hand in hand, the scientists say.
While they aren't sure how feminism works to enhance relationship health, the researchers have some ideas. Feminist men might be more supportive of their female partner's ambitions than are traditionalists. Men with feminist partners may enjoy the extra breadwinner to share the economic burden of maintaining a household.
Dennis Kucinich, the Unknown Front Runner
Never even heard of him? Well, he's probably your first choice for President.
There is a nice little one-page website available, that lets you vote on the issues
that matter to you, and then tells you which Presidential candidates out there come closest to your views. It's a great tool because it gives you a quick, accurate list of the candidates that should be your favorites, according to the issues they support and oppose, without all that ... you know ... research.
But here's the interesting point. This website also gives some statistical history of how people have voted. As of this writing, 153,350 people have completed the quiz. Of those people, more than half (57% in fact) have discovered that Dennis Kucinich is the candidate they should be supporting.
Now, that's not 57% for Kucinich and 43% for some other candidate. The site considers the platforms of 18 established Presidential contenders. Dennis Kucinich comes up as Americans' number one choice more than every other candidate combined. To clarify, this is not 57% of Democrats, or 57% of closet Neocons, or 57% of disillusioned former Ron Paul supporters (like me). Of everyone who has taken this quiz, over half want the same things for America as Dennis Kucinich.
So, if the issues actually mattered, and if Americans looked at the whole field--instead of just the 3 or 4 candidates the mainstream media tells them to, and if Americans voted their conscience, instead of selecting the lesser of the two most popular evils ... Dennis Kucinich would be the runaway favorite. The actual election would just be a formality. Yeah, I know, that's an awful lot of 'ifs'. However, every one of those 'ifs' should be true ... if this is still the Democracy we like to think it is. So why is Kucinich still languishing in 73rd place?
The fact is, when I took this quiz, I was a die-hard Ron Paul supporter. Of the candidates I was familiar with, Ron Paul was head-and-shoulders above the pack. But then, I had never heard of this Kucinich fellow. So I did some research and found that, in fact, Dennis Kucinich actually does stand for the things I believe in, almost completely ... and quite a lot better than Ron Paul, in fact. So, after a bit of waffling, I switched horses (and political parties) midstream. It's ok; you can do that. I checked.
So here's the site.
Pick Your Candidate.
Check it out, it's worth five minutes to find out if you're actually backing the best man (or woman) for the job. And if it turns out that Kucinich is your pick, too (and odds are, he will be), then don't be afraid to support him. He's only an underdog as long as we keep thinking he is.
A couple quick notes about the 'Pick Your Candidate' website. It was put together by a regular guy, 'spare time' sort of thing. The actual computer programming code that runs the site and calculates the results is completely open-source and transparent, meaning that anyone who knows a bit about programming (such as myself) can look at how the quiz works and clearly see that there are no hidden tricks to skew the results. The candidates' stances on the issues are determined by their actual statements of position, as recorded by www.2decide.com, an excellent, non-partisan service that tracks these things.
There is a nice little one-page website available, that lets you vote on the issues
that matter to you, and then tells you which Presidential candidates out there come closest to your views. It's a great tool because it gives you a quick, accurate list of the candidates that should be your favorites, according to the issues they support and oppose, without all that ... you know ... research.But here's the interesting point. This website also gives some statistical history of how people have voted. As of this writing, 153,350 people have completed the quiz. Of those people, more than half (57% in fact) have discovered that Dennis Kucinich is the candidate they should be supporting.
Now, that's not 57% for Kucinich and 43% for some other candidate. The site considers the platforms of 18 established Presidential contenders. Dennis Kucinich comes up as Americans' number one choice more than every other candidate combined. To clarify, this is not 57% of Democrats, or 57% of closet Neocons, or 57% of disillusioned former Ron Paul supporters (like me). Of everyone who has taken this quiz, over half want the same things for America as Dennis Kucinich.
So, if the issues actually mattered, and if Americans looked at the whole field--instead of just the 3 or 4 candidates the mainstream media tells them to, and if Americans voted their conscience, instead of selecting the lesser of the two most popular evils ... Dennis Kucinich would be the runaway favorite. The actual election would just be a formality. Yeah, I know, that's an awful lot of 'ifs'. However, every one of those 'ifs' should be true ... if this is still the Democracy we like to think it is. So why is Kucinich still languishing in 73rd place?
The fact is, when I took this quiz, I was a die-hard Ron Paul supporter. Of the candidates I was familiar with, Ron Paul was head-and-shoulders above the pack. But then, I had never heard of this Kucinich fellow. So I did some research and found that, in fact, Dennis Kucinich actually does stand for the things I believe in, almost completely ... and quite a lot better than Ron Paul, in fact. So, after a bit of waffling, I switched horses (and political parties) midstream. It's ok; you can do that. I checked.
So here's the site.
Pick Your Candidate.
Check it out, it's worth five minutes to find out if you're actually backing the best man (or woman) for the job. And if it turns out that Kucinich is your pick, too (and odds are, he will be), then don't be afraid to support him. He's only an underdog as long as we keep thinking he is.
A couple quick notes about the 'Pick Your Candidate' website. It was put together by a regular guy, 'spare time' sort of thing. The actual computer programming code that runs the site and calculates the results is completely open-source and transparent, meaning that anyone who knows a bit about programming (such as myself) can look at how the quiz works and clearly see that there are no hidden tricks to skew the results. The candidates' stances on the issues are determined by their actual statements of position, as recorded by www.2decide.com, an excellent, non-partisan service that tracks these things.
A Times Square Pedestrian Is Giving No Ground
ALBANY, Oct. 17 — Millions of people have paused to stand amid the hustle, bustle and neon of Times Square.
And sure, those who pause — to gawk, talk or eat a gyro — can slow the progress of pedestrians around them.
But when Matthew Jones of Brooklyn lingered on the corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, gabbing with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by, something unusual happened: He was arrested for it.
A police officer said Mr. Jones was impeding other pedestrians and charged him with disorderly conduct.
Mr. Jones is not taking the charges lying down (so to speak). After trying twice to get the charges dismissed, he has taken his case to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments here on Wednesday.
In the prosecution’s view, it appears, the innocent do not dawdle. According to the original complaint against Mr. Jones, the officer “observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around” on a public sidewalk in June 2004. Mr. Jones was “not moving, and that as a result of defendants’ behavior, numerous pedestrians in the area had to walk around defendants.”
Mr. Jones refused to move when asked, said the officer, Momen Attia, and then tried to run away. When Officer Attia tried to handcuff him, he “flailed his arms,” earning a second charge for resisting arrest.
After spending the night in jail, Mr. Jones contested the main charge and asked that it be dismissed. When the judge demurred, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation the next day and received no further sentence. But he soon filed an appeal, arguing that there had been no basis for the arrest in the first place.
Nancy E. Little, Mr. Jones’s lawyer, said that neither the police nor the prosecutors claimed that he was doing anything other than standing on the sidewalk with friends — an activity, she said, that is not entirely without precedent in Manhattan.
“You need something more,” she said, citing past Court of Appeals decisions. “You need to be being verbally abusive, or really blocking lots of people, or lying down on the sidewalk.”
The complaint, she added, did not allege that any other pedestrians had been seriously inconvenienced or that Mr. Jones had shouted at or shoved anyone or even that the alleged obstruction was more than temporary. Prosecutors did not say how big Mr. Jones’s group of friends was, or how many people were forced to walk around them.
“Let’s face it — no allegations were presented that anything was about to happen,” said Ms. Little. (Mr. Jones himself could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.)
Paula-Rose Stark, a Manhattan assistant district attorney, argued that the facts in the complaint were sufficient for the charge of disorderly conduct. Mr. Jones’s reckless intent, Ms. Stark said, was evident from the fact that his behavior was noticeable in the first place “amid the inevitable hustle and bustle of Times Square, the construction, the vehicular traffic.”
As for other details, she said — well, perhaps Mr. Jones should not have pleaded guilty, depriving himself of a jury trial.
“Those are all matters left to be pursued at trial,” Ms. Stark said.
A lower court came to a similar conclusion last year, and by a vote of 2 to 1 upheld the arrest. But, in a glimmer of hope for Mr. Jones, the dissenting judge wrote that standing and talking with friends on the sidewalk, “even if it requires other pedestrians to walk around him, is commonplace in New York and not disorderly conduct.”
And on Wednesday, Mr. Jones’s circumstances appeared to reach a friendly audience before the Court of Appeals.
“Isn’t that lawful conduct?” wondered Judge Robert S. Smith. Later he added, “Your conduct can’t be illegal just because an officer noticed it.”
His colleague Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. questioned what other violations might attract law enforcement attention.
“All I could think of was a bunch of lawyers from the New York City Bar Association standing around trying to figure out where to have lunch,” Judge Pigott said. (The association has offices a block and a half from Times Square.)
Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye seemed likewise nonplused. “This is at 2 a.m.?” she asked, wondering how many pedestrians it would have been possible to inconvenience at that hour. “I guess I’m not in Times Square at 2 a.m. very often.”
The court is likely to rule on the case next month. Should it rule against Mr. Jones, the available evidence on the scene on Wednesday suggested that the police would soon have their hands full.
Just before 5 p.m., near the corner where Mr. Jones was arrested, stood the following assemblage: a man eating clams out of a Styrofoam container; two men smoking cigarettes together; a man waiting for a woman to finish a phone call; a guy looking at a map; a young woman sending a text message; two men handing out tour brochures; and a family of five, including an infant in a stroller, who stopped to look at the brochures.
Across the street stood Chaya Coppersmith, 18. “That’s just completely ridiculous,” Ms. Coppersmith said when told of Mr. Jones’s case. “Nobody can walk in Times Square. Everyone’s standing around in Times Square. That’s what it’s for.”
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Crack Users Do More Time Than People Convicted of Manslaughter
When crack cocaine possession means 24 years in prison and manslaughter means only 3, you know something is seriously wrong with the U.S. criminal justice system.
The death of Alva Mae Groves on Aug. 9 of this year went largely unnoticed outside of her family and fellow inmates at the Tallahassee Federal Corrections Institution, where she lived out the last 13 years of her life. She never went to high school, lived her entire life dirt-poor and raised her nine children for the most part without the help of her abusive husband.
In 1994 Alva Mae "Granny" Groves was locked up for conspiring to trade crack cocaine for food stamps. It was largely her son, whose trailer home she lived in, who ran an operation that her family and neighbors contested, but some customers testified that Alva Mae would sell them small bags when he wasn't around.
"The only money I received came from SSI (Supplementary Security Income) and what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about 100 chickens)," Alva Mae wrote shortly before her death in a letter asking for a pardon so that she could die near her family. "I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons."
Because she refused to testify against her son, and because of the money she had saved in the bank, which was weighed against her for its value in crack, and most of all because of the current sentencing system for crack cocaine offenders, Groves was condemned to 24 years in jail at the age of 72.
In 1986, Congress passed a law that established an unprecedented five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone found in possession of two sugar packets worth of crack, regardless of whether or not that person had a criminal record. Beyond the minimum, additional "sentencing guidelines" tack on extra months or even years for obstruction of justice (which, in some cases, means refusing to admit guilt), whether or not there was a weapon on the premises and prior convictions.
Crack cocaine is treated more harshly than any other drug on the streets right now, mostly because of the "tough on crime" response that was en vogue at the time of its introduction. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a D.C.-based advocacy group that works for fairness in sentencing, explained that Congress attributed the sentencing tiers at the time to a desire to "protect the black community."
Ron Hampton, a retired D.C. police officer and executive director of the National Black Police Association, takes issue with that rationale. "It's hard for me to believe that you are going to have legislation that severely cripples and victimizes members of our community in order to do something good for us," he said.
Nonetheless, 20 years later, the sentencing structure still stands, and it is precisely the black community that is suffering the most.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), a division of the judicial branch that monitors and advises Congress on sentencing policy, in 2006, more than four-fifths of crack cocaine offenders in federal courts were black.
The 1986 drug laws have had a devastating effect on the U.S. criminal justice system. Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1100 percent since 1980, from 41,000 people to nearly 500,000.
Nearly 6 out of 10 people in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug-selling activity but are often receiving harsher sentences than people who do. People caught with the drug in 2004, the last year for which data is available, served an average of ten years in federal penitentiaries, while the average convict served 2.9 years for manslaughter, 3.1 years for assault and 5.4 years for sexual abuse.
Many legislators, police officers and even federal judges have been vocal critics of the sentences being handed to crack cocaine offenders.
In 2002, Roger Williams University Law Professor David Zlotnick conducted a series of interviews with Republican-appointed federal judges to survey their views of various sentencing tiers. He found the majority of them saw crack cocaine sentencing as "completely unacceptable," "a grave injustice" and a "discrepancy that has no basis in fact."
However, says Monica Pratt, spokesperson for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, "Because crack cocaine mandatory minimums have applied mostly to people of color and poor people, there has been a lack of political will to do something about it."
Until now. The massive mobilizations in Jena, La., last month shined a much-needed spotlight on continuing disparity in the U.S. justice system. With a Supreme Court case addressing the issue starting on Oct. 2, a promising reform bill currently in the Senate and proposed USSC amendments just weeks away from taking effect (pending congressional opposition), a confluence of forces just might create the perfect storm that advocates for sentencing reform have been hoping for.
Said Mauer, "We have more momentum now than we have seen at any time since the laws were passed in 1986."
The main rallying point for many critics is the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, two drugs that are pharmacologically identical. The main difference, they contend, is who does them and in what neighborhoods.
A drug abuser whose drug of choice is powder cocaine would have to be found with more than two cups of it (500 grams) before receiving the same sentence as a person caught with two sugar packets worth (5 grams) of crack. All along the sentencing tier, 100 times more powder cocaine is required to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty as crack. It is a system referred to as the "100-to-1" drug quantity ratio.
Since crack is made by cooking powder cocaine with baking soda or another base when it reaches the street retail level, the 100-to-1 ratio has served to exact harsher punishments on low-level dealers than the kingpins supplying the raw material. According to USSC data, low-level crack sellers are punished 300 times more severely than high-level, international cocaine traffickers on an imprisonment-per-gram basis.
There are two different types of sentences given to drug offenders: the mandatory minimums established by Congress and the sentencing guidelines tacked onto those minimums by federal prosecutors and accepted or denied by federal judges.
"The congressional wheel in many ways is the most important right now, because without congressional action, the mandatory sentences are still going to stand, whether the USSC changes the guidelines or the Supreme Court changes the way the judges administer them," says Pratt.
There are three bills currently introduced in Congress that attempt to address the 100:1 disparity, but only one that would eliminate it. The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 ( S.1711), introduced by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would bring the penalties for possessing crack cocaine in line with those for cocaine in its powder form. It offers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, a "long-awaited fix to discriminatory federal drug sentencing" that will take place only with increased pressure.
The sentencing guidelines are also slated to change, unless Congress moves to block them. The USSC sets the guidelines, barring congressional objections, and has proposed amendments to crack penalties in the past, which have been shot down. They forged ahead this year, however, bringing crack cocaine guidelines in line with powder guidelines in a list of amendments introduced last spring. They will go into effect on Nov. 1 unless somebody notices and tries to stop them. If implemented, the commission predicts the change would shorten 69.7 percent of incoming crack cocaine sentences, resulting in an average reduction of nearly 13 months.
In a highly unusual move, the USSC is also considering making the amendments retroactive and are seeking public comment on the issue. FAMM has been mobilizing its base, consisting predominantly of people incarcerated on drug charges and their families, to get involved in the political process and voice their opinions. "The public information officer for the USSC told our president, Mary Price, that they have received 10,000 letters on this issue already," Pratt said. The USSC predicts that retroactivity would reduce the sentences of approximately 19,500 current inmates.
Then there is Kimbrough v. United States, a crack-related case that just got under way in the Supreme Court. The case challenges a judge's discretion in sentencing a crack cocaine convict below federal sentencing guidelines and centers around the sentencing hearing for Derrick Kimbrough, a Desert Storm veteran in Norfolk, Va., who pled guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack. Although he had no previous felony convictions, his mandatory minimum and federal sentencing formula recommended he be sentenced to 19 to 22 years. However, Federal District Judge Raymond A. Jackson called the guideline "ridiculous" and instead handed Kimbrough a 15-year sentence, a move that an appeals court later challenged his authority to make.
However, according to retired D.C. Officer Hampton, the crack problem that plagues many low-income communities across America won't go anywhere without a more "holistic" approach that considers responses that are more than punitive. "If they wanted to help, one of the best things they could do is treat people who use crack cocaine much like they do for powder cocaine," Hampton suggested. "They need to look it as a disease. That's another problem embedded in the disparity, not just the sentences, but the amount of treatment that is available to them."
Indeed, a "significant number" of dealers are also addicts, who might not find themselves in the courthouse without their addictions, according to Zlotnick's research.
"But more than that," says Howard, "we need to develop some strategy that focuses on the systemic issues that cause people to look for it in the first place. I think a lot of the problem is the despair in our community, because of lack of housing, lack of jobs, a poor educational system -- they all have a lot to do with why people do it. If we were to address those problems in our society, we'd probably see a lot less people doing crack."
But, for the meantime, he says, the laws are as good a place as any to start.
The death of Alva Mae Groves on Aug. 9 of this year went largely unnoticed outside of her family and fellow inmates at the Tallahassee Federal Corrections Institution, where she lived out the last 13 years of her life. She never went to high school, lived her entire life dirt-poor and raised her nine children for the most part without the help of her abusive husband.
In 1994 Alva Mae "Granny" Groves was locked up for conspiring to trade crack cocaine for food stamps. It was largely her son, whose trailer home she lived in, who ran an operation that her family and neighbors contested, but some customers testified that Alva Mae would sell them small bags when he wasn't around.
"The only money I received came from SSI (Supplementary Security Income) and what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about 100 chickens)," Alva Mae wrote shortly before her death in a letter asking for a pardon so that she could die near her family. "I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons."
Because she refused to testify against her son, and because of the money she had saved in the bank, which was weighed against her for its value in crack, and most of all because of the current sentencing system for crack cocaine offenders, Groves was condemned to 24 years in jail at the age of 72.
In 1986, Congress passed a law that established an unprecedented five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone found in possession of two sugar packets worth of crack, regardless of whether or not that person had a criminal record. Beyond the minimum, additional "sentencing guidelines" tack on extra months or even years for obstruction of justice (which, in some cases, means refusing to admit guilt), whether or not there was a weapon on the premises and prior convictions.
Crack cocaine is treated more harshly than any other drug on the streets right now, mostly because of the "tough on crime" response that was en vogue at the time of its introduction. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a D.C.-based advocacy group that works for fairness in sentencing, explained that Congress attributed the sentencing tiers at the time to a desire to "protect the black community."
Ron Hampton, a retired D.C. police officer and executive director of the National Black Police Association, takes issue with that rationale. "It's hard for me to believe that you are going to have legislation that severely cripples and victimizes members of our community in order to do something good for us," he said.
Nonetheless, 20 years later, the sentencing structure still stands, and it is precisely the black community that is suffering the most.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), a division of the judicial branch that monitors and advises Congress on sentencing policy, in 2006, more than four-fifths of crack cocaine offenders in federal courts were black.
The 1986 drug laws have had a devastating effect on the U.S. criminal justice system. Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1100 percent since 1980, from 41,000 people to nearly 500,000.
Nearly 6 out of 10 people in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug-selling activity but are often receiving harsher sentences than people who do. People caught with the drug in 2004, the last year for which data is available, served an average of ten years in federal penitentiaries, while the average convict served 2.9 years for manslaughter, 3.1 years for assault and 5.4 years for sexual abuse.
Many legislators, police officers and even federal judges have been vocal critics of the sentences being handed to crack cocaine offenders.
In 2002, Roger Williams University Law Professor David Zlotnick conducted a series of interviews with Republican-appointed federal judges to survey their views of various sentencing tiers. He found the majority of them saw crack cocaine sentencing as "completely unacceptable," "a grave injustice" and a "discrepancy that has no basis in fact."
However, says Monica Pratt, spokesperson for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, "Because crack cocaine mandatory minimums have applied mostly to people of color and poor people, there has been a lack of political will to do something about it."
Until now. The massive mobilizations in Jena, La., last month shined a much-needed spotlight on continuing disparity in the U.S. justice system. With a Supreme Court case addressing the issue starting on Oct. 2, a promising reform bill currently in the Senate and proposed USSC amendments just weeks away from taking effect (pending congressional opposition), a confluence of forces just might create the perfect storm that advocates for sentencing reform have been hoping for.
Said Mauer, "We have more momentum now than we have seen at any time since the laws were passed in 1986."
The main rallying point for many critics is the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, two drugs that are pharmacologically identical. The main difference, they contend, is who does them and in what neighborhoods.
A drug abuser whose drug of choice is powder cocaine would have to be found with more than two cups of it (500 grams) before receiving the same sentence as a person caught with two sugar packets worth (5 grams) of crack. All along the sentencing tier, 100 times more powder cocaine is required to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty as crack. It is a system referred to as the "100-to-1" drug quantity ratio.
Since crack is made by cooking powder cocaine with baking soda or another base when it reaches the street retail level, the 100-to-1 ratio has served to exact harsher punishments on low-level dealers than the kingpins supplying the raw material. According to USSC data, low-level crack sellers are punished 300 times more severely than high-level, international cocaine traffickers on an imprisonment-per-gram basis.
There are two different types of sentences given to drug offenders: the mandatory minimums established by Congress and the sentencing guidelines tacked onto those minimums by federal prosecutors and accepted or denied by federal judges.
"The congressional wheel in many ways is the most important right now, because without congressional action, the mandatory sentences are still going to stand, whether the USSC changes the guidelines or the Supreme Court changes the way the judges administer them," says Pratt.
There are three bills currently introduced in Congress that attempt to address the 100:1 disparity, but only one that would eliminate it. The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 ( S.1711), introduced by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would bring the penalties for possessing crack cocaine in line with those for cocaine in its powder form. It offers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, a "long-awaited fix to discriminatory federal drug sentencing" that will take place only with increased pressure.
The sentencing guidelines are also slated to change, unless Congress moves to block them. The USSC sets the guidelines, barring congressional objections, and has proposed amendments to crack penalties in the past, which have been shot down. They forged ahead this year, however, bringing crack cocaine guidelines in line with powder guidelines in a list of amendments introduced last spring. They will go into effect on Nov. 1 unless somebody notices and tries to stop them. If implemented, the commission predicts the change would shorten 69.7 percent of incoming crack cocaine sentences, resulting in an average reduction of nearly 13 months.
In a highly unusual move, the USSC is also considering making the amendments retroactive and are seeking public comment on the issue. FAMM has been mobilizing its base, consisting predominantly of people incarcerated on drug charges and their families, to get involved in the political process and voice their opinions. "The public information officer for the USSC told our president, Mary Price, that they have received 10,000 letters on this issue already," Pratt said. The USSC predicts that retroactivity would reduce the sentences of approximately 19,500 current inmates.
Then there is Kimbrough v. United States, a crack-related case that just got under way in the Supreme Court. The case challenges a judge's discretion in sentencing a crack cocaine convict below federal sentencing guidelines and centers around the sentencing hearing for Derrick Kimbrough, a Desert Storm veteran in Norfolk, Va., who pled guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack. Although he had no previous felony convictions, his mandatory minimum and federal sentencing formula recommended he be sentenced to 19 to 22 years. However, Federal District Judge Raymond A. Jackson called the guideline "ridiculous" and instead handed Kimbrough a 15-year sentence, a move that an appeals court later challenged his authority to make.
However, according to retired D.C. Officer Hampton, the crack problem that plagues many low-income communities across America won't go anywhere without a more "holistic" approach that considers responses that are more than punitive. "If they wanted to help, one of the best things they could do is treat people who use crack cocaine much like they do for powder cocaine," Hampton suggested. "They need to look it as a disease. That's another problem embedded in the disparity, not just the sentences, but the amount of treatment that is available to them."
Indeed, a "significant number" of dealers are also addicts, who might not find themselves in the courthouse without their addictions, according to Zlotnick's research.
"But more than that," says Howard, "we need to develop some strategy that focuses on the systemic issues that cause people to look for it in the first place. I think a lot of the problem is the despair in our community, because of lack of housing, lack of jobs, a poor educational system -- they all have a lot to do with why people do it. If we were to address those problems in our society, we'd probably see a lot less people doing crack."
But, for the meantime, he says, the laws are as good a place as any to start.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
John Edwards' Secret Affair with MSM
What if the National Enquirer threw a campaign sex scandal and no one came?
Usually, the mainstream press is happy to let tabloids do the dirty work so it can swoop in and fill in the blanks with on-the-
record non-denial denials and explanations with just enough wiggle room for back-peddling down the road. That appeared to be how it would go down when the National Enquirer claimed John Edwards had an affair with campaign worker (and former Jay McInerney squeeze) Rielle Hunter. The notion of the candidate with the cancer-stricken wife getting his $400 haircuts mussed up by a woman who describes herself as "addicted to higher consciousness" has the makings of a dynamic and devastating primary season scandal.
What's more, the Enquirer says it has enough evidence to sink the campaign. Sources close to AMI tell Radar the tab is in possession of e-mails and phone records from Hunter to various acquaintances in which she details the affair and says she and John are in love with one another.
There's just one problem: nobody wants to believe the story. Call it a swift boat backlash.
The mainstream media hasn't seen fit to dignify the item with much coverage (Ann Coulter doesn't count). When writer Sam Stein dared deface liberal oasis Huffington Post last week with questions about payments from the Edwards camp to Hunter's video production company, the rest of the prog-bloggers piled on him.
Edwards himself calls the story "just false" and Hunter says, "When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional" (Mickey Kaus notes that the odd preface leaves flexibility for both parties regarding their conduct before and after she was on staff). Privately, however, at least one former Edwards staffer labels Hunter a "crazy lady," and admits being unsure what her role was with the campaign.
The refusal to push the affair story is the latest example of what one rival strategist dubbed "the Teflon campaign" of the former North Carolina senator. Remember last fall when an intern called a North Carolina Wal-Mart and asked a clerk to set aside a Playstation 3 for Edwards, even though Edwards is critical of the company's labor practices? Remember the revelation that two Edwards campaign bloggers authored anti-Catholic posts on their personal blogs? No, right? How about when Rolling Stone opened a profile on Edwards last August with: "If he weren't so rich, handsome, and well married, you might feel a little sorry for John Edwards."
Usually, the mainstream press is happy to let tabloids do the dirty work so it can swoop in and fill in the blanks with on-the-
record non-denial denials and explanations with just enough wiggle room for back-peddling down the road. That appeared to be how it would go down when the National Enquirer claimed John Edwards had an affair with campaign worker (and former Jay McInerney squeeze) Rielle Hunter. The notion of the candidate with the cancer-stricken wife getting his $400 haircuts mussed up by a woman who describes herself as "addicted to higher consciousness" has the makings of a dynamic and devastating primary season scandal. What's more, the Enquirer says it has enough evidence to sink the campaign. Sources close to AMI tell Radar the tab is in possession of e-mails and phone records from Hunter to various acquaintances in which she details the affair and says she and John are in love with one another.
There's just one problem: nobody wants to believe the story. Call it a swift boat backlash.
The mainstream media hasn't seen fit to dignify the item with much coverage (Ann Coulter doesn't count). When writer Sam Stein dared deface liberal oasis Huffington Post last week with questions about payments from the Edwards camp to Hunter's video production company, the rest of the prog-bloggers piled on him.
Edwards himself calls the story "just false" and Hunter says, "When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional" (Mickey Kaus notes that the odd preface leaves flexibility for both parties regarding their conduct before and after she was on staff). Privately, however, at least one former Edwards staffer labels Hunter a "crazy lady," and admits being unsure what her role was with the campaign.
The refusal to push the affair story is the latest example of what one rival strategist dubbed "the Teflon campaign" of the former North Carolina senator. Remember last fall when an intern called a North Carolina Wal-Mart and asked a clerk to set aside a Playstation 3 for Edwards, even though Edwards is critical of the company's labor practices? Remember the revelation that two Edwards campaign bloggers authored anti-Catholic posts on their personal blogs? No, right? How about when Rolling Stone opened a profile on Edwards last August with: "If he weren't so rich, handsome, and well married, you might feel a little sorry for John Edwards."
Homeland Security-- In Defense of the Indefensible
by Russ Wellen
If you go through life without making any enemies you're doing something wrong. If you go through life making a lot of enemies you're doing something worse.
For a long time, the US contented itself with one enemy, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the CIA conducted covert operations such as rigging elections for dictators and assassinating their opponents. But those thus tyrannized had neither the inclination nor the resources to retaliate against the US.
Then, operating under the illusion that the mujahideen in Afghanistan were "freedom fighters," as Ronald Reagan called them, we armed and supported them to the tune of billions of dollars. After driving the Soviets out, though, they were feeling their oats and looked around for a new target.
Watching us stand by as Israel poured salt in the wounds of Palestine and as, during the Gulf War, we stationed our troops in their holy land, Saudi Arabia, they found one what. Armed with our shoulder-mounted Stinger, among other weapons, the mujahideen turned around and bit the hand that fed them.
In other words, both by arming them and alienating them, we constructed enemies out of whole cloth. Who says the US doesn't make anything anymore?
Then we retaliated for 9/11 against a sitting (Saddam Hussein) instead of a moving target (bin Laden). Our lack of discrimination sent the message that all of the Middle East was fair game. Voila –- instant enemies: all you can fight.
To the right, making enemies is a problem only if you're a wimpy liberal. To most Americans, it just comes with the territory when you're in the right. To our corporate-friendly administration, it justifies billions for defense.
In fact, our overwrought foreign policy almost seems like a make-work scheme for defense industries. If indeed it is a New Deal for defense, then the Department of Homeland Security is the largest WPA project ever.
Presumably, the term "homeland" was chosen to make us feel safe. But to those with even a glancing knowledge of the past, it's a sick joke. Its uses the terminology of our two most formidable foes from last century: the Nazis, who called Germany the fatherland, and Russia -- the motherland.
Besides, a homeland is a region from whose loins sprung the ethnic group inhabiting it. The US, a melting pot, is the exact opposite. "Is that guy an Arab?" we wonder as we pass someone on the street. "Or a Hispanic?"
Even sicker is how little bang for the buck we're getting from the Department of Homeland Security for $30 billion this year. In his recent Mother Jones series on the DHS, veteran journalist James Ridgeway writes that "safeguards against domestic terrorist attacks. . . despite a few marginal improvements, remain terrifyingly lax."
Even the Government Accountability Office recently criticized it for failing to improve its ability to respond to emergencies. To add insult to injury, each year it routinely flunks its audits. But that's probably of no concern to the administation, which was never on board with the creation of the DHS and, most likely, would be just as happy to see it implode.
Meanwhile, Ridgeway explains, for those Congess members, whether Democratic or Republican, who are inclined to lend the DHS a helping hand, "expanding federal regulation, increasing federal spending, hiring unionized federal workers, and facing down industries with powerful lobbies" is "politically risky" in today's climate.
Besides its aversion to federal agencies (except the Defense Department), neither is the administration's heart in defending our soil. It, of course, subscribes to the get-'em-over-thar theory (if it's geopolitically convenient, that is -- vide bin Laden).
A Defense Department program that embodies Bush & Co.'s policy of thwarting threats before they reach the US was already entrenched before they were elected: It's called the national missile defense system (it doesn't deserve initial caps). But as the administration does with bin Laden, the program ducks the obvious threats.
As a recent Rolling Stone article explained: "Even the Missile Defense Agency concedes that the [missile defense shield] -- originally envisioned as a defense against a rival superpower -- is no longer of any use against China or Russia."
Let's see if we've got this right. Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons would overpower the shield. Meanwhile, Iran is years away from developing nukes and North Korea negotiates them away. Against whose nukes then are we spending billions to defend ourselves?
"Would you believe," as America's most beloved intelligence agent, Maxwell Smart, used to say, "Venezuela?"
Meanwhile, the more prosaic threats remain legion. They include the obvious: flying planes into buildings (9/11) and blowing up trains (Madrid) and buses (as in London). Equally vulnerable are ports, especially, as Ridgeway details, liquified natural gas tankers.
These come under the heading of what John Robb of Global Guerillas fame calls "systems disruption." Also included are attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, pipelines and refineries. Equally as devastating is a cyber attack on an electrical grid.
Meanwhile, the hard right stokes fear of terrorists storming across the borders as an excuse to bash immigrants. But that doesn't mean the danger doesn't exist. If only a thousandth of each year's three-quarter million illegal immigrants were Islamic terrorists, that still adds up to a battalion of 750. Many believe that sleeper agents, along with nuclear materials such as suitcase bombs, have already infiltrated the US.
The FBI and, especially, local police forces deserve some credit for the six-year sabbatical terrorists have taken from attacking us on our soil. More likely though, thanks to al-Qaeda's reputation for making a virtue of patience, we're in the eye of the storm.
An example of how it may be toying with us was described by Ron Suskind in his book "The One Percent Doctrine." In 2003, plans to release hydrogen cyanide gas (a staple of Nazi gas chambers) in New York City's subways was called off by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Apparently the prospect of a body count that might not exceed 9/11's failed to light his fire.
In other words, the A-man and the Big O dream of a terror extravaganza like a multi-city nuclear attack. Acquiring nuclear know-how and materials requires serious money, though, to which al-Qaeda central may no longer have access.
Bin Laden, for instance, squandered much of his fortune on building projects in Sudan. (Once the heat came down from the US, though, it was: Thanks for the modernization program, Sheikh. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
Author Paul Williams ("Osama's Revenge," "The Al Qaeda Connection") maintains al-Qaeda has generated significant cash through drug and blood diamond transactions. However, in 2005, Zawahiri wrote a famous letter to Abu Musab Zarqawi urging him to cool it with the beheadings (bad P.R., you know).
Also, claiming they were short on funds, he hit him up for a donation to the home office. Then, last month, President Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, called bin Laden "virtually impotent." (One can't help wonder how she knows.)
Whatever al-Qaeda central's financial standing, there's actually no need to raise a king's ransom to spend on nuclear weapons. After all, attacking the infrastructure is as cheap as it is cost-effective.
In his recent book, "Brave New War," Robb wrote that 9/11 was a "$250,000 attack. . . converted into an event that cost the United States over $80 billion." One of bin Laden's goals, he reminds us, remains "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
To expedite that, al-Qaeda has gone viral. As has been well-documented, it grants copyright-free use of its brand to knock-off terrorists like the late Zarqawi.
Along with groups advancing other causes, an "almost endless supply of attackers," writes Robb, "could generate hundreds of millions, potentially billions, in damage." In tacit agreement with bin Laden, he maintains that the "cumulative effect of these attacks could grind down even the strongest nation-state."
The administration looks at threats through a telescope, thus magnifying al-Qaeda to the status of a state. Actual nations like Iraq and Iran, meanwhile, are inflated into near superpowers. But al-Qaeda is just a glorified crime syndicate.
Like all such organizations, as countless security experts have testified, it's more susceptible to good old-fashioned crime busting than the heavy hand of the military. Ideally, local police forces, in collaboration with federal and international crime and intelligence agencies, should lead the way.
Along with urging the FBI to bring local officials into the loop, think-tanker Daniel Byman, writing on Slate, offers other suggestions for shoring up security stateside. Among them, the federal government needs to work harder to win the unequivocal support of American Muslims. (How that can be accomplished while the US continues to foment disruption in many of their homelands he doesn't say.)
Byman also urges us to improve "perception management." For example, in order to minimize societal impact, Israel cleans up immediately after a terrorist attack. Yet, from the executive branch to the DHS, the American government elevated our one substantial attack (9/11) to near-Holocaust status.
Robb too would like to see us adopt a "philosophy of resilience" to help us survive terrorist attacks. Because "strikes of the future will be strategic, pinpointing the systems we rely on," he continues, "they will leave entire sections of the country without energy and communications for protracted periods."
In other words, when it comes to security, not to mention other services, communities will be left to their own devices. Suburbs will become armed and patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries; the rich by the likes of Blackwater.
Still, he maintains, we don't need an "activist foreign policy that seeks to rework the world in our image, police state measures to ensure state security, or spending all of our resources on protecting everything." (Bear in mind that he's no liberal.)
Rejecting an "activist foreign policy" obviously implies embracing diplomacy. But success isn't guaranteed the next administration just because it's more committed than Bush's to relying on its statesmen (notice how that word has all but vanished from common usage). Is there any way to ensure a cure for the impotence of soft power without turning it hard?
By way of a preface, read what Arthur Silber, one of the Web's top bloggers, has to say about Congressional Democrats (edited for conciseness). They "fail to mount serious opposition to our inevitable course toward widening war and an attack on Iran, not because they are afraid of being portrayed as 'weak' in the fight against terrorism. They don't object because -- they don't object.
"That is: they agree that we have the 'right' to pursue a policy of aggressive interventionism supported by an empire of military bases."
In other words, for all of Bush & Co.'s rapaciousness, not just congressional Democrats but, deep-down, most of us concur that, if we're running out of oil, it's our right, simply by dint of our might, to take what we need.
If it weren't for all those pesky jihadis, mujahideen, global guerillas, terrorists -- call them what you will -- conspiring to topple us with everything from the slings of systems disruption to the arrows of nuclear missiles.
Attempting to secure our shores from them is like trying to defend the indefensible -- literally. And metaphorically, as well, when we cling to the myth that we're manifestly destined to determine the fates of other nations. Our military might, 700 bases around the world and nuclear capability have outlived whatever their usefulness they had.
The US has become like Russia -- our once-and- (the way things are going) future enemy. We're a lumbering mastodon, which the cave people of the world lure into traps, like Iraq, where we thrash around and lash out blindly. It could all have turned out differently if we hadn't been stomping around their territory ravishing their resources.
In short, the US needs to take the "super" out of "superpower." We might be surprised to find that a country could get used to life without the pressure of being number one.
_______
Russ Wellen is an editor at Freezerbox and OpEdNews. He guest-blogs at AlterNet and is a staff blogger at Scholars & Rogues. He frequently writes about national security, nuclear deproliferation and the enduring enigma that is the American mind.
If you go through life without making any enemies you're doing something wrong. If you go through life making a lot of enemies you're doing something worse.
For a long time, the US contented itself with one enemy, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the CIA conducted covert operations such as rigging elections for dictators and assassinating their opponents. But those thus tyrannized had neither the inclination nor the resources to retaliate against the US.
Then, operating under the illusion that the mujahideen in Afghanistan were "freedom fighters," as Ronald Reagan called them, we armed and supported them to the tune of billions of dollars. After driving the Soviets out, though, they were feeling their oats and looked around for a new target.
Watching us stand by as Israel poured salt in the wounds of Palestine and as, during the Gulf War, we stationed our troops in their holy land, Saudi Arabia, they found one what. Armed with our shoulder-mounted Stinger, among other weapons, the mujahideen turned around and bit the hand that fed them.
In other words, both by arming them and alienating them, we constructed enemies out of whole cloth. Who says the US doesn't make anything anymore?
Then we retaliated for 9/11 against a sitting (Saddam Hussein) instead of a moving target (bin Laden). Our lack of discrimination sent the message that all of the Middle East was fair game. Voila –- instant enemies: all you can fight.
To the right, making enemies is a problem only if you're a wimpy liberal. To most Americans, it just comes with the territory when you're in the right. To our corporate-friendly administration, it justifies billions for defense.
In fact, our overwrought foreign policy almost seems like a make-work scheme for defense industries. If indeed it is a New Deal for defense, then the Department of Homeland Security is the largest WPA project ever.
Presumably, the term "homeland" was chosen to make us feel safe. But to those with even a glancing knowledge of the past, it's a sick joke. Its uses the terminology of our two most formidable foes from last century: the Nazis, who called Germany the fatherland, and Russia -- the motherland.
Besides, a homeland is a region from whose loins sprung the ethnic group inhabiting it. The US, a melting pot, is the exact opposite. "Is that guy an Arab?" we wonder as we pass someone on the street. "Or a Hispanic?"
Even sicker is how little bang for the buck we're getting from the Department of Homeland Security for $30 billion this year. In his recent Mother Jones series on the DHS, veteran journalist James Ridgeway writes that "safeguards against domestic terrorist attacks. . . despite a few marginal improvements, remain terrifyingly lax."
Even the Government Accountability Office recently criticized it for failing to improve its ability to respond to emergencies. To add insult to injury, each year it routinely flunks its audits. But that's probably of no concern to the administation, which was never on board with the creation of the DHS and, most likely, would be just as happy to see it implode.
Meanwhile, Ridgeway explains, for those Congess members, whether Democratic or Republican, who are inclined to lend the DHS a helping hand, "expanding federal regulation, increasing federal spending, hiring unionized federal workers, and facing down industries with powerful lobbies" is "politically risky" in today's climate.
Besides its aversion to federal agencies (except the Defense Department), neither is the administration's heart in defending our soil. It, of course, subscribes to the get-'em-over-thar theory (if it's geopolitically convenient, that is -- vide bin Laden).
A Defense Department program that embodies Bush & Co.'s policy of thwarting threats before they reach the US was already entrenched before they were elected: It's called the national missile defense system (it doesn't deserve initial caps). But as the administration does with bin Laden, the program ducks the obvious threats.
As a recent Rolling Stone article explained: "Even the Missile Defense Agency concedes that the [missile defense shield] -- originally envisioned as a defense against a rival superpower -- is no longer of any use against China or Russia."
Let's see if we've got this right. Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons would overpower the shield. Meanwhile, Iran is years away from developing nukes and North Korea negotiates them away. Against whose nukes then are we spending billions to defend ourselves?
"Would you believe," as America's most beloved intelligence agent, Maxwell Smart, used to say, "Venezuela?"
Meanwhile, the more prosaic threats remain legion. They include the obvious: flying planes into buildings (9/11) and blowing up trains (Madrid) and buses (as in London). Equally vulnerable are ports, especially, as Ridgeway details, liquified natural gas tankers.
These come under the heading of what John Robb of Global Guerillas fame calls "systems disruption." Also included are attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, pipelines and refineries. Equally as devastating is a cyber attack on an electrical grid.
Meanwhile, the hard right stokes fear of terrorists storming across the borders as an excuse to bash immigrants. But that doesn't mean the danger doesn't exist. If only a thousandth of each year's three-quarter million illegal immigrants were Islamic terrorists, that still adds up to a battalion of 750. Many believe that sleeper agents, along with nuclear materials such as suitcase bombs, have already infiltrated the US.
The FBI and, especially, local police forces deserve some credit for the six-year sabbatical terrorists have taken from attacking us on our soil. More likely though, thanks to al-Qaeda's reputation for making a virtue of patience, we're in the eye of the storm.
An example of how it may be toying with us was described by Ron Suskind in his book "The One Percent Doctrine." In 2003, plans to release hydrogen cyanide gas (a staple of Nazi gas chambers) in New York City's subways was called off by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Apparently the prospect of a body count that might not exceed 9/11's failed to light his fire.
In other words, the A-man and the Big O dream of a terror extravaganza like a multi-city nuclear attack. Acquiring nuclear know-how and materials requires serious money, though, to which al-Qaeda central may no longer have access.
Bin Laden, for instance, squandered much of his fortune on building projects in Sudan. (Once the heat came down from the US, though, it was: Thanks for the modernization program, Sheikh. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
Author Paul Williams ("Osama's Revenge," "The Al Qaeda Connection") maintains al-Qaeda has generated significant cash through drug and blood diamond transactions. However, in 2005, Zawahiri wrote a famous letter to Abu Musab Zarqawi urging him to cool it with the beheadings (bad P.R., you know).
Also, claiming they were short on funds, he hit him up for a donation to the home office. Then, last month, President Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, called bin Laden "virtually impotent." (One can't help wonder how she knows.)
Whatever al-Qaeda central's financial standing, there's actually no need to raise a king's ransom to spend on nuclear weapons. After all, attacking the infrastructure is as cheap as it is cost-effective.
In his recent book, "Brave New War," Robb wrote that 9/11 was a "$250,000 attack. . . converted into an event that cost the United States over $80 billion." One of bin Laden's goals, he reminds us, remains "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
To expedite that, al-Qaeda has gone viral. As has been well-documented, it grants copyright-free use of its brand to knock-off terrorists like the late Zarqawi.
Along with groups advancing other causes, an "almost endless supply of attackers," writes Robb, "could generate hundreds of millions, potentially billions, in damage." In tacit agreement with bin Laden, he maintains that the "cumulative effect of these attacks could grind down even the strongest nation-state."
The administration looks at threats through a telescope, thus magnifying al-Qaeda to the status of a state. Actual nations like Iraq and Iran, meanwhile, are inflated into near superpowers. But al-Qaeda is just a glorified crime syndicate.
Like all such organizations, as countless security experts have testified, it's more susceptible to good old-fashioned crime busting than the heavy hand of the military. Ideally, local police forces, in collaboration with federal and international crime and intelligence agencies, should lead the way.
Along with urging the FBI to bring local officials into the loop, think-tanker Daniel Byman, writing on Slate, offers other suggestions for shoring up security stateside. Among them, the federal government needs to work harder to win the unequivocal support of American Muslims. (How that can be accomplished while the US continues to foment disruption in many of their homelands he doesn't say.)
Byman also urges us to improve "perception management." For example, in order to minimize societal impact, Israel cleans up immediately after a terrorist attack. Yet, from the executive branch to the DHS, the American government elevated our one substantial attack (9/11) to near-Holocaust status.
Robb too would like to see us adopt a "philosophy of resilience" to help us survive terrorist attacks. Because "strikes of the future will be strategic, pinpointing the systems we rely on," he continues, "they will leave entire sections of the country without energy and communications for protracted periods."
In other words, when it comes to security, not to mention other services, communities will be left to their own devices. Suburbs will become armed and patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries; the rich by the likes of Blackwater.
Still, he maintains, we don't need an "activist foreign policy that seeks to rework the world in our image, police state measures to ensure state security, or spending all of our resources on protecting everything." (Bear in mind that he's no liberal.)
Rejecting an "activist foreign policy" obviously implies embracing diplomacy. But success isn't guaranteed the next administration just because it's more committed than Bush's to relying on its statesmen (notice how that word has all but vanished from common usage). Is there any way to ensure a cure for the impotence of soft power without turning it hard?
By way of a preface, read what Arthur Silber, one of the Web's top bloggers, has to say about Congressional Democrats (edited for conciseness). They "fail to mount serious opposition to our inevitable course toward widening war and an attack on Iran, not because they are afraid of being portrayed as 'weak' in the fight against terrorism. They don't object because -- they don't object.
"That is: they agree that we have the 'right' to pursue a policy of aggressive interventionism supported by an empire of military bases."
In other words, for all of Bush & Co.'s rapaciousness, not just congressional Democrats but, deep-down, most of us concur that, if we're running out of oil, it's our right, simply by dint of our might, to take what we need.
If it weren't for all those pesky jihadis, mujahideen, global guerillas, terrorists -- call them what you will -- conspiring to topple us with everything from the slings of systems disruption to the arrows of nuclear missiles.
Attempting to secure our shores from them is like trying to defend the indefensible -- literally. And metaphorically, as well, when we cling to the myth that we're manifestly destined to determine the fates of other nations. Our military might, 700 bases around the world and nuclear capability have outlived whatever their usefulness they had.
The US has become like Russia -- our once-and- (the way things are going) future enemy. We're a lumbering mastodon, which the cave people of the world lure into traps, like Iraq, where we thrash around and lash out blindly. It could all have turned out differently if we hadn't been stomping around their territory ravishing their resources.
In short, the US needs to take the "super" out of "superpower." We might be surprised to find that a country could get used to life without the pressure of being number one.
_______
Russ Wellen is an editor at Freezerbox and OpEdNews. He guest-blogs at AlterNet and is a staff blogger at Scholars & Rogues. He frequently writes about national security, nuclear deproliferation and the enduring enigma that is the American mind.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sen. Craig to File Appeal on Monday
BOISE, Idaho - Sen. Larry Craig says he will file an appeal Monday over a judge's refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting.In an interview Sunday with KTVB-TV, Craig repeated he will not resign his post in the Senate and said he will continue to work his legal options.
"It is my right to do what I'm doing," said Craig, an Idaho Republican. "I've already provided for Idaho certainty that Idaho needed _ I'm not running for re-election. I'm no longer in the way. I am pursuing my constitutional rights."
In another interview, Craig's wife, Suzanne, said the senator didn't tell her about the arrest until the story was about to break in the media. "I felt like the floor was falling out from under me. ... And I felt like almost like I was going down a drain for a few moments," she told NBC's Matt Lauer.
Sen. Craig told Lauer it was a "tough call" not to tell anyone about the incident. "I didn't want to embarrass my wife, my kids, Idaho and my friends," Craig said. "And I wrestled with it a long while. ... I should have told my wife. I should have told my kids. And most importantly, I should have told counsel."
The senator also discussed his relationship with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Craig was Senate liaison for Romney's campaign, a post he abandoned when the scandal came to light.
"I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney," Craig told Lauer. "... And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."
Lauer's interview with the Craigs will be broadcast Tuesday night on "Matt Lauer Reports" and Wednesday morning on "Today."
Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in August after he was accused of soliciting sex in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in June.
After the matter became public, Craig tried to withdraw his plea. But a judge in Minnesota refused, saying Craig's plea "was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and ... supported by the evidence."
The Lie About Obama Still Lives
If you've visited the comment section of any well-traveled political Web site, you're sure to have seen a comment like the one left at Political Machine by a user named Brad,"Obama is a Muslim in hiding as is his minister. The guy is a sleeper from Allah. Just wait until an ongoing investigation comes out."
Talk radio personalities Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, too, see to it at every opportunity to remind you that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. The implication? He's one of them. The bad guys. The Muslims.
Yes, months after the chain reaction of slander journalism was started by Detroit columnist Debbie Sclussel, and culminated with Fox News raising the false alarm that Obama had been educated in a madrassa (and therefore must have terrorist sympathies), the rumors still persist. As the Politico reports, 7% of those surveyed continue to think that Obama is a Muslim. That's a percentage point higher than those who correctly identified him as a Protestant, his actual denomination. Such is the power of propaganda. It's hard to get a cat back into a bag, especially an imaginary one.
Of course, it's no mystery what makes this little rumor so potent. Saddam Hussein was a Muslim, he was pretty evil. Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Therefore he must be pretty evil, too. The suggestibility of American public should come as no surprise, really. An estimated 20% of our citizenry, after all, thinks that the sun revolves around the earth. Certain talk show hosts can't tell you whether or not the world is flat. According to polls, a full 30% of Americans still think that the U.S. doesn't torture prisoners. Hell, 36% believe that the U.S. government had a hand in the attacks on 9/11.
Still, such irrationality leaves Obama in the unenviable position of having to defend himself. Yet how do you go about that when the misconception is propagated by anonymous commentary spread by the likes of Brad? Perhaps, as the Politico suggests, it is no coincidence that the Illinois senator has frequented the pulpit of America's churches in recent weeks, especially in Southern states like South Carolina. Barring direct comment from Obama's campaign, however, the assertion that appearing in church is somehow a political calculation is itself suspect given that the man is no stranger to a house of worship in his everyday life.
21 days left to file for NH as of today
10/7/2007
New-Hampshire
Hillary Clinton 43%
Barack Obama 21%
John Edwards 12%
Bill Richardson 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Chris Dodd 2%
Unsure 8%
Mitt Romney 27%
Rudy Giuliani 21%
John McCain 17%
Fred Thompson 10%
Mike Huckabee 8%
Duncan Hunter 2%
Ron Paul 2%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Unsure 12%
Wow... 12% uncertain republicans. No worries Fox and Rush will tell you how to vote shortly.
This might sound odd but The MOST Electable Republican is...
John McCain 
Think about it, He has a good record in the Senate, is liked by Independents and does not alienate the Republican Party as much as Giuliani or Romney. He can win swing states such as Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Oregon. The problem for McCain when it comes to the general election is the Iraq war.
polls have recently shown an improvement for John McCain.
Hillary Clinton: 44%
John McCain: 43%
Hillary Clinton: 47%
Mitt Romney: 41%
Democratic Ideology
Think about it, He has a good record in the Senate, is liked by Independents and does not alienate the Republican Party as much as Giuliani or Romney. He can win swing states such as Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Oregon. The problem for McCain when it comes to the general election is the Iraq war.
polls have recently shown an improvement for John McCain.
Hillary Clinton: 44%
John McCain: 43%
Hillary Clinton: 47%
Mitt Romney: 41%
Democratic Ideology
Jon Stewart Isn't Funny Any More
Back in 2002 Jon Stewart was pretty darn funny. Heck, if it was a choice between laughing or crying -- I'd rather laugh. And Stewart was mad as hell -- and willing to poke his finger in the eye of the administration. Slowly, I found that he was the only voice I could manage to include in my daily news diet. I'm beginning to wonder if this Is this really a Democracy any longer?
I've taken to listening to people on the Subway. Around me, as I ride to work, people talk about their children, about their jobs, about their love lives. The chit-chat about the day and the weather and life... mostly mundane things that make up daily life.
No one talks about the war. There's no talk about the economy, or the national debt, or the environment, or the number of soldiers who are dying around the world.
If a tree falls in the forest...
Now Jon Stewart seems exhausted. It's like he knows its no longer a laughing matter. Heck, for all his hard work to lampoon, expose, and humiliate the Bush Administration, it seems to make them stronger. The bigger the lie, the harder it is to truly believe its a lie. Bush wouldn't actually be trying to bankrupt the country... could he? Bush isn't actually trying to make the war so big, so inevitable that the Democrats won't have a way to wind it down. Could he really be that fatalistic in his vision of the future. Clearly, its not funny.
We're not talking about what's happening.
Today Frank Rich reminded me of what has been eating at me most. That in some way I've given up. I've stopped going to protest marches (do they have those any more?). I've stopped calling my congressman. I've stopped thinking that supporting a political candidate can make real change. I've resigned myself to the fact that I don't have the ability to make a difference, or change political tides, or have my voice heard.
I wasn't always this way.
At first, I thought that the Bush administration was engaging in a political coup. That the neo-con's would be seen for what they are, that the war profiteers and oil barons would be arrested, jailed, convicted. Stopped. But then 2004 happened. The passion, drive, anger and hope that fueled the election resulted in a strange ratification of the Bush Administration. You can accept any theory you want, that Kerry was a bad candidate, that there was voter fraud, that the media didn't do it's job as a watchdog, but -- as Jim Loftus, Kerry's Head Press wrangler, said in the gloom of the post election fallout -- "The Universe Hardly Cares."
Ugh. Right he was.
Now, 2006 arrives to set things right. And with great joy and feeling of accomplishment the Democrats win back both the House and the Senate. With great anticipation, i look forward to the righting of our democracy. The prosecution of those who knowingly lied to congress, who mis-led the UN, who pocketed billions of dollars in war proceeds as young men and woman died.
And so Frank Rich.
Wow. He called me a Nazi. Or a Nazi sympathizer. Or at least a Good German who shrugs his shoulders as if to say: "heck, i didn't vote for the guy."
I'm stung by the accusation. As a Jewish American the charge is deeply painful. Does that make Jon Stewart the court Jester? And what about the democrats?
With an election on the horizon (ok, its more than a year away -- but in my current political state of mind, I'm willing to believe that's right around the corner).
My deep sense of foreboding about the health of our Democracy reached a new low two weeks ago as I watched the Democratic Debate at Dartmouth from a hotel room in San Diego. One by one the Democrats acknowledged that the war had no end, that even in the abstract they couldn't imagine a timeline to end our misadventures in Iraq. Sure, not every Democrat said that. But the leaders of the pack, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all did. We're staying. That's for sure.
So -- on November 5th, when I've gone to the polls and voted for Hillary (probably) and she announces a blue ribbon panel to begin to consider how we can begin to draw down troops over the next 6 years... and at the same time continue to pay blood money to mercenaries (oh, sorry -- 'contractors') who have some strange 077 license to kill... how will I look myself in the mirror.
My party will have the House, the Senate, and the White House. We'll have the political trifecta. And we won't be getting any further out of Iraq than we are now.
What will I say to Frank then?
And -- perhaps worst of all -- what will Jon Stewart have to laugh about?
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Should Bush Go to Jail for Flag Desecration?
This one is just too good to pass up. I've long hated this whole notion of laws banning the desecration of the flag, especially passing a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. In general, if the flag needs to be protected by curbing free speech, then that is desecrating the symbol more than any burning of an individual flag can do. Furthermore, what ever happened to private property? Aren't people allowed to do whatever they want with their private property (as long as it doesn't directly harm others)? But, lastly and most importantly, a law banning the desecration of the flag is thought crime, the most insidious type of law possible.
Hear me out. If I have a flag that is old and frayed, and I want to get rid of it, the preferred method (according to whatever US code they have on this subject) is to burn the flag in a proper ceremony (but to burn it nonetheless). So, if I burn a flag and say "I love this flag and all it symbolizes and the government in power right now," then I'm an exalted citizen of this country (a true American in the words of Sean Hannity). If I burn the flag and say "I hate Bush, I think this country is on the wrong track and is becoming a dictatorship," then I have committed a crime (probably so, according to Hannity). See the problem? The determination of whether you have committed a crime is not your actions, but your POLITICAL view while you do it (to be contrasted with typical mental state requirements that may gauge whether you are trying to harm someone - say the difference between a car accident and intentionally running someone down with your car). So, to stick with my parenthetical hypo, a law that says running someone down in your car because they are a Democrat is allowed, while running someone down in your car if they are a Republican is not allowed, would be a thought crime. That is a morally wrong law.
The US Code for the District of Columbia actually prescribes the manner in which you may treat a flag, saying that writing on it is a misdemeanor. So, how many Republicans think that President Bush should go to jail for this?
Of course, very few will say that he should, they will point out that the statute is only designed to prevent actual desecration, meaning the intentions of the perpetrator are key. But, what if this was John Kerry doing this? Wouldn't they scream and howl? Couldn't some right wing prosecutor fashion an argument that John Kerry should go to jail for this? Wouldn't a right wing jury be chomping at the bit to put him away for this? What if they charged and tried John Kerry for this in the most conservative southern state, in it's most conservative county, with a right wing jury, in front of a right wing judge? He'd be in jail now.
On the flip side, what if they tried George Bush for this in Berkeley, in front of a left wing judge with all left wing activists as jurors? Or, should he be impeached? This could be considered (under the very liberal standards set by the Congress in 1998) a high crime OR misdemeanor (is desecrating the flag worse than perjury?).
So you see, here in color, the idiocy of these laws. Maybe this will put paid to that stupid notion of passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the 1st Amendment and carve out an area where you go to jail for having the "wrong" political beliefs.
Hear me out. If I have a flag that is old and frayed, and I want to get rid of it, the preferred method (according to whatever US code they have on this subject) is to burn the flag in a proper ceremony (but to burn it nonetheless). So, if I burn a flag and say "I love this flag and all it symbolizes and the government in power right now," then I'm an exalted citizen of this country (a true American in the words of Sean Hannity). If I burn the flag and say "I hate Bush, I think this country is on the wrong track and is becoming a dictatorship," then I have committed a crime (probably so, according to Hannity). See the problem? The determination of whether you have committed a crime is not your actions, but your POLITICAL view while you do it (to be contrasted with typical mental state requirements that may gauge whether you are trying to harm someone - say the difference between a car accident and intentionally running someone down with your car). So, to stick with my parenthetical hypo, a law that says running someone down in your car because they are a Democrat is allowed, while running someone down in your car if they are a Republican is not allowed, would be a thought crime. That is a morally wrong law.
The US Code for the District of Columbia actually prescribes the manner in which you may treat a flag, saying that writing on it is a misdemeanor. So, how many Republicans think that President Bush should go to jail for this?
Of course, very few will say that he should, they will point out that the statute is only designed to prevent actual desecration, meaning the intentions of the perpetrator are key. But, what if this was John Kerry doing this? Wouldn't they scream and howl? Couldn't some right wing prosecutor fashion an argument that John Kerry should go to jail for this? Wouldn't a right wing jury be chomping at the bit to put him away for this? What if they charged and tried John Kerry for this in the most conservative southern state, in it's most conservative county, with a right wing jury, in front of a right wing judge? He'd be in jail now.On the flip side, what if they tried George Bush for this in Berkeley, in front of a left wing judge with all left wing activists as jurors? Or, should he be impeached? This could be considered (under the very liberal standards set by the Congress in 1998) a high crime OR misdemeanor (is desecrating the flag worse than perjury?).
So you see, here in color, the idiocy of these laws. Maybe this will put paid to that stupid notion of passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the 1st Amendment and carve out an area where you go to jail for having the "wrong" political beliefs.
WAR IN IRAQ - 4yrs/6mo/26days
WAR IN IRAQ - 4yrs/6mo/26days
October 13, 2007
according to a CNN count:
There have been 4,122 coalition deaths -- 3,822 Americans, 28,171 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
388 DAYS
United States presidential election
2008 Presidential electoral votes by state
The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for president and vice president of the United States. There also will be elections for all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and elections for 34 members of the United States Senate. As laid out by the United States Constitution, the individual who receives a majority of votes for president in the Electoral College — 270 votes are needed for a majority — will be the 44th president of the United States, and the individual who receives a majority of electoral votes for vice president will be the 47th vice president of the United States. If no one person receives a majority in the Electoral College at that time, then the president-elect will be selected by a vote of the House of Representatives, with each state receiving a single vote. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, then the vice president-elect will be selected by a vote of the Senate. These situations, however, have not occurred since 1825 and 1837, respectively. As in the 2004 presidential election, the allocation of electoral votes to each state will be partially based on the 2000 Census. The president-elect and vice president-elect are scheduled to be inaugurated on Tuesday, January 20, 2009
October 13, 2007
according to a CNN count:
There have been 4,122 coalition deaths -- 3,822 Americans, 28,171 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
388 DAYS
United States presidential election
2008 Presidential electoral votes by state
The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for president and vice president of the United States. There also will be elections for all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and elections for 34 members of the United States Senate. As laid out by the United States Constitution, the individual who receives a majority of votes for president in the Electoral College — 270 votes are needed for a majority — will be the 44th president of the United States, and the individual who receives a majority of electoral votes for vice president will be the 47th vice president of the United States. If no one person receives a majority in the Electoral College at that time, then the president-elect will be selected by a vote of the House of Representatives, with each state receiving a single vote. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, then the vice president-elect will be selected by a vote of the Senate. These situations, however, have not occurred since 1825 and 1837, respectively. As in the 2004 presidential election, the allocation of electoral votes to each state will be partially based on the 2000 Census. The president-elect and vice president-elect are scheduled to be inaugurated on Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Hillary ClinTax = Economy in Toilet
Hillary Clinton would raise taxes if she is elected president. Sharply...She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." ...this means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993...
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely...
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax....
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes...Hillary would...either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Chuck Schumer, both close Hillary allies...are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.)..Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system."...she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely...
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax....
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes...Hillary would...either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Chuck Schumer, both close Hillary allies...are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.)..Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system."...she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Rush Announces eBay Charity Auction of Harry Reid's Letter
Rush Limbaugh auctions off Harry Reid's letter to Clear Channel on eBay, proceeds go to Marine-Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
Hey Kettle, I'm Pot, you're black!
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
Telephone messages left with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov were not immediately returned Saturday evening.
The top American diplomat encouraged the activists to build institutions of democracy. These would help combat arbitrary state power amid increasing pressure from the Kremlin, she said.
The U.S. is concerned about the centralization of power and democratic backsliding ahead of Russia's legislative and presidential elections in December and March. Putin will step down next year as president. He has said he would lead the ticket of the main pro-Kremlin party in the parliamentary elections and could take the prime minister's job later.
Rice sought opinions and assessments of the situation from eight prominent rights leaders.
"I talked to people about the coming months and how they see the coming months. How these two elections are carried out will have an effect on whether Russia is making the next step on toward democracy," Rice said after the private sessions at Spaso House, the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Moscow.
Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday received a chilly reception from Putin and senior Russian officials on U.S. proposals for cooperating on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe that Russia vehemently opposes.
But as she has in the past, Rice declined comment on Putin's possible political future and said she did not raise the matter in her official discussions.
Although she would not speculate about Putin's ambitions, Rice said there were signs that whatever transition occurs could be smooth.
"To the degree that anyone can predict, it looks like it will be fairly stable," she said. "But, I would just caution that change is change."
Earlier, Rice said she hoped the efforts of rights activists would promote universal values of "the rights of individuals to liberty and freedom, the right to worship as you please, and the right to assembly, the right to not have to deal with the arbitrary power of the state."
In the meeting with business, media and civil society leaders, Rice said she was "especially interested in talking about how you view (the) political evolution of Russia, the economic evolution of Russia."
"Russia is a country that's in transition and that transition is not easy and there are a lot of complications and a lot of challenges," Rice said. "If Russia is to emerge as a democratic country that can fully protect the rights of its people, it is going to emerge over years and you have to be a part of helping the emergence of that Russia."
Participants in the meetings said they outlined their concerns but that she did not offer any judgments about the state of human rights and democracy under Putin.
Lyudmila Alexeyeva of the Moscow Helsinki Group told the Interfax news agency her organization sees "the purposeful construction of an authoritarian society and an onslaught on the people's rights, elections are being turned into farce, and human rights and opposition organizations are experiencing pressure."
Alexander Brod, head of the Moscow Human Rights Bureau, said the discussions touched on "authoritarianism and the crisis of human rights." He said he disagreed with "the opinion that we had a flourishing democracy in the 1990s and that we have a setback now."
"Not all is ideal in America, either. We see protests against the war in Iraq and violations of human rights on the part of security services and violations of human rights in countering terrorism," Brod said.
Vladimir Lukin, the government-appointed human rights ombudsman, was quoted by Interfax as saying he told Rice that human rights should be discussed in a dialogue rather lecturing in a "doomsday" style.
The State Department frequently has criticized what Washington regards as creeping authoritarianism among Putin and other top Russian leaders.
Its most recent human-rights report on Russia notes continuing centralization of power in the Kremlin, a compliant legislature, political pressure on the judiciary, intolerance of ethnic minorities, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, and media restrictions and self-censorship.
Rice and Gates later met with Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov for talks on trade and economic relations, including negotiations for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.
Moscow and Washington signed a trade agreement last November that removed the last major obstacle in Moscow's 13-year journey to join the 149-member group. Moscow must still conclude other outstanding bilateral deals and assuage the European Union's concerns about energy supplies.
The Russian government press service said Zubkov also pressed the Americans to work to abolish the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The 1974 measure ties Russia's trade status to whether it freely allows Jewish emigration.
"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
Telephone messages left with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov were not immediately returned Saturday evening.
The top American diplomat encouraged the activists to build institutions of democracy. These would help combat arbitrary state power amid increasing pressure from the Kremlin, she said.
The U.S. is concerned about the centralization of power and democratic backsliding ahead of Russia's legislative and presidential elections in December and March. Putin will step down next year as president. He has said he would lead the ticket of the main pro-Kremlin party in the parliamentary elections and could take the prime minister's job later.
Rice sought opinions and assessments of the situation from eight prominent rights leaders.
"I talked to people about the coming months and how they see the coming months. How these two elections are carried out will have an effect on whether Russia is making the next step on toward democracy," Rice said after the private sessions at Spaso House, the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Moscow.
Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday received a chilly reception from Putin and senior Russian officials on U.S. proposals for cooperating on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe that Russia vehemently opposes.
But as she has in the past, Rice declined comment on Putin's possible political future and said she did not raise the matter in her official discussions.
Although she would not speculate about Putin's ambitions, Rice said there were signs that whatever transition occurs could be smooth.
"To the degree that anyone can predict, it looks like it will be fairly stable," she said. "But, I would just caution that change is change."
Earlier, Rice said she hoped the efforts of rights activists would promote universal values of "the rights of individuals to liberty and freedom, the right to worship as you please, and the right to assembly, the right to not have to deal with the arbitrary power of the state."
In the meeting with business, media and civil society leaders, Rice said she was "especially interested in talking about how you view (the) political evolution of Russia, the economic evolution of Russia."
"Russia is a country that's in transition and that transition is not easy and there are a lot of complications and a lot of challenges," Rice said. "If Russia is to emerge as a democratic country that can fully protect the rights of its people, it is going to emerge over years and you have to be a part of helping the emergence of that Russia."
Participants in the meetings said they outlined their concerns but that she did not offer any judgments about the state of human rights and democracy under Putin.
Lyudmila Alexeyeva of the Moscow Helsinki Group told the Interfax news agency her organization sees "the purposeful construction of an authoritarian society and an onslaught on the people's rights, elections are being turned into farce, and human rights and opposition organizations are experiencing pressure."
Alexander Brod, head of the Moscow Human Rights Bureau, said the discussions touched on "authoritarianism and the crisis of human rights." He said he disagreed with "the opinion that we had a flourishing democracy in the 1990s and that we have a setback now."
"Not all is ideal in America, either. We see protests against the war in Iraq and violations of human rights on the part of security services and violations of human rights in countering terrorism," Brod said.
Vladimir Lukin, the government-appointed human rights ombudsman, was quoted by Interfax as saying he told Rice that human rights should be discussed in a dialogue rather lecturing in a "doomsday" style.
The State Department frequently has criticized what Washington regards as creeping authoritarianism among Putin and other top Russian leaders.
Its most recent human-rights report on Russia notes continuing centralization of power in the Kremlin, a compliant legislature, political pressure on the judiciary, intolerance of ethnic minorities, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, and media restrictions and self-censorship.
Rice and Gates later met with Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov for talks on trade and economic relations, including negotiations for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.
Moscow and Washington signed a trade agreement last November that removed the last major obstacle in Moscow's 13-year journey to join the 149-member group. Moscow must still conclude other outstanding bilateral deals and assuage the European Union's concerns about energy supplies.
The Russian government press service said Zubkov also pressed the Americans to work to abolish the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The 1974 measure ties Russia's trade status to whether it freely allows Jewish emigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)