Privatization has nothing to do with saving money and everything to do with giving kickbacks to politically connected contractors like Corrections Corporation of America: Sheriff Michael Page of Hernando County, Florida, is the latest in a line of Sheriffs to inherit the headache that is the county jail. After being operated by CCA for 22 years, the facility had fallen into exceptional disrepair , after CCA had neglected to perform millions of dollars worth of required maintenance . The county took over the facility a little more than a year ago and started the long process of upgrading the security, staff, and conditions of the jail. Initial projections by then-Sheriff Richard Nugent hypothesized that the county could save up to $200,000 compared to what CCA would have charged. It turns out that de-privatizing the jail has actually saved Hernando County taxpayers more than $1,000,000 this year . Maybe Ric Scott and JD Alexander ought to reconsider their bullheaded push to privatize half the state’s prison system .
Continue reading …CNN's Piers Morgan hosted New York Magazine columnist Frank Rich for a conservative-bashing session on Thursday. Morgan took the opportunity to ask his liberal guest if the Tea Party can even govern. “But can they actually govern? Or does the rather intransigent streak that they bring to all that policy-making, is that always going to be the problem?” Morgan asked. Rich responded that the Tea Party's refusal to compromise on the debt ceiling was “temper tantrum-throwing and pure, you know, far right ideology.” [Video below the break.] On the day before the August jobs report showed no new jobs created, Rich praised Obama's stimulus bill. “I think the stimulus actually did do a lot of good for this country,” he remarked. After the White House received widespread criticism for scheduling the President's address to Congress on the same night as the Republican presidential debate, Rich noted Obama's desire to appear “above the fray.” “I think he regards being gentlemanly, trying to be above the fray, trying to be the adult in the room as a positive virtue in American politics,” Rich remarked of Obama. “But, you know, he is entering a very tough reelection campaign. He's got to step up to the plate.” Morgan also tried to start a sympathy session for Obama. “How much of the criticism do you think, Frank, of President Obama is based on the ridiculously high expectation levels he came in with?” he asked Rich. “Could any President, coming in when Obama did, have done much different to have affected things in a more positive way, do you think? ” Rich also agreed with Morgan's claim that GOP candidate Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality “are bordering on bigotry.” He added that Santorum is “demagoguing” gays and lesbians. When giving the positive and negative consequences of 9/11, Rich replied that “no new taxes” was a negative. “And one of the points I make in my piece for the 9/11 anniversary issue of 'New York Magazine' is of all the things that Bush did after 9/11 that defrayed that goodwill, the worst may have been not calling for any sacrifice, any shared sacrifice,” said Rich. “He told people to go to Disneyworld, go shopping. There were no new taxes.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on September 1 at 9:04 p.m. EDT, is as follows: [9:03] PIERS MORGAN: I think the time has come for President Obama. You know, we're 15 months away from election now where people just want him to start doing a bit of chest-beating here and standing up for himself and for the Presidency, I think, and beginning to call the shots. I think they want proper leadership. And a lot of Americans say to me you know the problem is we bought into this whole thing of hope and audacity and change, and instead we're seeing somebody who quite regularly appears to be – and it's all perception – appears to be being treated pretty roughly by the Tea Party, by Republicans, by Speaker Boehner, and he doesn't seem to be the one calling the shots. FRANK RICH, New York Magazine columnist: I think he regards — and there's something human about this and likable about it, I think he regards being gentlemanly, trying to be above the fray, trying to be the adult in the room as a positive virtue in American politics. But, you know, he is entering a very tough reelection campaign. He's got to step up to the plate. One thing I hope he does is actually watch that Republican debate the night before and respond to it. And that's now set up for – it's teed off for him to do that. (…) MORGAN: It seems that the Tea Party have definitely been gathering momentum and a lot more support as they have gone. And you're right. Rick Perry is very much a Tea Party supporter in many ways. The problem comes, as we saw over the whole debt ceiling crisis, is that people are concerned, do they have what it takes to actually govern? It's all very well opposing and making lots of noise and being very critical and standing up for the people. But can they actually govern? Or does the rather intransigent streak that they bring to all that policy-making, is that always going to be the problem? RICH: It's always going to be the problem. And I think, again going back to that Republican establishment, the interest that actually financed and bankrolled the Republican Party, I don't think they like the idea that the country might have defaulted and that Michele Bachmann really didn't understand what the debt ceiling was or what the issues were and was willing to put the credit of America at stake for ideology. So, no, that's not governance at all. That's temper tantrum-throwing and pure, you know, far right ideology. MORGAN: How much of the criticism do you think, Frank, of President Obama is based on the ridiculously high expectation levels he came in with? Given the state of the economy when he arrived and given the fact it really hasn't improved at all — if anything, probably got slightly worse. Could any President, coming in when Obama did, have done much different to have affected things in a more positive way, do you think? Has he been disappointing or simply was it that expectation levels were way too high? RICH: Well, I think the answer is both. He was his own toughest act to follow. He is a very tough act to follow with himself, and he hasn't lived up to it. But more substantially, I think he has made mistakes. The talk about pivoting to jobs, discussing unemployment, to discussing foreclosures, people losing their jobs and their homes has rarely been center stage. And they've threatened to pivot to it over and over again. And they're going to pivot to it again next week. But I think that was a big mistake. I think the stimulus actually did do a lot of good for this country. And I do think they stabilized the banking system. But then we had a very protracted health care battle. And the job message and job action has never really been as much front and center as it should be. And now it's too late. All he can do is have a rhetorical victory because, of course, he is not going get anything through this Congress. (…) MORGAN: I mean, it's fascinating to me to see how various candidates now begin to handle what would have been not that contentious an issue before, but it becomes so. For instance, the issue of same-sex marriage. I've now had two quite lively encounters, one with Christine O'Donnell and one with Rick Santorum, where one walked off and the other one got quite heated. RICH: I saw the Santorum, yeah. MORGAN: Yeah, but what did you make of it? Because it seemed to be they're getting a little touchy about all this. As you get more and more American states signing up to same-sex marriage, it may be they're getting a little concerned that the form of very acceptable rhetoric of a Republican candidate no longer perhaps will resonate in the way it used to. RICH: Well, I think in your Rick Santorum interview, you saw exactly that. You said, correctly, that what he was saying was quite possibly bigoted. He wanted to disown it. Oh, no, he's just – you know, I don't know, everyone should do what they want but not – he was talking. It was like gobbledygook rhetoric. And here's why it doesn't play anymore. This country has turned the page very fast on this issue – shockingly fast to me as someone who has covered it for years. Santorum has no traction as a candidate. Demagoguing gay people and same-sex marriage or any sexual issue like that may arouse the hardest right of the base of the Republican Party, but it's going to drive away independent voters, drive away mainstream American voters. Everyone has gay people in their lives. The clock has run out on this. So they're really I think playing with a loaded gun pointed at themselves. I don't think it's going to help them politically at all. I think when someone like Rick Santorum is squirming and realizes that, I think they all realize have a problem. (…) MORGAN: Frank, the War on Terror is now 10 years in. What's your assessment of where the spoils of victory and defeat have worked themselves out? RICH: Well, a few good things can be said. The end of Osama bin Laden, for instance. And to some extent – although we don't know what to what extent after all these years, and in my view one unnecessary war in Iraq – a scattering of al Qaeda. But basically, in almost every conceivable way, America is worse off. And the tragedy is that at the time Bush gave that speech, the country was really united. America was really united behind him. People were devastated by this attack on American soil, and they rallied around the President, a very new, green President who had won in a very contentious election. And then it was all squandered. And one of the points I make in my piece for the 9/11 anniversary issue of “New York Magazine” is of all the things that Bush did after 9/11 that defrayed that goodwill, the worst may have been not calling for any sacrifice, any shared sacrifice. He told people to go to Disneyworld, go shopping. There were no new taxes. And I feel this anti-government cancer that is loose in America today comes from that moment. He said basically, you can fight two wars and not pay for them. And if you don't pay taxes for two wars, then why pay taxes for anything in the common good? And that's the kind of ideology that's now at loose and is paralyzing this country.
Continue reading …
The pied pipers at MTV were certainly delighted that they attracted their largest audience ever measured for their Video Music Awards show, more than 12 million viewers. It began with Lady Gaga as a male impersonator and ended with rapper Lil Wayne dancing around wearing women’s leggings affixed literally below his rear end. Lil Wayne’s “song” was called “John (If I Die Today).” It was so studded with F-bombs and N-words that more of this number may have been bleeped than aired. There are five F-bombs in the first eight lines. It starts: “Four-four Bulldog, my m-f-ing pet / I point it at you and tell that m-f-er ‘Fetch.’” The thought is almost humorous that someone at MTV might review the lyrics in advance to insure they were appropriate. But this spectacle only comes around once a year. What really should concern parents and culture-watchers was the “sneak peek” of yet another scripted sex-and-youth show right after the awards. Even the title of the forthcoming show is meant to provoke: “I Just Want My Pants Back.” MTV boasted the New York Daily News already proclaimed the show a “triumph,” and teased viewers with this “peek,” saying it would not air again until 2012. But the debut was profoundly graphic, even by MTV's lack of standards. The sexual content was about as pervasive and explicit as anything you can find on basic cable. Naturally, it was rated only TV-14. Here’s what MTV thinks is appropriate for your 14-year-old. As the show begins, the lead character Jason and his friend Tina are looking to “hook up” with other people at a bar in New York City. Jason, who’s supposed to be twentysomething but looks 16, is lamenting his long sexless streak of six whole weeks. He’s drinking shots, and complaining they taste like “paint thinner and ass.” Tina asks “Got any weed?” The two friends retire to a bathroom and smoke marijuana. Jason laments how he could be entering the sexual “drought of the decade,” but then boasts he’s now so high on pot, he’s “‘I could eat a wheel of cheese’ high.” Tina shoots back, “As long as you’re not ‘I need you to check my testicles for lumps’ high.” Is anyone smelling an Emmy award for Best Screenplay? Then Jason meets the nameless girl he’s taking home. Soon they’re undressing frantically and Jason is worrying that it’s too perfect. “What if you’re really a sexy transsexual and later I discover, oops, you have a penis?” She responds she’s “all girl” and insists “Let’s do it in your fridge!” He is wowed. “What a fantastic e-mail this is going to make tomorrow!” When it's over, the girl leaves a phone number that’s a wrong number, and borrows Jason’s pants, which takes you back to the title “I Just Want My Pants Back.” This is what MTV wants children — yes, 14-year-olds are impressionable children — to learn about sex: it’s an event, even a circus act, not a relationship. Love is irrelevant. Marriage isn’t even in the picture. It’s quick, virtually anonymous, and kinky sex that counts. There’s another example of the casual-sex ethos when one of the men says to Tina, “I thought you only slept with that guy because he’s got air conditioning.” She shoots back, “Yeah, now I kinda like him. Plus, it’s been muggy lately.” But that pales in comparison to other material. Jason also gets intimate with a woman who asks him to put his finger in her rectum. When that doesn’t please her, she asks, “Could you try your thumb?” Later, Jason tells his friends “Her sphincter had the grip of a merchant marine.” TV-14. Surprisingly, Preparation H was not on the list of sponsors. But this sleaze was subsidized by Unilever, the makers of Axe Body Spray, because you would want to smell pleasant if you want to have your chance at meaningless casual sex. It was also brought to the youth of America by Candie’s, which sells “juniors jewelry and apparel.” Their current poster girl is Vanessa Hudgens of the Disney “High School Musical” movies. They also have a Candie’s Foundation to fight teen pregnancy, while sponsoring an MTV show that could be called “Let’s Do It In Your Fridge.”
Continue reading …If you’ve heard it once you’ve heard it a thousand times: states’ rights. Along with “states’ rights” goes the idea of “small government” which is actually “small federal government.” Only this idea of a smaller government and states’ rights is a formulated, poll tested, concept that means “no federal taxes” and the South doesn’t have to be bossed around by Yankee Presidents any more. What’s rarely talked about is if these ideas were actualized. What would that mean for our country? Rick Perry is the latest in a long line of rogue statesmen who shout the rallying cry of the 10th Amendment, but the New York Times questions if he’s just opportunist. “In one of his more well-publicized shifts, Mr. Perry proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide, but backtracked in recent weeks and now says he supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He has also signaled support for various federal actions to restrict abortion rather than leaving the issue to states. And he used $17 billion in federal stimulus money to balance the state’s last two budgets.” the Texas Tribune similarly details the struggle Perry seems to have with women’s reproductive choice, which, according to a true states rightsman , should be left up to the states to decide. Not according to Perry. The Tribune interviews an anti-choice advocate who, twelve years ago, couldn’t get Perry to even push parental notification in the state legislature. Today, it’s a different story as he advocates for “personhood” and the “preciousness of life” across the early primary and caucus states. But Rick Perry isn’t the only presidential candidate to advocate for a small federal government while conveniently ignoring social issues. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the poster boy for libertarian politics, bringing about a movement within the GOP before the tea party was ever AstroTurf-ed. In an astounding statement this past weekend Paul said he didn’t believe natural disasters should fuel increased money to the states. If we lived under a Paul-pocracy these dollars wouldn’t have left the states to begin with, and if the state ran out of money do to a preponderance of disaster – they would just file for bankruptcy. Paul doesn’t just believe in states’ rights; he proved that even when it’s unpopular, he believes in states’ rights. Except, of course, for the social issues. Paul voted for the ban on late term abortions in 2003. Paul voted for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993 – but then voted to repeal in 2010 , but then he condemned President Obama for not abandoning the Defense of Marriage Act. So much for states rights. It doesn’t stop at Presidential candidates, however. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn is a big fan of states rights …. except of course on gay marriage and abortion , which according to him, the federal government should ban on both accounts. I wrote a few weeks ago about his idea to pull funding from his own state for critical USDA and agriculture programs that were the only line of defense against another Dust Bowl. I also wrote about Coburn and Republican freshman Congressman James Lankford’s bill to send back transportation and infrastructure money because they don’t believe the federal government should be in the roads and bridges business. It seems the only consistency with Republicans is the strive for this kind of focus group politics that makes everything sound like a great idea until you sit down and actually think about how it will impact our country. My guess is they’re not expecting voters to think about it at all. When it comes to the states rights argument, the most disappointing (or perhaps amusing) thing is that it destroys the “Republicans are the only patriots” image the Bush Administration worked so hard to manufacture after 9/11. While Bush’s America, with its warrentless wiretaps, state sanctioned torture, multicolored threat levels, and warmongering wasn’t my ideal America, I did really love that for a while we were all one country. His, and his party’s, attempts to own patriotism in those elections after 9/11 forced me to stand up stronger and demand recognition of my own party’s faith in our country. It didn’t make me be a stronger patriot it made me a louder one in efforts to show that peace and protests were just as patriotic as the fabricated threats. Remember what it was like after 9/11? Those few weeks as we watched New Yorkers post photos of loved ones across their fallen city. The tears we all shared for the loss of an innocence we never really understood we had. We were all together in what followed, just like we were all together during World War 2. Whether we win Olympic metals or lose our treasured heroes, we have always been a stronger people because these things we share together. What happened to that America? And why do Republicans want to take it away?
Continue reading …If you’ve heard it once you’ve heard it a thousand times: states’ rights. Along with “states’ rights” goes the idea of “small government” which is actually “small federal government.” Only this idea of a smaller government and states’ rights is a formulated, poll tested, concept that means “no federal taxes” and the South doesn’t have to be bossed around by Yankee Presidents any more. What’s rarely talked about is if these ideas were actualized. What would that mean for our country? Rick Perry is the latest in a long line of rogue statesmen who shout the rallying cry of the 10th Amendment, but the New York Times questions if he’s just opportunist. “In one of his more well-publicized shifts, Mr. Perry proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide, but backtracked in recent weeks and now says he supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He has also signaled support for various federal actions to restrict abortion rather than leaving the issue to states. And he used $17 billion in federal stimulus money to balance the state’s last two budgets.” the Texas Tribune similarly details the struggle Perry seems to have with women’s reproductive choice, which, according to a true states rightsman , should be left up to the states to decide. Not according to Perry. The Tribune interviews an anti-choice advocate who, twelve years ago, couldn’t get Perry to even push parental notification in the state legislature. Today, it’s a different story as he advocates for “personhood” and the “preciousness of life” across the early primary and caucus states. But Rick Perry isn’t the only presidential candidate to advocate for a small federal government while conveniently ignoring social issues. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the poster boy for libertarian politics, bringing about a movement within the GOP before the tea party was ever AstroTurf-ed. In an astounding statement this past weekend Paul said he didn’t believe natural disasters should fuel increased money to the states. If we lived under a Paul-pocracy these dollars wouldn’t have left the states to begin with, and if the state ran out of money do to a preponderance of disaster – they would just file for bankruptcy. Paul doesn’t just believe in states’ rights; he proved that even when it’s unpopular, he believes in states’ rights. Except, of course, for the social issues. Paul voted for the ban on late term abortions in 2003. Paul voted for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993 – but then voted to repeal in 2010 , but then he condemned President Obama for not abandoning the Defense of Marriage Act. So much for states rights. It doesn’t stop at Presidential candidates, however. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn is a big fan of states rights …. except of course on gay marriage and abortion , which according to him, the federal government should ban on both accounts. I wrote a few weeks ago about his idea to pull funding from his own state for critical USDA and agriculture programs that were the only line of defense against another Dust Bowl. I also wrote about Coburn and Republican freshman Congressman James Lankford’s bill to send back transportation and infrastructure money because they don’t believe the federal government should be in the roads and bridges business. It seems the only consistency with Republicans is the strive for this kind of focus group politics that makes everything sound like a great idea until you sit down and actually think about how it will impact our country. My guess is they’re not expecting voters to think about it at all. When it comes to the states rights argument, the most disappointing (or perhaps amusing) thing is that it destroys the “Republicans are the only patriots” image the Bush Administration worked so hard to manufacture after 9/11. While Bush’s America, with its warrentless wiretaps, state sanctioned torture, multicolored threat levels, and warmongering wasn’t my ideal America, I did really love that for a while we were all one country. His, and his party’s, attempts to own patriotism in those elections after 9/11 forced me to stand up stronger and demand recognition of my own party’s faith in our country. It didn’t make me be a stronger patriot it made me a louder one in efforts to show that peace and protests were just as patriotic as the fabricated threats. Remember what it was like after 9/11? Those few weeks as we watched New Yorkers post photos of loved ones across their fallen city. The tears we all shared for the loss of an innocence we never really understood we had. We were all together in what followed, just like we were all together during World War 2. Whether we win Olympic metals or lose our treasured heroes, we have always been a stronger people because these things we share together. What happened to that America? And why do Republicans want to take it away?
Continue reading …
• Shares slip on both sides of Atlantic • George Osborne accused of ‘sitting on hands’ • Obama faces calls to stimulate economy Stock markets dived on Friday after weak US jobs figures, news of a slump in UK construction orders and further wrangling over the eurozone’s Greek bailout unnerved investors. The FTSE was down 137 points at 5280 while the US Dow Jones industrial average closed down 253 points, or 2.2%, at 11,240. Frankfurt and Paris followed the downward trend, with both losing more than 3% of their value. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are expected to come under pressure to reverse the decline in growth rates that is pushing western economies to the edge of a second recession in three years. Declines in business and consumer confidence have hit manufacturing and other key sectors, with knock-on effects for jobs and consumer demand. Barack Obama, who is due to deliver a speech on employment next Thursday, is expected to face calls to stimulate the economy from his Democrat supporters despite intense lobbying by opposition Tea Party representatives on Capitol Hill. The chancellor, George Osborne, has refused to waver in his plans for widespread spending cuts, insisting that his deficit reduction programme has prevented a Greek-style panic. Economist David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, accused Osborne of sitting on his hands at an important time for the economy and warned that action was needed to create jobs or Britain could suffer a double-dip recession. His concerns echoed those of shadow chancellor Ed Balls, who said Osborne should use a G7 meeting in Marseille next weekend to agree a growth strategy to stop Britain and other leading economies from falling back into recession. Figures from the US labour department showed America failed to create any new jobs in August. Analysts expected at least 75,000 jobs to have been created last month, but the figure came in at zero. A strike by 45,000 Verizon telecoms workers distorted the August figures – which showed a 48,000 decline in the number of workers in the information services sector – but that was offset by a revision to the July numbers, which showed 58,000 fewer jobs had been created than thought. The US economy needs to add 150,000-200,000 new jobs each month to bring the jobless rate down. It remained at 9.1% last month. The US labour department said it was the weakest reading since last September, with firms holding off hiring after declines in consumer and business confidence. Few firms made redundancies, but the data showed a freeze on new hirings. The poor snapshot of the labour market led Goldman Sachs and several other big Wall Street firms to forecast that the US could back further rounds of quantitative easing. Goldman said that the federal open market committee, which determines the policy followed by the US central bank, might extend maturity on the Fed’s $1.65 trillion (£1trn) of government bond holdings after its policy meeting this month. “This report will certainly strengthen the case for the doves on the committee going into the next meeting this month,’ said Millan Mulraine, a senior strategist with TD Securities in New York. Rob Carnell, chief international economist at ING, said the figures would provide further ammunition for those arguing for policy easing. He said it would be difficult to boost consumer demand while the figures showed real wage growth stalling. “If there are any glimmers of hope, and basically there aren’t, you could point to the smaller decline in the government sector as a potential slowing of public sector job-shedding,” he added. “You could also assume this has bolstered the chances of a new round of quantitative easing from the Fed before the year end.” Britain’s MPC is also expected to discuss further quantitative easing at its next meeting after one of its chief hawks, Martin Weale, argued that the deteriorating situation in the UK might warrant further support from the central bank. More problems also emerged in Athens following negotiations between the International Monetary Fund, the EU and the Greek government. Talks were suspended after disagreement on the success of Greek austerity measures, which have already failed to generate the expected savings. The situation worsened after the Finnish government warned that it would only agree to lending Greece further funds if it was given a cash security. Recession Market turmoil US economy Dow Jones FTSE Quantitative easing Global economy Stock markets George Osborne Barack Obama Economics Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Here’s a fact set for your consideration: Two middle school boys. One a foot taller than the other. Both have difficult backgrounds. One is struggling with his sexuality and working it out publicly, which makes others around him uncomfortable. He been bullied in his past for his appearance and sexual orientation. The other one is about a foot taller, and has been raised by a homophobic, abusive, alcoholic father. It is possible, but seems to be unproven, that the taller one is also experimenting with involvement in white supremacy groups, but whether that is true or not seems to be at issue. Here is what isn’t in dispute: Brandon McInerney took his father’s Saturday night special from wherever it was stashed in the house. He loaded it with hollow-point bullets. He put it in his backpack and went to school. The day before he said he was going to bring his gun to school . When he got to school, he went to the computer lab, pulled out the gun, and shot Larry King in the back of the head. That is not in dispute. All sides agree. You would think, with that fact set, a jury could come to a verdict. And yet, they didn’t. Thursday the judge declared a mistrial after the jury deliberated 15 hours because seven jurors wanted to convict him on voluntary manslaughter and five wanted to convict him of first or second degree murder. What’s even weirder? Suddenly all the usual law-and-order conservatives have turned into merciful Pollyannas, including the Ventura County Star itself, whose reporting mirrored their editorial belief that McInerney should have been tried as a juvenile and not an adult, and the hate crime charge should not have been part of the trial. I’m not sure what you call it if it’s not a hate crime, to be honest. Despite the defense team’s best efforts to paint it as a “gay panic” defense , it really came down to one kid taunting another with his sexual orientation. If he were not dead from bullets that exploded his head like a watermelon, perhaps we could debate the wisdom of allowing the types of interactions between the two that happened. But he is dead. He is dead after a classmate shot him in front of all of the other classmates and the teacher. He is dead and he is gone and Brandon McInerney is very much alive and in jail and on trial. McInerney breathes. King doesn’t. And still, there is this weird, strange, counter-intuitive vibe here in Ventura County about how McInerney is as much a victim as King. I can only attribute it to the usual homophobic tendencies of many in this area. The sly implication is that King had it coming. That the victim, the one cold in his grave, deserved what he got because, well, he was gay. Or looked gay. Or acted gay. I’m not sure any of us really know whether he was or wasn’t. And in more reversals, the conservative kings and queens of personal responsibility are whispering and crying that McInerney was the victim of a school administrator and “lax attitudes.” As if stepping on Larry King would have prevented the whole thing. As if a kid who dared to be different, and perhaps in a way that offended or got in others’ space, deserved to have hollow point bullets put in his head. As if being gay is a reason to be dead. James Gilliam directs the Seth Walsh Students’ Rights Project , a project of the Southern California ACLU. Here’s what he has to say about the defense that ultimately succeeded enough to hang the jury. A toxic and dangerous environment has festered for years in California schools, where any student perceived as having a different sexual orientation or gender orientation — or simply perceived as different — can be teased and abused, often with impunity. But bullies don’t exist in a vacuum — they’re acting on messaging they learn from parents, from churches, even from educators themselves that LGBT people are somehow less than equal. It’s a message expected to be reinforced in the Chatsworth courtroom as McInerney’s attorneys assert that he was driven to temporary insanity following unbearable and humiliating sexual harassment on the part of King; that revulsion and violence are the natural responses to homosexual behavior. And also that anyone who may not fit someone else’s idea of how a member of a certain gender should behave perhaps brings that hostility on him or herself. About that messaging thing: Here is my open letter to “SaveOurKids.net” , a LaHaye production. That followed my discovery that petitions to put Proposition 8 on the ballot were in church lobbies everywhere. Messaging, indeed. Words matter, but apparently guns matter more. And even more apparently, the prosecution in this case couldn’t manage to muster enough passion or facts to get a verdict of murder for someone who indisputably pulled the trigger and unloaded into Larry King’s head. If we’re honest with each other, would there be any doubt of a verdict if it had been South Central LA? Or a hispanic defendant? Would there? No. They’d have been tried as an adult, tossed in jail and the key tossed. But in this case, when it’s a couple of white kids and one has daddy’s gun, they can’t decide whether he actually meant to pull the trigger or not. Daddy may have been a mean sonofabitch with a temper and an attitude, but hey — Daddy wasn’t on trial here. Brandon was. And Brandon should have been held to account. It defies logic. My other posts on this case can be found here , here and here . Firedoglake has more on it, too. Crossposted from odd time signatures
Continue reading …Dems Desperate to Hold Senate Majority– Let’s Build A PROGRESSIVE Majority! Support Sanders & Warren
September 2, 2011 No CommentBernie and Elizabeth depend on Grassroots (that’s us!) not Wall Street. Every penny goes directly to their campaigns. Please give what you can. Blue America doesn’t usually send e-mails asking for contributions because of some phony Inside the Beltway “deadline”– as if a $20 contribution is any more or any less crucial today or tomorrow. But we just got a wretched plea from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, begging for money for the dreadful and unpopular incumbents whose voting records make it impossible for them to raise money from grassroots Democrats. I mean who in their right mind is going to donate to conservative shills like Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill? They’ve alienated Democratic voters and the lobbyists and Big Business interests they have normally counted on would rather replace them with Republicans. Good riddance! On the other hand, Blue America would like to ask you to help us send a message to the DSCC today (or tomorrow– we don’t care) by helping us support Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), two people who have fought long and hard for ordinary American families, not for the banksters and not for the corporate elites. You already know Bernie. This is what Elizabeth Warren told the Boston Globe yesterday: “It’s about being willing to take a good idea and fight for it. It’s being willing to throw your body in front of a bus to block bad ideas… There are some things worth fighting for and right now it’s about fighting for the middle class.” She’s running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat, which is currently occupied by Wall Street’s favorite senator, Scott Brown– and that’s what business-friendly Forbes called him… admiringly. One day Elizabeth may be the tellers’ favorite senator, but she’ll never be the banksters’ or hedge fund managers’! “I came out of a hard-working middle class family. I lived in an America that created opportunities for kids like me… I now see an America in which our government works for those who already have money and already have power… I would walk out of a senator’s office and the office would be completely jammed with lobbyists who were there to explain why the consumer agency was bad. There was not enough room for them to sit down.’’ Blue America has only endorsed 2 people for the Senate so far this cycle. It’s hard to imagine any other incumbents and so far the only other challenger who looks worthwhile is Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, although she hasn’t declared yet. So we’re asking you to take a look at our Senate page and see if you can give us a hand with Bernie and Elizabeth… either before or after the DSCC’s midnight “deadline.” We are all in this together, Digby, John, Howie and the Blue America team Check out this video of Elizabeth Warren, who is worthy of our support.
Continue reading …Dems Desperate to Hold Senate Majority– Let’s Build A PROGRESSIVE Majority! Support Sanders & Warren
September 2, 2011 No Comment
Bernie and Elizabeth depend on Grassroots (that’s us!) not Wall Street. Every penny goes directly to their campaigns. Please give what you can. Blue America doesn’t usually send e-mails asking for contributions because of some phony Inside the Beltway “deadline”– as if a $20 contribution is any more or any less crucial today or tomorrow. But we just got a wretched plea from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, begging for money for the dreadful and unpopular incumbents whose voting records make it impossible for them to raise money from grassroots Democrats. I mean who in their right mind is going to donate to conservative shills like Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill? They’ve alienated Democratic voters and the lobbyists and Big Business interests they have normally counted on would rather replace them with Republicans. Good riddance! On the other hand, Blue America would like to ask you to help us send a message to the DSCC today (or tomorrow– we don’t care) by helping us support Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), two people who have fought long and hard for ordinary American families, not for the banksters and not for the corporate elites. You already know Bernie. This is what Elizabeth Warren told the Boston Globe yesterday: “It’s about being willing to take a good idea and fight for it. It’s being willing to throw your body in front of a bus to block bad ideas… There are some things worth fighting for and right now it’s about fighting for the middle class.” She’s running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat, which is currently occupied by Wall Street’s favorite senator, Scott Brown– and that’s what business-friendly Forbes called him… admiringly. One day Elizabeth may be the tellers’ favorite senator, but she’ll never be the banksters’ or hedge fund managers’! “I came out of a hard-working middle class family. I lived in an America that created opportunities for kids like me… I now see an America in which our government works for those who already have money and already have power… I would walk out of a senator’s office and the office would be completely jammed with lobbyists who were there to explain why the consumer agency was bad. There was not enough room for them to sit down.’’ Blue America has only endorsed 2 people for the Senate so far this cycle. It’s hard to imagine any other incumbents and so far the only other challenger who looks worthwhile is Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, although she hasn’t declared yet. So we’re asking you to take a look at our Senate page and see if you can give us a hand with Bernie and Elizabeth… either before or after the DSCC’s midnight “deadline.” We are all in this together, Digby, John, Howie and the Blue America team Check out this video of Elizabeth Warren, who is worthy of our support.
Continue reading …Rep. Joe Walsh Educates Martin Bashir: ‘Your Profession Did Not Vet’ Obama
September 2, 2011 No Comment
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh and left-leaning MSNBC anchor Martin Bashir got into a contentious exchange over Barack Obama on Friday. The Congressman bluntly explained to Bashir, ” Your profession did not vet [Obama]…”
Continue reading …