Home » Posts tagged with » house (Page 84)
Sydney Woman’s Remains Found Years After Death

SYDNEY — When an elderly Australian woman apparently vanished from view eight years ago, no one bothered to call the police. Not her relatives, her neighbors, or government officials, who kept paying her welfare benefits into a bank account that sat untouched. New South Wales state police said Wednesday that they discovered the woman’s skeletal remains on the floor of her Sydney home on Tuesday, after her sister-in-law finally called them to report that she had not heard from the woman – who would have turned 87 next month – since 2003. “It’s sad that the woman appears to have died several years ago without anyone noticing,” said police Acting Superintendent Zoran Dzevlan. Police were trying to determine exactly when the woman died, but said they didn’t think the death was suspicious. The woman, whose name was not released by police, was a recluse who had no relatives except for her sister-in-law, Dzevlan said. The two had a fight in 2003 and never spoke again. Police have not said why the sister-in-law waited years to report the woman missing, or what prompted her to call now. As the years passed, utility companies cut off the power and water to the woman’s home, police said. Centrelink, the government’s welfare agency, continued to pay her benefits to her bank account, which remained untouched. Her mail had been redirected to her sister-in-law’s home before 2003, but eventually stopped. Neighbors told police they hadn’t seen her in years and assumed the house was vacant. Police said the woman’s home was locked and furnished, but looked like no one had lived there for years. “To hear today that an elderly lady can pass away, be dead for eight years and for Centrelink to still be sending checks to her bank account and for those checks not to be cashed – surely that must set off the alarm bells within government,” New South Wales Police Minister Mike Gallacher said. “(It) really does highlight the need for this state and indeed our community to work closer at building relationships with our community,” he said.

Continue reading …
Critics attack Theresa May plan to rush through emergency bail bill

Critics say bill will widen police powers but will not prevent chaos, and is being rushed through with insufficient time for parliament to consider constitutional implications The home secretary, Theresa May, is to ask MPs to pass an emergency bill to resolve the police bail crisis amid warnings from defence lawyers that it amounts to a “smash and grab raid” to boost police powers. The solicitors who applied for the original court ruling that triggered the bail crisis say the emergency legislation will simply encourage an emerging police practice of “bail and see” rather than carrying out investigations as a matter of urgency. Their warning comes as a cross-party group of peers raises concerns that legislating in such highly unusual circumstances undermines the constitutional principle of the separation of politival powers and the rule of law. The home secretary will ask MPs to pass her one-clause police (detention and bail) bill through all its stages by 6pm on Thursday with Lords approval on Monday. It is expected to reach the statue book by Tuesday. The rush follows a ruling by a district judge in Salford, upheld by the high court, that has thrown into doubt the legal position of 85,000 police suspects currently out on bail. The ruling overturned 25 years of police practice under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace), which allows suspects to be held only for 96 hours before they are charged or released. The ruling said that periods spent on bail should also count towards the 96-hour “detention clock” limit. The supreme court, which is to hear a full appeal on the issue on 25 July, earlier this week dismissed an application to suspend the original ruling pending that hearing. The home secretary’s bill simply reverses that by saying time spent on bail will not count towards the 96-hour limit, only time spent in detention. But Joseph Kotrie-Monson of the solicitors who represented Paul Hookway, the murder suspect in the original case, says the legislation being rushed through will widen police powers, not prevent chaos. “The judgment in Hookway should have been a wake-up call in respect of this new emerging police practice of ‘bail and see’ rather than interview and investigate properly at the front end.” He said a slow shift had occurred over the 25 years that Pace had been in force in which initial investigation and proper effective interrogation up to 96 hours after arrest has been replaced in practice by excessively long bail periods. In the Hookway case, the ruling that the 96-hour limit had been reached came five months after the murder suspect was initially arrested and had been repeatedly bailed. The House of Lords constitution committee expressed concerns on Thursday that the emergency legislation was being rushed through before the supreme court appeal hearing. “We are concerned that, in the understandable rush to rectify a problem which the police have identified as being serious and urgent, insufficient time has been allowed for parliament fully to consider the constitutional implications of what it is being asked to do,” says the committee’s report. But May is determined to press ahead: “The ability to bail suspects is a crucial part of how the police investigate criminals and protect victims,” she said. “I will always give police the powers they need to protect the public; that is why emergency legislation is required.” Police Theresa May UK criminal justice House of Lords UK supreme court Alan Travis guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Georgia detains five press photographers ‘for spying’

Journalists including personal photographer of the president detained over espionage allegations, say relatives Police in Georgia have arrested five photojournalists, including the personal photographer of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Relatives said they were being held by the counter-intelligence service. Zurab Kurtsikidze, a photographer for the European Pressphoto Agency, Shakh Aivazov of the Associated Press, freelancer Giorgi Abdaladze, presidential photographer Irakli Gedenidze and his photographer wife Natia have been detained, relatives and colleagues said on Thursday. Gedenidze and his wife were arrested in the middle of the night at their home, Gedenidze’s mother Marina told Reuters. She said police later called to say they were being held by the counter-intelligence service. Abdaladze’s wife Neiko said one of the arresting officers had told her the case concerned alleged espionage. “They came at 2am (10pm GMT), searched the house and took his cameras, computers and mobile phones,” she said. Senior interior ministry officials were not available for comment. Police in Georgia have arrested dozens of people on charges of spying for Russia over the past three years since the former Soviet neighbours fought a brief war over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Moscow has accused the pro-western government under Saakashvili, which came to power with the 2003 “rose revolution”, of anti-Russian hysteria. Georgia Europe Press freedom Newspapers & magazines Associated Press News agencies guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fears grow for lawyer of woman in Iran stoning case

Lawyer still in prison after speaking to foreign media about case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Human rights activists have raised serious concerns about a lawyer who fell foul of Iran’s Islamic regime for highlighting the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. On the first anniversary of the international uproar that forced Iran to temporarily halt the punishment of Mohammadi Ashtiani, campaigners said they had fears for her lawyer, Houtan Kian, who remains incommunicado in prison nine months after he was arrested and has been reportedly tortured. Kian was arrested last October with Mohammadi Ashtiani’s son, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, and two German journalists who were interviewing them without the government’s permission in the western city of Tabriz. A few weeks before his arrest, Kian had complained that his house had been raided by security forces and his files confiscated. The 37-year-old lawyer was appointed by the government to represent Ashtiani. Despite threats from the regime, he spoke to foreign media in support of his client, whose stoning case prompted international condemnation from human rights groups and celebrities. Despite the outcry, Ashtiani’s fate remains unclear in the face of a series of ambiguous and often contradictory comments made by Iran’s judiciary and government. But, thanks to the media frenzy, her immediate sentence of death is on hold. Shadi Sadr, a prominent Iranian lawyer who has represented many women facing stoning sentences, said: “I have received new information from a source in Tabriz that Kian had been severely mistreated and tortured while in jail. “Kian and Mohammad Mostafaei [Ashtiani's other lawyer], became victims themselves only for defending their client.” Mostafaei also fell foul of the regime for speaking to media in support of Ashtiani, and was forced to flee Iran. He now lives in Norway. Other Iranian lawyers have been targeted by the Iranian regime in recent months in what is seen as a new crackdown. Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 11 years in jail last year and Mohammad Ali Dadkhah received nine years two days ago. In March, a letter that was apparently written by Kian and smuggled out of jail, circulated around Iranian websites but did not receive coverage in the west due to concerns over its authenticity. Sadr said on Wednesday she had received confirmation that it was in fact written by him. In the letter, he wrote: “All the signs of torture remain on my body … I have been burned by approximately 60 cigarettes on my legs, testicles and feet (5 cigarettes there). I am only given one meal a day, in the morning; once it was a small piece of cheese, another time, three dates. “My teeth have been almost completely broken by blows with boots, as has my nose, which bleeds permanently. At midnight, in cold weather, I was soaked with a fire hose and left, with hands and feet bound, in the courtyard until four in the morning, when I was taken to be interrogated.” Some Iranian websites have reported that Kian was sentenced to 11 years in jail but this could not be independently confirmed. Sadr said the history of political activity in Kian’s family also contributed to his current situation. Kian’s father was executed after Iran’s revolution in 1979 for supporting an opposition group. “Mistreatment of Kian in jail is a clear message from Iran to human rights activists for continuing their work,” Sadr said. The embarrassment caused by Ashtiani’s sentence becoming known forced Iran to react in various ways. The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in an interview last year in New York that a death sentence by stoning had never been handed down. Iran’s judiciary, on the other hand, confirmed her stoning sentence but attempted to alleviate the impact by portraying her as a murderer of her husband. Last December, Iran’s state-run English-language television channel, Press TV, which has its main office in London, broadcast a programme that showed Ashtiani and her son participating in the reconstruction of her alleged part in the murder of her husband. The broadcast of the interview was described by human rights activists as “forced confessions” and “unethical” but in response to a complaint to the broadcast of the programme, the media regulator Ofcom ruled in March, to surprise of many, that the Iranian station did not breach UK’s broadcasting rules in transmitting the programme. According to Amnesty International, Ashtiani was sentenced to death by stoning for “adultery while married” but was also given a 10-year prison term in 2006 for the murder of her husband, which her lawyer said was subsequently reduced to five years for “complicity” in the crime. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, an Iranian human rights activist based in Norway who is also a spokesman for the NGO Iran Human Rights which has monitored Iran’s history of stoning, said seven people have been stoned to death in the country since 2006 and at least 14 Iranians are facing death by stoning. Iran Middle East Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Religion Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Calls Grow for Investigation into Murdoch’s News of the World Phone-Hacking

Click here to view this media While our media in the United States has largely ignored this story, the press overseas has not to say the least. BBC World News not only made this the opening segment on their show that reairs locally here on PBS, but did a follow up segment with as well. Our national media here appears to be too busy distracting the American public and ambulance chasing the Casey Anthony murder trial to bother reporting for the most part on this story. Here’s more from their web site on the story — Calls grow for inquiry into newspaper phone-hacking : Ex-Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott, actor Hugh Grant and dozens of other public figures are demanding an inquiry into newspaper phone-hacking. It follows allegations that a private investigator working for the News of the World hacked into Milly Dowler’s phone. Mr Grant said people felt “viscerally sickened” by the revelations. The House of Commons is to debate the calls for an inquiry for up to three hours on Wednesday. News International, which owns the News of the World, has promised to investigate the claims made against it. Hacked Off, a campaign supported by Mr Grant, Lord Prescott, Conservative former Health Secretary Lord Fowler, Labour MP Chris Bryant, Liberal Democrat MP Adrian Sanders and the Dowlers’ lawyer, Mark Lewis, has started an online petition calling for a full public inquiry . Police are already investigating allegations over phone-hacking by detectives working for the News of the World, but the group described this as too “narrowly focused”. Read on… And here is Robert Greenwald’s interview with the BBC who’s done lots of great work documenting Murdoch and his media empire here in the U.S. in their Fox Attacks series . Click here to view this media

Continue reading …

Via Talking Points Memo. Just as it’s been rumored for months, Obama is proposing to cut Social Security: Two weeks ago, that first assumption proved true: Democrats proposed a few hundred billion in new tax revenues (a small fraction of the trillions of dollars in spending cuts Republicans are demanding) so GOP principals threw up their hands and abandoned the discussions. But the second assumption isn’t built on bedrock. And in recent weeks, congressional aides, strategists, and advocates have been floating, or warning of, a stealth change to the Social Security benefit structure that has quietly been placed on the negotiating table. The proposal wouldn’t just impact Social Security benefits. It would also shave off yearly increases in federal pension payouts , and result in somewhat higher tax revenues. But the ratio would be skewed toward benefit cuts by a factor of about 2-to-1 and would represent a financial hit to even the poorest retirees unless they were exempted. The idea is to change the way Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) are calculated across the federal government. Currently, the COLAs for tax brackets, pensions, and Social Security are tied to different measures of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Because spending habits change when living costs increase, some experts think these measures are too generous, and want to change all of the COLAs to a different, smaller measure of inflation: the so-called “chained-CPI.” On the tax side, this would likely draw more revenue: Tax brackets would rise more slowly than incomes, so people would get kicked into higher brackets more quickly and, voila, more income subject to taxation. But on the benefits side, this means money out of people’s pockets, even current retirees and pensioners. Responding to a letter of concern from House Democrats’ top Social Security guy the program’s chief actuary explained that moving to “chained-CPI” would constitute an immediate 0.3 percent benefit cut . That may sound small, but the effects would compound, and “[a]dditional annual COLAs thereafter would accumulate to larger total reductions in expected scheduled benefit levels of about 3.7 percent, 6.5 percent, and 9.2 percent for retirees at ages 75, 85, and 95, respectively.” Let’s not even get into the argument about why this Democratic president has entertained the mistaken illusion that cutting Social Security is part of some higher good. How on earth does he intend to get reelected by cutting what little the people on the bottom still have?

Continue reading …

Masterchef

No Comment
Masterchef

MasterChef USA: Season 2: Episode 9 – Part 3/5 MasterChef USA: Season 2: Episode 9 – Part 2/5 MasterChef USA: Season 2: Episode 9 – Part 1/5‬ random_memory says: Masterchef Recap: The Top 13 Competitors Must Cook Without Recipes http://bit.ly/q4BE8B # masterchef

Continue reading …

So David Bobo Brooks wrote a column about the debt ceiling deal that is either scolding or praising (or who knows what’s in his brain) the GOP for their part in the debt-ceiling fiasco up to this point, but saying they should jump on what’s been offered as the deal of the century. You knew the wingers would be up in arms over it. Well, Ayn Ryan responded as well in the only way he knows: But Brooks’ plea for sanity was lost on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who responded to the column on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show this morning. Ryan said that if Republicans gave up the loopholes now without securing a deal to lower marginal tax rates overall, they would lose an opportunity to demand new tax cuts in the future: RYAN: What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high. To the Galtian Overlords this makes sense. However, in the above clip Laura Ingraham was trying to get him to explain what the heck he meant for the most part and asked him to explain he words “revenue neutral.’ At first Ryan thought that she was sandbagging him so she had to calm him down and say, I’m trying to help you, I’m trying to help you . God, is he fragile or what? He’s on with Laura Ingraham, for heaven’s sake. Anyway, reforming the tax code in these terms is no way to stimulate the economy or get us out of this economic mess. It’s ridiculous to make the national debt the #1 priority when we’re at 9% unemployment. OK, I’m going back to reading book three, A Storm of Swords on my Kindle app. The only thing I will say about the series so far is that it can be depressing at times as well.

Continue reading …

As Americans gathered to celebrate their independence this past Fourth of July weekend, for some the festivities were tinged with sadness by the mounting evidence that many simply don’t know their own nation’s history. While a new study showed that only 35% of fourth-graders knew the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, a Marist poll found that 26% of us couldn’t identify the country from which the United States announced its separation. In the telling of Republican White House hopeful Rick Santorum , it’s all liberals’ fault. “This is, in my opinion, a conscious effort on the part of the left,” Santorum explained, “to desensitize America to what American values are so they are more pliable to the new values that they would like to impose on America.” Which is why everything I know about the Founding Fathers I learned from the GOP. That education begins in the period before the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to produce the document which changed the world. Starting with the Boston Tea Party in 1773. As the thousands of furious Tea Party protesters who took to the streets in the spring of 2009, we learned that watershed event was all about “no taxation WITH representation .” After all, the duly elected Barack Obama and Democratic-controlled Congress had produced the largest two-year tax cut in U.S. history, delivering relief to over 95% of working American households . And by “Taxed Enough Already” (TEA), the Tea Partiers decried the federal tax burden now at its lowest level since 1950 . The textbooks have the start of the Revolutionary War all wrong, too. The Patriot’s Day civic holiday celebrated every April in Massachusetts is especially embarrassing since, as Michele Bachmann pointed out, Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire. And those annual reenactments of Paul Revere’s midnight ride have it backwards, too. As Sarah Palin repeatedly made clear, Revere was warning the British. As it turns out, all Founders are created equal. As Palin explained to Glenn Beck , her favorite Founding Father was “all of them.” That might be because, as she pointed out in 2006, they had the wisdom over 170 years in advance to support adding “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance . “If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers,” she declared, “it’s good enough for me.” Then again, how special could Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and their ilk have been anyway? As Ronald Reagan told Americans in the 1980′s, the Nicaraguan Contras were the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” Well, according to the Republican National Committee , Madison, Hamilton and the other Framers of the Constitution of the United States were perfect . According to the RNC, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan committed sacrilege when she quoted Justice Thurgood Marshall’s assessment that “the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.” Unable to prevent three-fifths of the Senate from voting on Kagan’s nomination, Republicans instead suggested in an RNC memo that the Founders’ three-fifths of a person standard for counting slaves was no defect: “Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” Not, it turns out, if you leave out that three-fifths of a person stuff. Which is exactly what House Republicans did during their staged reading of the Constitution in January. Then again, for Glenn Beck , the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution was a feature, not a bug: “That’s why, in the Constitution, African-Americans were deemed three-fifths people, because the Founders wanted to end slavery and they knew if the South could count slaves as full individuals you would never get the control to be able to abolish it.” As for the Constitution’s $10 tax on the importation of each new slave levied until 1808, Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots helpfully pointed out that: “That’s right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws.” In any event, as Michele Bachmann has told us time and again, the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to rid the United States of the “scourge” of slavery. That includes the Founding Child John Quincy Adams , who died seventeen years before Civil War – and the passage of the 13th Amendment -ended slavery in 1865: “We know we were not perfect. We know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. We know that was an evil and it was scourge and a blot and a stain upon our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears, who worked tirelessly, men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.” As for the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln praised Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration for introducing “to into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.” But while Lincoln at Gettysburg turned to Jefferson to redeem the promise of America, his Republican successors inform us that it’s best to ignore the Declaration’s author and third President altogether. The Texas Board of Education , which sets the de facto standards for U.S. textbook publishers, removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.” (There is, of course, the Tea Party exception, which allows gun-toting Tea Baggers and Republican Congressman like Texas Rep. Michael McCaul to proclaim, “Thomas Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty will be fed by the blood of tyrants and patriots. You are the modern day patriots.”) That’s what you get when you have the temerity to explain the plain meaning of the First Amendment, as Jefferson did in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists : Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Today’s Republicans know better. During a debate last fall, failed Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell asked her opponent, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Rick Santorum explained that John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 statement that “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute” was “radical” and did “great damage.” (“Jefferson is spinning in his grave,” he added.) Sarah Palin couldn’t agree more: “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They’re quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it’s pretty simple.” According to Palin, that goes double for George Washington , the man who, she eventually told Glenn Beck, “got to rise to the top” of her list of favorite Founders. “Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.” Just not to other people’s lives. In his letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia in 1789, Washington wrote , “I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Washington also misspoke when he blessed Article 11 of the 1797 treaty he negotiated (and John Adams signed) with the Barbary pirates: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Luckily, we have “historian” David Barton to set the record straight for the Father of the Nation – and for us. The man Michele Bachmann called “a treasure for our nation” and whose lectures Americans Mike Huckabee said should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to leads the organization WallBuilders. It’s mission? God wants us to know our history and learn its lessons. At WallBuilders, we present American history, and we do so with a Providential perspective. In short, history not only shows God’s workings and plans but it also demonstrates the effectiveness of biblical principles when applied to church, education, government, economics, family, entertainment, military or any other aspect of life. For Barton that includes, among other things, the revelation that the Founders frowned on the teaching of evolution in public schools 70 years before Charles Darwin published his seminal book: “As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!” Thanks to our friends in the Republican Party, we also know the Framers were just joking when they wrote in Article VI of the Constitution that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Herman Cain let us know that Muslims would need to swear a special loyalty oath to serve in his Cabinet. In 2007, Mitt Romney said they need not apply at all: “[B]ased on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.” The GOP has made clear that they have place in Congress, either. After Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison swore the oath using Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, Virginian Virgil Goode warned that “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.” In 2007, Idaho Rep. Bill Sali similarly cautioned: “We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.” In ways large and small, Newt Gingrich suggested the Founding Fathers would be “very, very severe critics” of President Obama. (As for his hero Ben Franklin’s maxim that “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” Gingrich provided an update, explaining “If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society, people will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.”) The Republican Party, including 26 state attorneys general now suing to overturn the Affordable Care Act, tells us that the individual insurance mandate in unconstitutional. (On this point, President John Adams committed a major gaffe by signing the 1798 “Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” which authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.) Rendering the “general welfare” clause a constitutional typo, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun claimed, “We don’t have constitutional authority under the original intent of the Constitution to fund Planned Parenthood or NPR.” Congressman and Republican White House wannabe Ron Paul pointed out that the Supreme Court erred when declaring Social Security constitutional. Mercifully, Paul explained, states can always nullify laws from Washington that they don’t like: “In principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional…That is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws.” Boy did James Madison have it wrong when he argued that nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” by allowing federal laws to be freely ignored by states. A mistake or two like that, and the next thing you know you’re fighting a Civil War. 620,000 dead Americans and 150 years later, even Justice Antonin Scalia can misread the new Republican constitutional history: “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” Apparently, Scalia never read the memo from Texas Governor and possible instant GOP presidential frontrunner, Rick Perry : Perry told reporters following his speech that Texans might get so frustrated with the government they would want to secede from the union. “There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.” For one thing, a whole new meaning for the Fourth of July. (An earlier version of this piece also appeared at Perrspectives .)

Continue reading …

Taking a Side

No Comment

Two articles this weekend caught my eye as a great study in contrasts, one by George Will called Burning Down the House , the other by Frank Rich, titled Obama’s Original Sin . They both discuss the 2008 financial collapse and policies surrounding it, and they are both critical of some people in the Democratic Party, but the resemblance pretty much ends there. Will’s column is a particularly remarkable example of how modern corporate conservatives are so worshipful of the free market über alles that when they read something critical of it, they are only capable of recognizing the nuggets of anti-government and anti-Democratic Party analysis in it. Will’s column recounted how he had just read the book “Reckless Endangerment” by New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson and financial wunderkind Joshua Rosner, and how it is full of analysis documenting the terribleness of government, liberal policies, and Democrats. According to Will, that is the single overwhelming message of the book, that progressive policies of all kinds were responsible for the housing crash — that the Community Reinvestment Act, efforts to stop racial discrimination, Bill Clinton, and an old Mondale campaign aide who had become head of Fannie Mae created an evil vortex that destroyed the poor, benighted free market which would have sorted everything out nicely for everyone if left to its own devices. Of course, Will believed this before he read “Reckless Endangerment,” and has been making the same points in a number of columns for three years running. And he will believe all of this until the day he dies, no matter what books he reads in the meantime that might contradict this view. You know how I know this? Because “Reckless Endangerment” is not all about how perfect the free market is in the banking sector. The authors, who are brilliant writers on the financial sector whose columns and blog posts I have avidly read for years, are not free market banking apologists. They do have a lot of negative things to say about Fannie Mae, as they certainly should; it evolved into an out-of-control corporate monster that beat back every attempt at even modest regulation. But they are also extremely critical of the banking industry, and argue for a far tougher regulatory cop on the beat throughout the financial sector. You wouldn’t know that from Will, though: apparently the only sentences he read in the book were the ones critical of Fannie Mae and its CEO Jim Johnson, who had once been an aide to Walter Mondale. Will is an emblematic modern conservative. Everything about the free market is glorious, to be worshipped at some fundamentalist altar no matter its contradictions, and everything about the government (except defense) is evil. Any nugget of information you find that reinforces that worldview, you shout it out over the hilltops. But if you run across some facts and analysis, such as those in “Reckless Endangerment” that run contrary to that point of view, you just ignore it or forget about it. Frank Rich’s column was a classic one for him as well. He pulled no punches, being very critical of President Obama and his administration for their handling of the Wall Street banks and the economy in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse. But Rich’s approach was very different from Will’s. Rather than being blindly convinced that government is good or bad, Rich wants to know the answer to a simple question: Which side are the people who run our government going to be on? To me, that question is the most critical one there is when it comes to government policy. I don’t believe that government is inherently good — having lived through Vietnam, Watergate, J. Edgar Hoover’s corruption at the FBI, the massive deficit producing tax-cuts-for-the-rich policies of Reagan and Bush, the S&L crisis, financial deregulation, media consolidation, the Iraq war, Katrina, and the utter economic incompetence of the President George W. Bush economic years. I have no illusions that government as a whole is always on the side of most people. But what I want and believe in is a government of, by, and for the people — most especially for the people. Given the size and power of the financial industry, and other huge multinational corporations, I want a government that is on our side in making sure these massive companies don’t destroy our economy (again), and then demand bailouts (again) because they are too big to fail. I want a government on our side so that big insurance companies don’t tell people they can’t have coverage anymore because they got sick. I want a government on the side of senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and now want to live with some modest measure of dignity and economic security through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid coverage. I want a government on the side of working class families thrown out of their jobs and homes through no fault of their own. I want a government that is on the side of our kids and helps them get a good education. I want a government that is on the side of small business and start-up entrepreneurs as they work their butts off trying to compete with huge corporations. The Republican Party and conservatives like George Will seems to have been captured lock, stock, and barrel by the wealthiest and most powerful special interests. That is the only side they are on, and the policies they are proposing will only make things worse — a whole lot worse — for regular folks. People like Frank Rich — and Rosner and Morgenson for that matter — are critical of Democrats when they get too close to those wealthy special interests. Rich argues that it is only by standing up the powers that be on the economy, and standing up for the middle class, that Democrats will find their political way. I couldn’t agree more.

Continue reading …