Archive for September 18th, 2012

Most Pro-Life State Has 25% Increase In Abortions | Addicting Info


Most Pro-Life State Has 25% Increase In Abortions | Addicting Info.

Search our site
Info About Current Issues

unionsUnions And Government Regulation Have Made America Better For The 99% (OP-ED)
MittRomney_AP_18JulyAn Open Letter To Candidate Romney (OP-ED)
economic_recoveryThe Course Of The Recovery (INFOGRAPHIC)
strikeWeekend Reading List
guy-cashPersonhood Amendment Would Be A Boon For The Private Prison Industry
bastards-warningHouse Republicans Are Bastards
fox_racism-305x350Racism In Romney’s Statement Over Embassy Attacks Exposed
valuesIs Hate On The Agenda At This Weekend’s Values Voter Summit? (VIDEO)
Lunar_LandingWSJ Surprised To Discover That NASA Is Returning To The Moon (VIDEO)
imagesizerLetter From Guest – ‘A Personal Thought On How I, A Once-Republican, Progressed’

Read more
Historical Info

dying elephantWhen Republicans Were Great: The Once and Future GOP
warning_911Blinking Red: Remember 9/11 – OpEd
iraq-war-life-magazineBush White House Ignored bin Laden Warnings, Because They Wanted Iraq
charging elephantGOP Says Many Federal Aid Programs Are Unconstitutional
Chuck_NorrisChuck Norris Declares 1000 Years Of Darkness If Obama Re-Elected (VIDEO)
union label15 Quotes In Support Of Labor
labor20 Reasons To Thank Labor Unions
labor-dayWe All Built It…A Labor Day Salute
statute_for_religious_freedomTop Ten Thomas Jefferson Quotes On Religious Freedom
why_republicans_want_gridlock-460x307Democrats Were Not Wimps; Some Of The Bills Passed By Dems, Blocked By The GOP

Read more
Most Pro-Life State Has 25% Increase In Abortions
September 18, 2012
By Justin Acuff

Arizona is the most pro-life state in the United States, as evidenced by their new, most-restrictive-in-the-country anti-abortion laws (20 week absolute limit with no exceptions) and abstinence-only sexual education promoting director of health, Will Humble.

Jezebel reports:

To say that the 20-week ban itself was somehow causing the increase would be disingenuous; the measure has been tied up in legal wrangling since it was signed into law by the state’s governor Jan Brewer (fun fact about Jan Brewer: she doesn’t have any mirrors in her house, because she doesn’t have a reflection). And the state’s health director, abstinence-only-education proponent Will Humble, says that the 25% jump is due to enhanced reporting techniques that the state now requires, and that his “don’t do sex” method is working because the number of teen pregnancies is dropping in the state.

“But state Health Director Will Humble said he cannot say for sure that really means more pregnancies were terminated in 2011 than before. He said it may just be that his agency, armed with a new law that took effect in mid 2010, is just getting a better data.

Humble said, though, that one thing is clear: The number of teens getting pregnant in the first place continues to drop.”

But all of this is drawing attention from what’s really going on here, which is that pro-life politicians in Arizona and elsewhere have no [censored] idea why women have abortions, nor do they have interest in addressing the reasons that women choose to end pregnancies. It’s asinine. Trying to eliminate unplanned pregnancy and the desperation that accompanies it by outlawing abortions is like trying to fix a car’s muffler by turning the radio all the way up.

They’re exactly right. Republicans seem to have no idea why women get abortions, or, in fact, any ideas about women’s health in general. Evidence is provided for this in Arizona’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, and you can ask Shelby County in Tennessee how well that works. The answer is that it doesn’t.

As Jezebel also reports, “Except the state has cut taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that the organization provides abortions, even though state and federal law requires that no taxpayer money be used to finance abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. They’ve effectively made it more difficult for20,000 women to access basic health care, including contraception.”

Jezebel is exactly right. Abstinence-only sexual education has been proven to be the same as no education at all, and actually increases teenage pregnancy and infectious disease rates.

I would be delighted if you joined me on Facebook for instant access to my articles.

Advertisements

Judge rules Arizona can enforce strict provision to immigration law – Yahoo! News


Judge rules Arizona can enforce strict provision to immigration law – Yahoo! News.

PHOENIX (Reuters) – Arizona police can begin enforcing a controversial “show-your-papers” provision of a state law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, after a federal judge lifted an injunction against the law on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in a written order, lifted an injunction blocking the measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally.

The measure is part of a broad clamp-down on illegal immigration in the state signed into law in 2010 by Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama’s administration over federal policies on the issue.

In approving the law, known widely as “SB 1070,” Brewer had complained that the U.S. government failed to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico.

“Today is the day we have awaited for more than two years,” Brewer said in response to Bolton’s ruling, adding that it was not enough to merely enforce the law.

“It must be enforced efficiently, effectively and in harmony with the Constitution and civil rights. I have full faith and confidence that Arizona’s State and local law enforcement officers are prepared for this task,” she said in a statement.

The measure requiring police immigration checks was one of several blocked by Bolton before the law took effect in July of 2010 and had been subject to repeated appeals by civil rights groups seeking to prevent it from going into force.

Obama’s administration challenged the Arizona immigration law in court two years ago, saying the Constitution gives the federal government sole authority over immigration policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the “show-your-papers” measure in a landmark ruling in June, but tossed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowed police to arrest them without warrants if suspected of crimes warranting deportation.

On Tuesday, Bolton also permanently blocked these three provisions.

‘DOOR OPEN TO RACIAL PROFILING’

Opponents of the law complained that it amounted to a mandate for racial profiling of Hispanics, who make up nearly a third of Arizona’s 6.5 million people, and urged the Obama administration on Tuesday to soften its impact.

“President Obama has the moral responsibility and legal authority to protect the people of Arizona,” the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said in a statement.

“We expect he will do everything within his power to prevent the discrimination, punishment, and suffering that will escalate under … (the law’s) implementation,” it added.

The organization called on Obama to instruct the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to refuse to deport those it called “SB 1070’s victims.”

Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project said the ruling “opens the door to racial profiling, wrongful detentions and arrests, putting everyone’s civil rights at risk.”

“Law enforcement resources are wasted when people are targeted based on their skin color, and our core American values of fairness and equality are compromised,” Jadwat added in a statement.

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy left open the possibility that, once the law took effect, constitutional or other challenges could proceed against the Arizona immigration status check requirement.

The ACLU has said it would challenge any instances of racial profiling that could arise following implementation from the measure.

A Rare Look at Why The Government Won’t Fight Wall Street | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


A Rare Look at Why The Government Won't Fight Wall Street | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone.

The great mystery story in American politics these days is why, over the course of two presidential administrations (one from each party), there’s been no serious federal criminal investigation of Wall Street during a period of what appears to be epic corruption. People on the outside have speculated and come up with dozens of possible reasons, some plausible, some tending toward the conspiratorial – but there have been very few who’ve come at the issue from the inside.

We get one of those rare inside accounts in The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins, a new book by Jeff Connaughton, the former aide to Senators Ted Kaufman and Joe Biden. Jeff is well known to reporters like me; during a period when most government officials double-talked or downplayed the Wall Street corruption problem, Jeff was one of the few voices on the Hill who always talked about the subject with appropriate alarm. He shared this quality with his boss Kaufman, the Delaware Senator who took over Biden’s seat and instantly became an irritating (to Wall Street) political force by announcing he wasn’t going to run for re-election. “I later learned from reporters that Wall Street was frustrated that they couldn’t find a way to harness Ted or pull in his reins,” Jeff writes. “There was no obvious way to pressure Ted because he wasn’t running for re-election.”

Kaufman for some time was a go-to guy in the Senate for reform activists and reporters who wanted to find out what was really going on with corruption issues. He was a leader in a number of areas, attempting to push through (often simple) fixes to issues like high-frequency trading (his advocacy here looked prescient after the “flash crash” of 2010), naked short-selling, and, perhaps most importantly, the Too-Big-To-Fail issue. What’s fascinating about Connaughton’s book is that we now get to hear a behind-the-scenes account of who exactly was knocking down simple reform ideas, how they were knocked down, and in some cases we even find out why good ideas were rejected, although some element of mystery certainly remains here.

There are some damning revelations in this book, and overall it’s not a flattering portrait of key Obama administration officials like SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami, Department of Justice honchos Eric Holder (who once worked at the same law firm, Covington and Burling, as Connaughton) and Lanny Breuer, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Most damningly, Connaughton writes about something he calls “The Blob,” a kind of catchall term describing an oozy pile of Hill insiders who are all incestuously interconnected, sometimes by financial or political ties, sometimes by marriage, sometimes by all three. And what Connaughton and Kaufman found is that taking on Wall Street even with the aim of imposing simple, logical fixes often inspired immediate hostile responses from The Blob; you’d never know where it was coming from.

In one amazing example described in the book, Kaufman decided he wanted to try to re-instate the so-called “uptick rule,” which had existed for seventy years before being rescinded by the SEC in 2007. The rule prevents investors from shorting a stock until the stock had ticked up in price. “Forcing short sellers to wait for the price to tick up before they sell more shares gives a breather to a stock in decline and helps prevent bear raids,” Connaughton writes.

The uptick rule is controversial on Wall Street – I’ve had some people literally scream at me that it doesn’t do anything, while others have told me that it does help prevent bear attacks of the sort that appeared to help finally topple already-mortally-wounded companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – but what’s inarguable is that Wall Street hates the rule. Hedge fund types or employees of really any company that engages in short-selling will tend to be most venomous in their opinions of the uptick rule.

Anyway, Connaughton and Kaufman were under the impression that new SEC chief Mary Schapiro would re-instate the uptick rule after taking office. When she didn’t, Kaufman wrote her a letter, asking her to take action. When that didn’t do the trick, he co-sponsored (with Republican Johnny Isakson) a bill that would have required the SEC to take action.

Nothing happened, and months later, Kaufman gave a grumbling interview to Politico about the issue. One June 30, the paper’s headline read: “Ted Kaufman to SEC; Do Your Job.”

The next day, the Blob bit back. Connaughton was in the basement of the Russell building when a Senate staffer whose wife worked for Shapiro shouted at him. From the book:

“Hey, Jeff, you’re in the doghouse.” He meant: with his wife.

“Why?” I asked.

“That Politico piece by your boss.”

I was taken aback but tried to downplay the matter. “We just want the SEC to get its work done.”

“Remember,” he said. “We all wear blue jerseys and play for the Blue Team. I just don’t think that helps.”

When Connaughton told Kaufman over the phone what the staffer said, Kaufman exploded. “You call him back right now and tell him I said to go fuck himself in his ear,” Kaufman said.

Similarly, when Kaufman tried to advocate for rules that would have prevented naked short-selling, Connaughton was warned by a lobbyist that it would be “bad for my career” if he went after the issue and that “Ted and I looked like deranged conspiracy theorists” for asking if naked short-selling had played a role in the final collapse of Lehman Brothers. Naked short-selling is another controversial practice. Essentially, when you short a stock, you’re supposed to locate shares of that stock before you go out and sell it short. But what hedge funds and banks have discovered is that the rules provide “leeway” – you can go out and sell shares in a stock without actually having it, provided you have a “reasonable belief” that you can locate the shares.

This leads to the obvious possibility of companies creating false supply in a stock by selling shares they don’t have. Without getting too much into the weeds here, there is an obvious solution to the problem, which essentially would be forcing companies to actually locate shares before selling them. In their attempt to change the system, Kaufman and Connaughton discovered that the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation, the massive quasi-private organization that clears most all stock trades in America, had come up with just such a fix on their own. Kaufman recruited some other senators to endorse the idea, and as late as 2009, Connaughton and Kaufman were convinced they were going to get the form. “I said to Ted, ‘We’re going to change the way stocks are traded in this country.'”

But before the change could be made, Goldman, Sachs issued “data” showing that there was “no correlation” between naked short selling and price movements. When Connaughton asked an Isakson staffer what the data said, the staffer, intimidated by Goldman, replied, “The data proves we’re full of shit.” Connaughton looked at the data and realized instantly that it was a bunch of irrelevant gobbledygook, even firing off an angry letter to Goldman telling them the tactic was beneath even them.

But Goldman’s tactic worked. A roundtable to discuss the idea was scheduled by the SEC on September 24, 2009. Of the nine invited participants, “all but one” were for the status quo. Connaughton expected the DTCC representatives to unveil their reform idea, but they didn’t:

Afterwards, I went over to [the DTCC representatives] and asked, “What happened?” Sheepishly, and to their credit, they admitted: “We got pulled back.” They meant: by their board, by the Wall Street powers-that-be.

Essentially the same thing happened in Kaufman’s biggest reform attempt, the amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill he co-sponsored with Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, which would have broken up the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. But the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which was really the meatiest thing in the original Dodd-Frank bill, the one reform that really would have made a difference if it had passed, just died in the suffocating mass of the Blob. The key Democrats one after another failed to line up behind it, and in the end it was defeated soundly, with Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Democratic leadership, giving it this epitaph: “a bridge too far.”

Again, those interested in understanding the mindset of the people who should be leading the anti-corruption charge ought to read this book. It’s the weird lack of concern that shines through, like Khuzami’s comment that he’s “not losing sleep” over judges reprimanding his soft-touch settlements with banks, or then Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Ray Lohier’s comment that the thing that most concerned him – this is the period of 2008-2009, the middle of a historic crimewave on Wall Street – was “cyber crime.”

On the outside we can only deduce the mindset from actions and non-actions, but Connaughton’s actually seen it, and with the book you get to see it too. It’s scary and definitely worth a read.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-rare-look-at-why-the-government-wont-fight-wall-street-20120918#ixzz26sqMxULA