Search This Blog

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Um, ya' think?



 

Ruben Navarrette: The police who are accused of beating Kelly Thomas to death need to be treated the same as any alleged killers -- prosecuted, and if convicted, sent to prison.
FULL STORY | OFFICERS TO STAND TRIAL

So why is this so controversial in the first place?

Monday, May 7, 2012

Anyone see a problem with this "picture?"

US thinks underwear bomb was built by Al Qaeda in Yemen

Los Angeles Times -
WASHINGTON -- The FBI is analyzing a sophisticated underwear bomb that US officials believe was built by Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen in an effort to target Western aviation.
Officials: More Al Qaeda Bombs Unaccounted For
Apparent airline bomb plot thwarted-US officials
The top story of the day is of a plot by al-Qaeda to blow up a plane. And whose picture is on the front of every news cite in the country?
 
So we are supposed to remain afraid of him even after he has been dead for a year!

Seriously? 





















Friday, May 4, 2012

From campus news to ALEC

In class, we saw that most news is bad news.

This holds true in the annual review of our student paper. Most of the stories are stories of bad news:

Campus reacts to accusations

Professor ousted from classroom

Solar Homestead brings recognition for sustainability

Coming Out Day messages vandalized

Assault kick-starts hate crime debate

Obama stops in Boone

Tuition increases further      

We also learned that corporations and the powerful, including groups like ALEC, often work behind the scenes to control the laws of our nation.

In this article, the news shows what happens to ALEC once the sheet is pulled off its deeds.

On May 11, 2012, about 20 state legislators from 15 oil- and gas-rich states are scheduled to meet in a hotel conference room in Charlotte. Representatives from major energy companies will be there, too. Oil and gas lobbying groups will give presentations to the lawmakers on fossil fuel prices and the need for modernizing the nation’s power grid. But no “lobbying” will take place. What happens in Charlotte will be called education.

For three decades, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the meeting’s host, has brought together corporations (including Pfizer (PFE), AT&T (T), and ExxonMobil (XOM)) and state legislators to write what it calls model bills—pieces of legislation the industries would like to become law. Often this means protecting favored tax treatment or keeping regulations at bay. ALEC has also approved model bills on social issues, including gun control and voter registration. The bills then get passed around among the 1,800 mostly Republican legislators who are ALEC members. They introduce the model bills about 1,000 times a year in state capitols around the country, the group says. About 200 become law. ALEC pays for the meetings through membership fees (called donations) that corporations pay. The legislators receive travel stipends (called scholarships) to attend the meetings. ALEC is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit that provides a public service, not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence.

This offers two benefits: Corporate members can deduct yearly dues, which run up to $25,000—more if they want to sponsor meetings; and ALEC doesn’t have to disclose the names of legislators and executives who attend. That’s important, because if ALEC operated with complete openness it would have difficulty operating at all. ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because it’s done its work behind closed doors. Membership lists were secret. The origins of the model bills were secret. Part of ALEC’s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work. If this were to become clear to everyone, there’d be no reason for corporations to use it.

Unfortunately for ALEC, that’s exactly what’s happening. Last year, government accountability group Common Cause successfully filed Freedom of Information Act requests with state legislators to learn more about their dealings with ALEC. At the same time, someone leaked ALEC’s internal bill library. All told, thousands of pages of internal ALEC documents were put online, including minutes and attendee lists for the last two years of meetings.

ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, discovered in ALEC’s now-public library a model bill for voter ID laws passed by 34 states. The laws’ opponents say they suppress voting by minorities. In December the group began sending letters to ALEC’s corporate members asking how much they valued their minority customers. Since then McDonald’s (MCD), Wendy’s (WEN), Coca-Cola (KO), PepsiCo (PEP), Yum! Brands (YUM), Procter & Gamble (PG), and Intuit (INTU), among others, have stopped donating to ALEC. The corporate departures accelerated after the death of Trayvon Martin: Florida’s so-called stand-your-ground law also sits in ALEC’s model bill library.

In April, Common Cause sent a tax whistleblower complaint to the IRS, claiming ALEC is a lobbying group and seeking to strip its nonprofit status. Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle says the group had been waiting for months for the right moment to lodge its complaint. “The Trayvon Martin thing was like a gift,” she says.

Quoting from the U.S. tax code, ALEC’s lawyer Alan Dye says the group engages “in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research” and therefore is not a lobbying group. In an e-mail, he says ALEC is the victim of a “committed effort by extreme liberal front groups to diminish ALEC’s effectiveness in supporting free-market solutions in the states. … ALEC does not lobby and makes every effort to ensure that its processes are effective and compliant.” Dye is certainly right about one thing: The groups attacking ALEC are committed to diminishing its effectiveness. Their most successful tactic has been simply to show what it does.

The bottom line: A trove of private ALEC documents was posted online, leading prominent companies, including Coca-Cola, to leave the group.

Related

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Racial bias in the death penalty in the news

Got this today from an author who writes about race.
Put To Death For Being Black: New Hope Against Judicial System Bias
North Carolina's Racial Justice Act finally acknowledges that there is a huge bias in who gets the death penalty
By Touré | 

Touré's latest book, Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?, was named a New York Times notable book of 2011

The wind of revolution is beginning to blow through the halls of justice. It’s a small breeze now and the impact of what many consider one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century still weighs heavily, but in North Carolina something called the Racial Justice Act is suggesting that a change is gonna come.
 
Many studies have shown that there is significant racial bias in the administration of the death penalty. Defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death for killing whites than for killing blacks and black defendants are more likely to get the death penalty than whites, as was referenced in David Baldus’s 1998 report “Racial Discrimination and the Death Penalty”. But a study by Jennifer Eberhardt found the impact of race to be even more nuanced: judges and juries perceive defendants who have physical traits that are stereotypically associated with blackness (broad nose, big lips, dark skin) to be more “death worthy.” What a horrific term. In Eberhardt’s study, stereotypically black-looking defendants were twice as likely to be sentenced to death. Sociologists know that race matters in capital punishment, but the Supreme Court has refused to notice since a 1987 decision in McClesky v Kemp.

A Los Angeles Times survey of liberal legal scholars named McClesky one of the worst decisions since World War II. NYU law professor Anthony Anderson called it “the Dred Scott of our time,” referencing the 1857 decision that upheld slavery. Ohio State University Professor Michelle Alexander told me it was the Plessy v Ferguson of our time, referencing the 1896 decision to justify racial segregation. Justice Lewis Powell, who wrote the majority opinion on McClesky, later told his biographer that was one of two votes he regretted.

Warren McClesky was a black man who was convicted of killing a Georgia police officer in 1978. His legal team produced a study showing racial inequality in the death penalty — specifically that blacks convicted of killing whites in Georgia were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those convicted of killing non-whites. The court accepted the statistics but rejected McClesky’s appeal and wrote, “disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system.” So racism is in the mechanism of administering death but … so be it. Bias was found to shape capital punishment and that was acceptable? In dissent, Justice William Brennan wrote, “That a decision to impose the death penalty could be influenced by race is a particularly repugnant prospect, and evidence that race may play even a modest role in levying a death sentence should be enough to characterize that sentence as ‘cruel and unusual.’ ” In another dissenting opinion in a different capital punishment case, 1994′s Callins v Collins, Justice Harry Blackmun famously wrote that it’s impossible to rid racial bias from the death penalty so “I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”

Since McClesky, judges have not allowed defense attorneys to show juries studies proving racial bias in death sentencing, making it impossible to challenge bias at any stage of the judicial process. It’s as if racism only matters when it operates as a specific stated conspiracy rather than a ghost in the machine animated by an accumulation of bias. But two challenges have arisen. From the South.
Racial Justice Acts were passed in Kentucky in 1998 and in North Carolina in 2009, stipulating that if race is found to be a significant factor in the imposition of the death penalty, then death will be commuted to life without parole. North Carolina’s act allows three areas in which to argue significant racial bias: that a death sentence is more likely because of the race of the defendant; that a death sentence is more likely because of the race of the victim; or that jury selection was racially biased.

Almost as soon as North Carolina’s act was passed, nearly all death row inmates began challenging their sentences. The first challenge to reach the court was filed by 38 year-old Marcus Reymond Robinson, who was sentenced to death for the 1991 kidnapping and murder of a 17-year-old from whom he stole a car and $27. Robinson was convicted by a jury composed of nine whites, two blacks and one American Indian in a county that’s 40% black. Last month, Robinson’s sentence was commuted to life because his legal team successfully argued that race was a significant factor in the dismissal of potential jurors. A racially diverse jury is crucial to countering stereotypes and getting fairness. Imagine, white readers, being on trial for murdering a black person and watching the prosecutors remove white people from the jury pool just because they’re white, and finding yourself in a room all but filled with blacks who would judge your guilt and whether or not you would die for killing a black person. Does that sound fair? Or frightening? Linking who lives and who dies to race is unacceptable but we do it. Even if you believe in the death penalty from a moral standpoint, racial disparities and other human errors make it hard to trust humanity with the ultimate penalty.


Touré is the author of four books, including Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness? The views expressed are solely his own.



Read other related stories about this:
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/03/put-to-death-for-being-black-new-hope-against-judicial-system-bias/?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1tom7N9jI

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Hypocrisy of politicians

Jon Stewart nails it again in a segment called "You are aware that the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex gives us the ability to store and recall past events as they occurred, right?"

It is about the hypocrisy of politicians.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-1-2012/victory-lapse

And here is the rest of it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-1-2012/victory-lapse---the-anniversary-of-osama-bin-laden-s-death

These people are pathetic. But we keep electing them.

One reason is because the mainstream media NOT only allow this sort of thing to happen, but they are often the ones being the hypocrites.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Breaking news! Usama bin Laden is dead!

Only, he has been dead for one year today.

So why is it BREAKING NEWS?

All the mainstream news networks today are having special reports on this day. They are reporting that President Obama is making a "surprise visit" to commemorate this day and to announce that a new agreement has been reached with Afghan leaders about what happens after 2014, when US combat troops leave. That announcement will be on live TV tonight at 7:30 pm.

And it will state that we will actually stay in the country longer. Even though we've already been there 10 years.



Random, violence in the news, again, as always

Three of the men claim to be anarchists and they thought about a series of plots before deciding to target the Route 82 bridge, the FBI says. FULL STORY

Hundreds of secret al Qaeda documents found hidden in a pornographic file reveal details of how the group plans attacks. FULL STORY | BERGEN: A DELUSIONAL LEADER | OPEN STORY | POLL: MUSLIMS DISLIKE AL QAEDA
And then there is this ...

Al Qaeda 'body-bombs' threat is back

Mom accused of putting bleach into toddler's eyes

Boy's head held underwater in alleged swim lesson

Remember the effect of all this?


It keeps us afraid, which keeps us at home, which keeps us watching TV, which raises ratings and keeps getting us exposed to commercial ads, which produces profit for media companies.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Public opinion has shifted on drug policy

In class we talk about how society is "progressing."




As in becoming more progressive.

As in making progress.

As in moving into the future without being too encumbered by the past.

From NORML:

Majorities of respondents in the three countries (Britain 56%, Canada 68%, United States 74%) welcome the concept of using alternative penalties—such as fines, probation or community service—rather than prison for non-violent offenders. At least seven-in-ten Britons (70%), Americans (74%) and Canadians (78%) believe personal marijuana use should be dealt with through alternative penalties. Support for similar guidelines for credit card fraud, drunk driving and arson is decidedly lower.

Our society is progressing. Punitive responses to recreational drug use (as well as drug abuse problems) are a thing of the past. The only problem is that current day law is not a thing of the past.

But it will be soon. Because we are progressing.

The people are already there. Now it is time for the law to catch up.

And here is the report.


Dude, you are so far behind the times, mmmmkay?