National, Regional and Local News

[Ti-Amie]

He says he "pays more into the system" than he gets.

There is an income limit on earnings once you are eligible for Social Security so I have no idea why he used the present tense to describe what he contributed to the system.

Too bad no one on the panel is a recipient of Social Security or they could've pointed that mis statement out too.

[Ti-Amie]

June 19, 2012

After helping define the Obama presidency for almost a year, health care reform largely disappeared as a subject in the American news media as it wended its way through the legal system to the Supreme Court.

When it was a major story, however, most of the coverage focused on the politics of the bill rather than the substance of the legislation. And the language and framing of the issue favored by the bill’s Republican critics was far more prevalent in the news coverage than the language and framing favored by Democrats supporting the bill, according to research conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Health care reached its heights as a news story in the summer of 2009 and early 2010, during the rise of the tea party and the battles in the House and Senate over passage of the legislation. In the third quarter of 2009, with passions fueled by angry town hall meetings, coverage of the health care debate filled 18% of the newshole, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index, making it the No. 1 story in the news. That number fell slightly but remained high in the last quarter of 2009 (13%) and the first quarter of 2010 (14%).

But once the battle over health care shifted to the courts, largely in federal appeals court decisions, the subject received far less attention. From April 2010 through December 2011, the subject never exceeded 2% of the overall newshole in any three months period.

That changed, some, in the first three months of 2012, with coverage rising to 5% of the newshole. The week of February 6-12, the story first made a comeback (9% of the newshole) as the debate over whether religious institutions should be forced to cover contraception in their health insurance plans emerged as a major issue. Four weeks later, Rush Limbaugh’s controversial comments about a Georgetown law student helped drive coverage (10%) the week of March 5-11.

At its peak, in 2009 and early 2010, the issue was also more of a topic in the opinion part of the media culture, on radio and cable TV talk shows, than elsewhere. But it wasn’t always Obama’s partisan opponents doing the talking, but often people from within the liberal camp who felt the law didn’t go far enough. During that period, liberal talk show hosts devoted more time to the issue than conservative hosts.

That fits with another finding in an analysis of the press coverage, particularly during the formative stages from June 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. Most of the coverage of the health care reform bill focused on the politics as opposed to reporting on what the bill would do or the state of health care. Fully 49% of the coverage focused on politics and strategy, as well as the legislative process. Less than a quarter of the coverage (23%) outlined what the various proposals would do, and 9% of the coverage focused on the state of the health care system in the U.S.


Which side got the better of this highly politically oriented coverage? An analysis by PEJ of the language used in the media (PEJ research) reveals that opponents of the reform won the so-called “messaging war” in the coverage. Terms that were closely associated with opposition arguments, such as “government run,” were far more present in media reports than terms associated with arguments supporting the bill, such as “pre-existing conditions.”

Graphs and complete article at the link.

http://www.journalism.org/commentary...th_care_debate

[Moose]

Commerce Secretary John Bryson (he of the car crashes related to seizures a couple weeks ago) announced his resignation this morning.

U.S. Commerce Secretary John Bryson, who said he suffered a seizure resulting in two hit-and-run crashes in the San Gabriel Valley earlier this month, has resigned from his Cabinet position.

In a letter to President Obama dated Wednesday, the 68-year-old Bryson said he was stepping down as a result of his seizure and medical leave of absence.

“I have concluded that the seizure I suffered on June 9th could be a distraction from my performance as Secretary and that our country would be better served by a change in leadership of the Department,” he wrote.

Bryson shared the news with his staff Thursday morning and said Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank, who has led the department since Bryson began the leave of absence June 11, would continue to serve as acting secretary.

Police found Bryson unconscious at the wheel of his Lexus after it struck two vehicles shortly after 5 p.m. on June 9. He was cited for felony hit-and-run but was not booked because he was taken to an area hospital, where he spent the night under observation before returning to Washington the next day.

Commerce Department officials later attributed the crash to a seizure, which they said was Bryson's first.

An investigation into the crash is ongoing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-seizures.html

[Miles]

Not the smartest or the classiest of moves. Why give the opposition more ammunition?


Activists Take Out Frustration on ... Ronald Reagan



Last Friday, an attaché of important gay people from Philadelphia made a trip to Washington D.C. as invited guests of President Barack Obama for the White House’s first-ever gay pride reception. There, they danced to the sounds of a Marine Corps band; they dined on crab cakes and canapés; they hand-delivered letters from concerned citizens like this 18-year old who has had four people close to him gunned down, and noted rhyming raconteur CA Conrad; and some of them took advantage of photo opportunities to give the late President Ronald Reagan the middle finger.

“It’s not a gesture that I would use in the White House when representing our city and our community,” opines Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal (center), who opted for a sarcastic thumbs-up pose in front of the portrait of George W. Bush over the more vulgar one demonstrated by his Reagan-loathing peers, Matthew “Matty” Hart (left), the national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, and self-taught photographer turned toast-of-the-town Zoe Strauss (right).

“I have friends who work in that building,” Segal explains. “I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important. ‘Be on your best behavior,’ my staff told me.’ I think they know me too well.”

This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!” Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back.

But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “**** Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “**** Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ...

“Yeah, f**k Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

[Ti-Amie]

June 21, 2012

Prisons, Privatization, Patronage

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Over the past few days, The New York Times has published several terrifying reports about New Jersey’s system of halfway houses — privately run adjuncts to the regular system of prisons. The series is a model of investigative reporting, which everyone should read. But it should also be seen in context. The horrors described are part of a broader pattern in which essential functions of government are being both privatized and degraded.

First of all, about those halfway houses: In 2010, Chris Christie, the state’s governor — who has close personal ties to Community Education Centers, the largest operator of these facilities, and who once worked as a lobbyist for the firm — described the company’s operations as “representing the very best of the human spirit.” But The Times’s reports instead portray something closer to hell on earth — an understaffed, poorly run system, with a demoralized work force, from which the most dangerous individuals often escape to wreak havoc, while relatively mild offenders face terror and abuse at the hands of other inmates.

It’s a terrible story. But, as I said, you really need to see it in the broader context of a nationwide drive on the part of America’s right to privatize government functions, very much including the operation of prisons. What’s behind this drive?

You might be tempted to say that it reflects conservative belief in the magic of the marketplace, in the superiority of free-market competition over government planning. And that’s certainly the way right-wing politicians like to frame the issue.

But if you think about it even for a minute, you realize that the one thing the companies that make up the prison-industrial complex — companies like Community Education or the private-prison giant Corrections Corporation of America — are definitely not doing is competing in a free market. They are, instead, living off government contracts. There isn’t any market here, and there is, therefore, no reason to expect any magical gains in efficiency.

And, sure enough, despite many promises that prison privatization will lead to big cost savings, such savings — as a comprehensive study by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded — “have simply not materialized.” To the extent that private prison operators do manage to save money, they do so through “reductions in staffing patterns, fringe benefits, and other labor-related costs.”

So let’s see: Privatized prisons save money by employing fewer guards and other workers, and by paying them badly. And then we get horror stories about how these prisons are run. What a surprise!

So what’s really behind the drive to privatize prisons, and just about everything else?

One answer is that privatization can serve as a stealth form of government borrowing, in which governments avoid recording upfront expenses (or even raise money by selling existing facilities) while raising their long-run costs in ways taxpayers can’t see. We hear a lot about the hidden debts that states have incurred in the form of pension liabilities; we don’t hear much about the hidden debts now being accumulated in the form of long-term contracts with private companies hired to operate prisons, schools and more.

Another answer is that privatization is a way of getting rid of public employees, who do have a habit of unionizing and tend to lean Democratic in any case.

But the main answer, surely, is to follow the money. Never mind what privatization does or doesn’t do to state budgets; think instead of what it does for both the campaign coffers and the personal finances of politicians and their friends. As more and more government functions get privatized, states become pay-to-play paradises, in which both political contributions and contracts for friends and relatives become a quid pro quo for getting government business. Are the corporations capturing the politicians, or the politicians capturing the corporations? Does it matter?

Now, someone will surely point out that nonprivatized government has its own problems of undue influence, that prison guards and teachers’ unions also have political clout, and this clout sometimes distorts public policy. Fair enough. But such influence tends to be relatively transparent. Everyone knows about those arguably excessive public pensions; it took an investigation by The Times over several months to bring the account of New Jersey’s halfway-house-hell to light.

The point, then, is that you shouldn’t imagine that what The Times discovered about prison privatization in New Jersey is an isolated instance of bad behavior. It is, instead, almost surely a glimpse of a pervasive and growing reality, of a corrupt nexus of privatization and patronage that is undermining government across much of our nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/op...patronage.html

[Kirkus]

Jury's come to verdicts in the Jerry Sandusky trial.

CNN/MSNBC covering it live, awaiting the verdicts.

[Kirkus]

Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Sandusky's been reprimanded into custody.

[Ti-Amie]

Breakdown of Sandusky charges via @Pennlive.com

BELLEFONTE -- Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty this afternoon of 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

Sandusky faced 52 original counts of abuse, four of which were dismissed during trial. Here's a breakdown of all the charges with verdicts from the jury.

ALLEGED VICTIM 1

Count 1: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 2: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 3: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 4: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 5: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 6: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 2

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.*

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 3

Count 12: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 13: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 14: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 15: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 4

Count 16: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 17: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 18:* Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 19: Aggravated indecent assault
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 20: Indecent assault
Verdict: *Guilty.*

Count 21: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 22: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 23: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 5

Count 24: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.*

Count 25: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 26: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 27: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 6

Count 28: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.*

Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 30: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 7

Count 32: Criminal attempt to commit indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 33: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 34: Corruption of minors
Verdict:*Guilty.

Count 35: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 8

Count 36: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 37: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 38: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 39: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 40: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 9

Count 41: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 42: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 43: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 44: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 45: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 46: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

ALLEGED VICTIM 10

Count 47: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 48: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 49: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 50: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 51: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.*

Count 52: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.*

[Moose]

Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Sandusky's been reprimanded into custody.

I think the word is remanded. But all the other male prisoners will probably be waiting to reprimand him when he gets there

Jury did a great job with this case.

[dryrunguy]

Tonight, I'm back to being pro-death penalty. Don't worry. It won't last. But I just needed to say it.

[Vlad]

Too bad there is no hell for him to go to.

[suliso]

Part of me agree with the hell comment above, but the other part thinks that he was a tragic personality who was born to be sexually attracted to young boys and was unable to conquer his urges to the detriment of so many...

[Vlad]

Part of me agree with the hell comment above, but the other part thinks that he was a tragic personality who was born to be sexually attracted to young boys and was unable to conquer his urges to the detriment of so many...

Maybe it sounds cruel as I said it but he needed to get help. How can someone not realize that what they are doing is destroying lives of young people. I also blame those that are around him for not noticing this behavior earlier, especially his wife who absolutely had to have a clue about this yet kept quiet. Serial killers are also tragic personalities but someone has to realize that torturing pets when they were kids is not normal and should have gotten help at that point. Should we also feel sorry for them? It is true that some people have serious chemical deficiencies in their brains and for the sake of others safety they should be removed from society.


Actually, since he was a Christian and accepted Jesus as his savior for his sins (and he has A LOT of sins), I guess he won't to hell after he is done with this life even if there was one. What a wonderful moral system. You can pay someone's debt, you can even serve a life sentence for someone if you are willing but you can't ever take away someone's guilt or sins when they did something really atrocious like this guy. To me it is very immoral. I am again, deviating from the subject though....

[suliso]

Never mind this particular man, but is the society more interested in preventing child molestation (and other serious crimes) or in pure revenge? After all long prison sentences for criminals is all about the latter. It's easy to advocate killing, locking up for life, giving them over to Bubba etc., but what is the strategy for reducing the child molestation instances in the first place? For that we need a greater understanding and a bit of sympathy and help at least for those who haven't molested anyone yet...

[Vlad]

Never mind this particular man, but is the society more interested in preventing child molestation (and other serious crimes) or in pure revenge? After all long prison sentences for criminals is all about the latter. It's easy to advocate killing, locking up for life, giving them over to Bubba etc., but what is the strategy for reducing the child molestation instances in the first place? For that we need a greater understanding and a bit of sympathy and help at least for those who haven't molested anyone yet...

You make a good point and it is one of the reason I am against death penalty. I think if someone is a serial offender whether it is killing or raping boys, their life and behavior as a child should be studied in great detail. Emerging patterns of violence or cruelty should be noted and then taught to school officials. I think the neuroscience is still at a very early stage but with time we should have some information for why certain people's brain chemistry is so messed up that they are willingly hurt so many people. In the meantime, however, especially in this case I don't think many people have a problem if he spends the rest of his life in jail. He seemingly was capable of being functional human being in all other areas, yet he himself failed to realize how much damage he is doing to innocent people. For that he has to pay.