Tag Archives: former

Parents Sure Are Keen on Their Kids Becoming Pro Athletes

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s a curiosity. According to a new poll, 26 percent of parents of high school athletes hope their kids will turn pro someday. This rises to 39 percent among parents who earn less than $50,000 per year. As Christopher Ingraham points out, this is pretty ridiculous. Fewer than 1 percent of high school athletes—way fewer than 1 percent—ever make it to the show.

And it’s actually even more ridiculous than that. If your kid isn’t already a star athlete by high school, the chances of going pro drop to basically zero. There’s no way that 39 percent of these folks are the parents of star athletes.

This makes me curious about what this poll really means. Do parents “hope” their kids become pro athletes the same way they hope to win the lottery someday? As in, it’s nice to dream about, but it’s probably not going to happen. Or do they hope in the same way they hope to buy a new car next year? As in, with a little luck and some hard work our dream could come true. These are two very different things.

If it’s mostly the former, no harm done. I’d like to win the lottery too. But if it’s mostly the latter, America must be chock full of really disappointed parents. Maybe that explains something.

View the original here – 

Parents Sure Are Keen on Their Kids Becoming Pro Athletes

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Parents Sure Are Keen on Their Kids Becoming Pro Athletes

You Need to Read This Former NFL Lineman’s Heartbreaking Message About Race and Bullying

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jonathan Martin, the ex-professional football player known best for being at the center of a major NFL bullying investigation, retired earlier this summer. At the time, reports indicated that the 26-year-old Pittsburgh native was quitting due to a back injury that would have kept him off the field for the entire upcoming season. But many thought that the bullying scandal—according to an NFL investigation, some of his Miami Dolphins teammates constantly taunted him with jokes about his sexuality and race—had much more to do with it.

Martin posted a candid, raw note to Twitter on Wednesday, revealing that he’d attempted suicide on “multiple occasions” and writing that he hoped telling his side of the story might “help some other chubby, goofy, socially-isolated, sensitive kid getting bullied in America who feels like no one in the world cares about them.” Read more of his note below (the actual tweet is embedded at the bottom):

You move to Los Angeles at 10 & attend JTD, then Harvard Westlake, both environments that are completely new to you. You’re one of just a handful of minorities in elite private schools. You learn to tone down your size & blackness by becoming shy, introverted, friendly, so you won’t scare the little rich white kids or their parents. Neither black nor white people accept you because they don’t understand you. It takes away your self-confidence, your self-worth, your sanity.

You’ve been told you’re not “black enough” your entire life. It nearly destroys you, many times, not fitting in. Your talent & accomplishments on the field never seem to be able to overcome the demons that you carry with you from your middle school and high school experience. You’re always inadequate, always the “pussy,” the “weird kid who acts white.”

You overcompensate, create a persona separate from who you really are, use it as motivation to gain respect from playing a game. Make a fool of yourself at times. Anything in the quest to one day to feel “cool.” You see football as the only thing that you are good at, your only avenue to make the shy, depressed, weird kid from high school “cool.” To the outside world, many assume you to be somewhat egotistical, womanizing, over-the-top; a typical football player.

Years later, your time in the NFL is a wake up call. In all likelihood, anyone else in your shitty locker room situation probably wouldn’t take everything so personally, would’ve been able to brush it off and say “fuck it, you’re making millions. You’re starting as a rookie. You’re living your dream.” But you’re different. Have always been different. Have always been more sensitive.

You thought your same work ethic that had made you a two-time All-American, a 2nd Rd NFL draft pick, would earn you respect. After all, you have achieved what only a select few other first-year players achieved: starting all 16 games, barely missing a snap.

You are very wrong. You realize years later, reflecting on your experiences, that sometimes you need to take what you want, what you earned, from people who refuse to give it to you. You need to demand respect, and be willing to fight for it every day. The whitewashed, hermetically-sealed bubble you grew up in and were educated in did not provide any of those lessons.

You were raised in a good household. You know that you are a flawed person. Have done stupid, regrettable things. But you know right from wrong. And consider integrity to be incredibly important. The worst thing of all, in your mind, is being called a liar.

Your job leads you to attempt to kill yourself on multiple occasions. Your self-perceived social inadequacy dominates your every waking moment & thought. You’re petrified of going to work. You either sleep 12, 14, 16, hours a day when you can, or not at all. You drink too much, smoke weed constantly, have trouble focusing on doing your job, playing the sport that you grew up obsessed with.

But one day, you realize how absurd your current mindset is, that this shit doesn’t matter. People don’t matter. Money doesn’t matter. Fame and notoriety sure as hell don’t matter. Nothing matters besides your family, a few close friends, and your own personal happiness.

You play another year and a half and get badly injured. You want to keep playing, but having broken free of the addiction that football had been, you know inside that risking permanent debilitating injury isn’t worth it. So you retire.

You realize that your experiences have taught you that you need to leave the baggage behind. “Friends” who you played high school football with saying whatever to get their name in an article. Former coaches blowing up your phone trying to be your financial advisor. Your god father suddenly appearing your senior year of college out of thin air bearing gifts, trying to get tickets to your games & slyly asking your parents to manage your money.

You realize who truly has had your back. Who the people are who you need to embrace. And cherish every moment you have had with them. You let your demons go, knowing that, perhaps, sharing your story can help some other chubby, goofy, socially-isolated, sensitive kid getting bullied in America who feels like no one in the world cares about them.

And let them know that they aren’t alone.

Continue at source:  

You Need to Read This Former NFL Lineman’s Heartbreaking Message About Race and Bullying

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Citizen, Dolphin, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Need to Read This Former NFL Lineman’s Heartbreaking Message About Race and Bullying

Another Poll Shows Sanders Beating Clinton

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s beginning to look like progressives’ love for Bernie Sanders’ presidential run will be more than a summer fling.

On Tuesday, Public Policy Polling released a poll showing the Vermont senator topping presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by a 42-35 margin. Following far behind the top two contenders are Jim Webb at 6 percent, Martin O’Malley at 4 percent, Lincoln Chafee at 2 percent, and Lawrence Lessig at 1 percent. Just about everyone in New Hampshire likes Sanders. The Vermont senator has a 72 percent favorable rating from Democrats in the state, with only 12 percent saying they dislike him. A quarter of Democrats in the state say they have an unfavorable view of Clinton.

Clinton still isn’t in too much trouble nationally. A poll average from RealClearPolitics still has her trumping Sanders by 24 percent, with nearly 50 percent of Democrats saying they’ll vote for her. But New Hampshire, at least, is starting to look like a trouble spot for the former secretary of state. Sanders slowly whittled away at her lead there all summer, and a Franklin Pierce/Boston Herald poll from the beginning of August gave Sanders the same seven-point edge as the new PPP poll.

See the original post:  

Another Poll Shows Sanders Beating Clinton

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another Poll Shows Sanders Beating Clinton

The Push to Unionize College Football Players Just Suffered a Huge Blow

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The National Labor Relations Board on Monday dismissed a bid from Northwestern University football players to form the first-ever college athletes’ union, overturning an earlier regional board ruling and ending a year-and-a-half-long battle that included several union-busting efforts by the school and the team’s coaches to persuade athletes to vote against unionization.

From the Chicago Tribune:

In a unanimous decision, the five-member board declined to “assert” jurisdiction over the case because doing so would not promote uniformity and labor stability in college football and could potentially upset the competitive balance between college teams, according to an NLRB official.

The board, the official said, analyzed the nature, composition and structure of college football and concluded that Northwestern football players would be attempting to bargain with a single employer over policies that apply league-wide.

The decision marks a significant blow for Northwestern athletes, who won a regional board decision in March 2014 that determined they were university employees and could therefore seek union representation. However, it is unclear what effect the latest ruling will have on potential future unionization attempts at other schools; the board’s decision applies strictly to Northwestern’s case, and it declined to decide whether the athletes were employees under federal law, leaving open the possibility for athletes to unionize elsewhere.

The College Athletes Players Association, a collection of former athletes spearheading the bid, could appeal the ruling in federal court, but, according to the Tribune, that appears unlikely. Former Northwestern star quarterback Kain Colter, who had pushed the athletes’ union efforts, expressed disappointment over Monday’s ruling on Twitter, noting that the jury was still out as to whether college athletes are still employees.

CAPA president Ramogi Kuma called Monday’s ruling a “loss in time” in a statement, in that it delayed “the leverage the players need to protect themselves.” But, he said, it didn’t stop other athletes from pursuing unionization. “The fight for college athletes’ rights,” he told the Tribune, “will continue.”

Source:  

The Push to Unionize College Football Players Just Suffered a Huge Blow

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Push to Unionize College Football Players Just Suffered a Huge Blow

Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the big criticisms of President Obama’s nuclear deal is that he could have done better. In this case, Donald Trump really does speak for the entire GOP when he says that Obama’s team were all terrible negotiators who were too desperate for a deal and got suckered by shrewd Iranian horsetraders.

Is this true? Could we have gotten a substantially better deal if we had tightened the screws more? Gary Samore is the former president of United Against Nuclear Iran—”former” because he stepped down after he examined the deal and decided it was pretty good after all. Samore has decades of experience with Iran’s nuclear program and is well respected in the arms control community. So does he think we could have gotten a better deal?

Max Fisher: Could we have gotten a better deal?

Gary Samore: It’s very hard for me to answer that question. Unless you’re actually sitting in the room, doing the back-and-forth, it’s very, very difficult to say with any confidence that we could get a substantially better deal. When I say substantially better, I’m talking about much more dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment program, unlimited duration or a longer duration, and more robust challenge inspections of undeclared facilities.

I’m not talking about — I mean, the difference between 6,000 centrifuges and 5,000 centrifuges is trivial. Yes, you could probably get slightly different terms. We could have allowed them to keep a larger amount of low-enriched uranium, in exchange for having fewer centrifuges. There are all of these trade-offs embedded in the deal. But I don’t consider these kinds of details significantly better.

Max Fisher: It sounds like what you’re talking about, in terms of any different deal we could’ve gotten, is more about pushing around the numbers than getting a deal that looks fundamentally different.

Gary Samore: With the leverage that we have — which is economic sanctions and political pressure — I don’t think we can achieve a dismantlement of their program, unlimited duration, “anytime, anywhere” inspections. I just don’t think those are possible under current circumstances. Their economic situation would have to be much more dire, or we would have to be willing to use a military ultimatum to get those kinds of concessions from Iran.

Bottom line: Samore started out skeptical, but when he saw the actual text of the deal he was surprised at how good it was. Most importantly, he doubts that a substantially better deal would have been possible unless we had issued a military ultimatum.

So there’s something here for everyone. For people like me, it’s nice to hear that an expert came around when he took the time to look seriously at the deal’s terms. But Samore also concedes that we might have done better if we had credibly threatened to bomb Iran—which is precisely what a lot of conservatives think we should have done.

This is, perhaps, the fundamental dividing line. If you think we should have set a date certain for the missiles to fly unless we got what we wanted, then the deal was a lousy one. We could have done better. If you think—as I do—that this is insane, then the deal looks pretty good. Opinions about the final agreement have less to do with the precise terms of the deal than it does with your willingness to threaten immediate war to get what you want.

See the original post – 

Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

Here’s What the Presidential Candidates Had to Say About Reproductive Rights in the First GOP Debate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday night, the ten front-runners in the race for the GOP presidential nomination gathered in Cleveland for the first debate of the primaries and naturally the discussion included women’s health issues. Fox News hosts grilled Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on his opposition to exceptions to abortion laws for victims of rape and incest and Gov. Scott Walker over his support for a ban on abortion that doesn’t make an exception for the life of the mother. They pressed former Gov. Jeb Bush over his ties to a pro-abortion rights group, and Donald Trump on his onetime support of reproductive rights.

Here’s what they had to say:

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — Kelly asked Rubio about his record of opposing exceptions to abortion restrictions for victims of rape or incest. “I’m not sure that’s a correct assessment of my record,” Rubio shot back. “I have never advocated that.” Kelly may have been referring to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This was a bill Rubio sponsored in 2011 that would make it a crime for anyone—except for the parents— to take a girl across state lines for an abortion with no exception for victims of rape or incest. Rubio was also a sponsor, in 2011, of a controversial 20-week ban on abortion that only made exceptions for victims of rape if they reported the crime to the police.

Rubio added he felt that the Constitution bans abortion: “I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws whether they…have their birth certificate or not.”

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin — Kelly pressed Walker on his across-the-board opposition to abortion, even in to save the life of the mother: “Would you really let a mother die rather than let her have an abortion?” she asked, wondering if his position put him too far out of the mainstream to win the general election.

Walker answered, “There are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That’s been consistently proven.” Walker was alluding to a popular pro-life myth that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother, an opinion rejected by mainstream medical practitioners.

Walker also noted that he defunded Planned Parenthood as governor; he signed several budgets that stripped of all funding for the women’s healthcare network.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida — Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Bush about his seat on the board of the Bloomberg Family Foundation when the group is “so openly in support of abortion.” Bush denied knowing about the organization’s support of abortion. He also pointed to a number of actions he has taken to limit abortion rights when he was governor of Florida. He cut funding for Planned Parenthood from the state budget, directed state funds toward crisis pregnancy centers—pro-life alternatives to abortion clinics which often spread misinformation about the negative effects of abortion—and signed laws requiring parents to be informed before a minor has an abortion.

Donald Trump — The moderators asked Trump about his declaration, many years ago, that he was “very pro choice.”

“I’ve evolved on many issues over the years,” Trump replied. “And you know who else has evolved, is Ronald Reagan.” Trump then told the story of a pair of friends who decided against abortion. “And that child today is a total superstar.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas — Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Huckabee about his support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and whether it would work against him among moderate voters. In response, Huckabee came out swinging for personhood: “I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception,” he said. “This notion that we just continue to ignore the personhood of the individual is a violation of that unborn child’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. It’s time that we recognize the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas — In his closing statement, Cruz promised that “on my first day in office” he would prosecute Planned Parenthood over the sting videos dominating the headlines.

Originally posted here:

Here’s What the Presidential Candidates Had to Say About Reproductive Rights in the First GOP Debate

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What the Presidential Candidates Had to Say About Reproductive Rights in the First GOP Debate

Rachel Dolezal Is Now a Weave-Specializing Hairstylist

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On the off chance you were wondering what Rachel Dolezal has been up to since allegations surfaced she has been lying for years about being a black woman, the former president of Spokane’s NAACP chapter recently sat down for an interview to let you know that she’s still making a living off of black culture. Vanity Fair has the scoop:

At Eastern Washington University, she lectured on the politics and history of black hair, and she says she developed a passion for taking care of and styling black hair while in college in Mississippi. That passion is now what brings in income in the home she shares with Franklin her 13-year-old son. She says she has appointments for braids and weaves about three times a week.

In the new interview, which comes weeks after Dolezal was forced to resign as the NAACP’s local leader and dropped as a professor in Africana studies, she also appeared impervious to her critics, even emboldened by the media firestorm that quickly grew after her birth parents claimed she had been lying about her race.

“I wouldn’t say I’m African-American, but I would say ‘I’m black, and there’s a difference in those terms,” she tells Vanity Fair.

“It’s not a costume,” she continued. “I don’t know spiritually and metaphysically how this goes, but I do know that from my earliest memories I have awareness and connection with the black experience, and that’s never left me. It’s not something that I can put on and take off anymore.”

Has Dolezal’s latest defense left you even more puzzled? Stay tuned, she plans on publishing a book to explain it all.

Link: 

Rachel Dolezal Is Now a Weave-Specializing Hairstylist

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rachel Dolezal Is Now a Weave-Specializing Hairstylist

David Letterman Comes Out of Retirement to Call Out Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

David Letterman may have only retired just two months ago, but that isn’t going to stop the former “Late Show” host from taking on the joke of a presidential run that is Donald Trump’s current campaign for the White House

On Friday, Letterman reemerged on stage in San Antonio, Texas for a very special “Top 10” list to explain.

“I retired,” Letterman told the crowd, with Martin Short and Steve Martin by his side. “I have no regrets. None. I was happy, I’ll make actual friends, I was complacent, I was satisfied, I was content. And then a couple of days ago Donald Trump said he was running for president.”

“I have made the biggest mistake of my life.”

Among the zingers reserved for Trump, “During sex, Donald Trump calls out his own name” and “He wants to build a wall? How about building a wall around the thing on his head?” drive it home.

Watch below for the full list:

Credit – 

David Letterman Comes Out of Retirement to Call Out Donald Trump

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on David Letterman Comes Out of Retirement to Call Out Donald Trump

Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Martin O’Malley amped up his effort Thursday to win over the Democratic Party’s left wing—to out-Sanders Bernie Sanders—and become the progressive alterative to presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, releasing an antagonistic open letter to “Wall Street’s Megabanks.”

The former Maryland governor’s desired niche in the Democratic field is currently occupied by Sanders, the Vermont senator and a self-described Democratic socialist who is drawing massive crowds and surging in the polls. Sanders and O’Malley have been duking it out with a series of policy proposals aimed at outflanking each other on the political left, with O’Malley the underdog in this two-man face-off.

Yesterday, in response to Sanders’ pitch for tuition-free college, O’Malley came out for debt-free college. Today, O’Malley’s brandished his aggressively worded missive to Wall Street.

“So here’s the bad news—for you: As President, I have no plans to let up on you,” O’Malley wrote in his open letter, circulated to supporters and reporters, along with his plan for financial reform. “I’ll work tirelessly to eliminate the unique danger posed by the handful of too-big-to-fail banks. And while I’m doing that, I’ll finally bring real enforcement and oversight to the federal government—to agencies and departments like the Department of Justice, Securities Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission—so that they start doing the job the American people expect them to do and stop sitting on their hands.”

O’Malley’s confrontational approach to Wall Street isn’t just about Sanders. It’s also a challenge to Clinton, who has longstanding ties to Wall Street and a history of taking large speaking fees from big banks. And though Clinton praises Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, she hasn’t adopted that progressive champion’s favorite Wall Street reform policies.

Read the full O’Malley letter below:

Open Letter to Wall Street’s Megabanks

As you may have read, I’ve expressed grave concern about the state of our national economy, especially as it relates to the behavior of a select group of financial institutions on Wall Street—the institutions that you work for and represent. I have called for significant structural and accountability reforms to prevent another economic crash and protect hard-working families from losing their jobs, homes, and life savings once again.

Most of our financial system works quite well. Of the almost 6,500 banks in our country, most of which work hard every day to serve their communities, just 29 have more than $100 billion in assets and only four have more than $1 trillion in assets. The high-risk, reckless, and illegal activities of your megabanks were the primary cause of the 2008 crash, which caused the worst recession since The Great Depression, and cost the American economy an estimated $14 trillion to $22 trillion.

I know that many of you have tried to dismiss and undermine my calls for stronger reforms as “anti-capitalist.” Let me be clear- the ongoing reckless behavior of your megabanks isn’t capitalism—it’s the antithesis of it. True capitalism requires a level playing field on which everyone plays by the same set of rules. True capitalism requires competition. True capitalism means that just as businesses and banks can succeed—they can also fail.

Today, your—too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-manage, and too-big-to-jail—megabanks pose an enormous risk to the financial system, the economy, and American families. They are so big and so interconnected with the entire financial system that the failure of one or more of them could cause the collapse of the entire U.S. economy.

After several misguided deregulatory measures taken in the 1990’s, your handful of megabanks went from having assets of approximately 15% of our country’s GDP to now having assets of nearly 65% of our GDP. As your megabanks grew in size, who gained from it? Credit card fees didn’t get smaller. Mortgage rates didn’t go down. The median wages of Americans certainly didn’t increase. The only tangible gain we’ve seen from your institutions’ explosion in size is your ability to concentrate unprecedented power and wealth in the hands of your executives and to acquire the guarantee that all of your risky bets will be covered by taxpayers.

Now, because your institutions are so large, so leveraged, and pose such a grave threat to our economy, you don’t face the same rules of the free market that apply to everyone else. If your bets go bad, you don’t face bankruptcy—taxpayers bail you out. When things go well, the upside is all yours and you get to cash in exorbitant bonuses. This violates the very principle of free market capitalism.

For similar reasons, both your megabanks—and your executives—have been somehow classified as too big to prosecute and too big to jail. Exacerbating the problem, our financial regulation system is defined by conflicts of interest and a lucrative revolving door. Former financial executives are hired to regulate their former colleagues and, when they leave for government, they’re given golden parachutes. Then, they turn right around and return to the firms they were supposed to be regulating.

All of this explains why, when laws are broken, you and your institutions get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist—fines paid by shareholders that you can write off as nothing more than business expenses. No admission of guilt, no one faces jail time, everybody keeps their jobs — back to bonuses as usual.

As President, I would end this double standard of justice. It is bad for our economy, and it is bad for our country.

A strong American economy depends on a strong, financial industry that plays by the rules. And among the greatest victims of your megabanks have been the thousands of community banks that are the backbone of our economy. These banks provide the financing for the American Dream of homes, businesses, educations, and secure retirements. Yet they’re forced to compete on an un-level playing field—one where they bear the brunt of declining credit and wages—and where megabanks are rewarded with subsidies and bailouts.

So here’s the bad news—for you: As President, I have no plans to let up on you. I’ll work tirelessly to eliminate the unique danger posed by the handful of too-big-to-fail banks. And while I’m doing that, I’ll finally bring real enforcement and oversight to the federal government—to agencies and departments like the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission—so that they start doing the job the American people expect them to do and stop sitting on their hands.

If you—and your megabanks—which we, the American taxpayer, saved want to begin to restore the confidence in your leadership, you need to start by saying two things: “we’re sorry” and “thank you.”

Then, you have to do the right things: stop your war on financial reform, start following the law, and end your highest-risk, most dangerous activities so that your megabanks are in fact no longer too-big-to-fail.

View original: 

Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

Obamacare Survives Supreme Court to Fight Another Day

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hey, I finally got one right! The Supreme Court decided to keep Obamacare subsidies intact, with both Roberts and Kennedy voting with the liberal judges in a 6-3 decision. And apparently they upheld the subsidies on the plainest possible grounds:

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he added. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

So this had nothing to do with the possibility that if Congress required states to build their own exchanges in order to get subsidies, that would be unconstitutional coercion on the states. That had been something a few of us speculated on in recent days. Instead it was a white bread ruling: laws have to be interpreted in their entirety, and the entirety of Obamacare very clearly demonstrated that Congress intended subsidies to go to all states, not just those who had set up their own exchanges.

So that’s that. As far as I know, there are no further serious legal challenges to Obamacare. The only challenge left is legislative, if Republicans capture both the House and the Senate and manage to get a Republican elected president. So let’s all hope that doesn’t happen, m’kay?

This article is from: 

Obamacare Survives Supreme Court to Fight Another Day

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Survives Supreme Court to Fight Another Day