Tag Archives: prison

6 Years Ago, New York Banned the Shackling of Pregnant Inmates. So Why Are These Women Still Being Restrained?

Mother Jones

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

When Maria Caraballo delivered her daughter in 2010, she was handcuffed to the hospital bed.

“They didn’t even remove my cuffs for me to hold my baby,” says Caraballo, who at the time was serving a prison sentence in New York. “I had to hold my baby with one hand for two to three seconds. They didn’t take my handcuffs off until after I was stitched up and in the prison ward, and I didn’t see my baby until the next day.”

Caraballo gave birth to her daughter a year after it became illegal to shackle incarcerated women during childbirth in New York. But her experience wasn’t necessarily unique: New evidence published earlier this year suggests many women continue to be shackled in violation of the law. And now, six years after restraining pregnant inmates was first restricted in the state, an anti-shackling bill is once again headed to the governor’s desk.

Handcuffs, waist chains, and ankle shackles are commonly used to restrain inmates who are transported out of prison, whether it’s for a trial, facility transfer, or medical attention. And though it’s hard to imagine someone making a break for it during labor, shackles are routinely used to restrain women inmates during childbirth, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which has called the practice “inhumane.” It’s “almost never justified by the need for safety and security for medical staff, the public or correctional officers,” the ACLU has said.

The medical community agrees. “Physical restraints have interfered with the ability of physicians to safely practice medicine by reducing their ability to assess and evaluate the physical condition of the mother and fetus, and have similarly made the labor and delivery process more difficult than it needs to be,” wrote the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a 2007 statement, “overall putting the health and lives of the women and unborn children at risk.”

The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Nurse Midwives also oppose shackling during childbirth, as do the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the American Correctional Association, two of the country’s primary prison accreditation organizations.

In the last decade, more states have passed laws restricting the use of shackling on inmates during childbirth. New York became the sixth state to ban restraints during birth when in 2009 then-Gov. David Paterson signed the Anti-Shackling Bill, which prohibited shackling during labor, delivery, and recovery. And since the passage of New York’s ban, at least 15 states followed suit.

But a study published earlier this year by the Correctional Association of New York (CA), a nonprofit organization with the authority to inspect prisons, found that 23 of the 27 women inmates interviewed who’d given birth while incarcerated had been shackled in violation of the law. There are an estimated 30 births each year under the supervision of state and local corrections, according to the correctional association.

“The 2009 law did seem to curtail the practice of shackling during delivery in the hospital” says Tamar Kraft-Stolar, director of the association’s Women in Prison project. “But we found that many women experienced shackling during labor, and many experienced it right after they gave birth and on the way back to the prison.”

Kraft-Stolar attributes the continued shackling of these women to a lack of education. Some correctional officers may not know about the law, and without oversight, there’s no way to enforce it. That’s why Kraft-Stolar and other criminal justice reform advocates are hopeful that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will sign Assembly Bill 6430, an update to the 2009 law that would ban the use of restraints on pregnant inmates at any point during their pregnancy and until eight weeks after childbirth.

Passed by both chambers of the state legislature in June and now waiting for the governor’s signature, the bill would also require that every pregnant inmate be notified of her right to not be shackled. It would allow shackling in extraordinary circumstances—with the approval of both the superintendent and chief medical officer and only when a woman is threatening to hurt herself or someone else. However, each incident would have to be reported to the state.

The legislation has a long list of backers, including New York’s correctional officers’ union, which recently expressed its support.

“While it is our duty to monitor all inmates at all times, there are better uses of limited resources than to continue a practice that applies to several dozen pregnant inmates in our prisons who do not pose an immediate threat to the safety and security of our officers and our facilities,” the union said in a statement earlier this month.

And Kraft-Stolar says the legislation can only do so much. “The best solution to the problem of shackling is to not lock women up in the first place,” she says. “Prisons are breeding grounds for human rights violations, and the best way to avoid those violations is to keep people out of prison.”

View original post here: 

6 Years Ago, New York Banned the Shackling of Pregnant Inmates. So Why Are These Women Still Being Restrained?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 6 Years Ago, New York Banned the Shackling of Pregnant Inmates. So Why Are These Women Still Being Restrained?

Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

Mother Jones

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

“Hillary and I both feel a special indebtedness for the friendship and the leadership of Joe Biden,” Bill Clinton said during a November 1994 campaign rally in Wilmington, Del., the evening before the midterm elections. “Without him, there would have been no crime bill this year. And because of him, lives will be saved and children will grow up safer and this country will be a less violent place in the years ahead. We are in his great and abiding debt.”

Then-Sen. Joe Biden had scored a career-defining victory that year. After a good deal of twisting the arms of his colleagues, Biden managed to shepherd the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act through the Senate.

Biden’s bill put over 100,000 new cops on the street and spent $9.7 billion on the construction of new prisons. The wide-ranging bill implemented a host of liberal policies, including an assault weapon ban and the Violence Against Women Act. But it also expanded the number of crimes that qualify as death penalty cases, bumped up mandatory minimum sentences, criminalized gang membership, eliminated Pell Grants for inmates, and put in place mandatory drug testing for people on supervised release. States had to implement policies that greatly reduced opportunities for parole in order to qualify for the new prison funding.

Clinton was right that crime rates would soon drop. The exact cause for the nationwide decrease in crime is up for debate. (We at Mother Jones have a favorite theory.) But there’s little question that Biden’s law helped cement the nation’s system of mass incarceration. “We took a shotgun to it and just sent everybody to jail for too long,” Clinton says now of the bill.

Joe Biden is reportedly eyeing a 2016 campaign bid to challenge Hillary Clinton, with a final decision expected early next month. There’s a Draft Biden super-PAC that has been agitating for Joe, pushing him as the more genuine alternative to Clinton, who’s perceived as over-manufactured by poll-driven talking points.

Yet should he enter the race, Biden will face a Democratic electorate that has grown increasingly concerned with mass incarceration and the disparities minorities face in the criminal justice system—particularly when it comes to the mandatory minimums Biden helped augment. The issue has already bedeviled a few of Biden’s potential Democratic opponents, who have struggled to answer questions about race and justice. At the liberal confab Netroots Nation last month, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were both shouted down by Black Lives Matter protestors who challenged the presidential candidates over whether the could confront structural racism, with both offering answers that didn’t satisfy the activists. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been actively courting Black Lives Matter activists at events and in online postings.

Like many Democrats who served in the 1980s and early 1990s, Biden has a complicated history with the criminal justice system. As crime rates spiked across the country, Democrats adopted a harsh tough-on-crime posture. Yet few pushed the issue quite as hard as Biden. During the 1980s he was a staunch advocate for ramping up the war on drugs. Biden devised the national “drug czar” position and worked alongside Republicans during the Ronald Reagan years to craft oppressive anti-drug laws, including co-sponsoring the law that instituted far longer prison terms for possession of crack cocaine than of powder cocaine. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander called Biden “one of the Senate’s most strident drug warriors.”

“There’s a tendency now to talk about Joe Biden as the sort of affable if inappropriate uncle, as loudmouth and silly,” Naomi Murakawa, author of The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, said in an interview with The Marshall Project. “But he’s actually done really deeply disturbing, dangerous reforms that have made the criminal justice system more lethal and just bigger.”

Biden’s anti-crime efforts culminated in the massive crime bill he pushed through the Senate in 1994. Crime rates had peaked a few years earlier, and the country was on edge following the Rodney King riots. “It was a time in our criminal justice history that people were very scared,” says Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center’s Justice Program. “A lot of this had to do with the media, and fear. But it was a time when there was more violence, there was more crime, and the urban centers were part of this crack epidemic. A lot of people were scared of what was happening. Since then, crime has been cut in half, and at the same time we’ve increased our jails and prisons. We now incarcerate 2.3 million people.”

The crime bill increased mass incarceration by pushing states to keep felons locked away for longer periods of time. In order to receive the law’s funds dedicated to constructing new prisons, states had to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws: policies that reduce options for early parole and generally force inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their original sentences. Before the crime bill, just five states had those strict policies on the books. Within five years of the crime bill, 29 states had adopted truth-in-sentencing provisions. “The country had already been on this trajectory of creating more draconian sentencing policies,” Eisen says. “And then the crime bill was so significant because they incentivized the states to create harsher penalties.” Those harsher penalties led to an explosion in the prison population, which has doubled since the early ’90s.

In addition to keeping people in jail longer, Biden’s crime bill also made it harder for them to reenter society once they were released by ending the Pell Grants that had allowed inmates to receive further education while imprisoned. “All of the research indicates that education increases post-release employment, reduces recidivism, improves reentry outcomes,” Eisen says. “The research is there that cutting Pell Grants for inmates and eliminating this education funding is just not smart policy.”

The vice president’s office didn’t respond to a Mother Jones inquiry on whether Biden regretted any portion of the 1994 crime bill or stood by the full measure.

As Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden has dropped much of the tough-on-crime language. Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, Biden said that cops and minority communities need to bridge their divides. “We need to agree in this nation on two basic statements of truth,” Biden said. “Cops have a right to go home at night to see their families. And two, all minorities, no matter what their neighborhood, have a right to be treated with respect and with dignity. All life matters.” During a police conference later that month in Washington, DC, Biden suggested that tensions between cops and the communities they police had been overblown. “This is not nearly as bad as it has been in the past,” Biden said. “The press exaggerates how far off this is. But we have to nip it in the bud.”

Earlier this year, Biden contributed an essay to a collection titled Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice, compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. The book assembled thoughts on criminal justice from a host of 2016 candidates. Hillary Clinton wrote that the country had “allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and I hope that the tragedies of the last year give us the opportunity to come together as a nation to find our balance again.” Marco Rubio said that the US needs to “reduce the number of crimes.” Rand Paul called for ending mandatory minimums, noting that “our criminal justice system traps nonviolent offenders—disproportionately African-American men—in a cycle of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration.”

Biden? He touted the old community policing policies from his 1994 bill.

Source article: 

Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

Posted in alo, Anchor, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Before He Was America’s Wacky Uncle, Joe Biden Was a Tough-on-Crime Hardliner

Trump Takes Big GOP Lead, But Plummets After McCain Remarks

Mother Jones

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

Today brings the latest presidential poll from the fine folks at ABC News and the Washington Post. The big news is that Hillary Clinton has maintained her 63-14 percent lead over Bernie Sanders.

Just kidding! I know you don’t care about that. You want to know what’s going on over in GOP-ville. Your answer is in the chart on the right. Walker and Bush have both gained slightly over the last month, but nearly every other candidate has lost support. And where has that support gone? To Donald Trump, of course. But then there’s this:

How long the Trump surge lasts is an open question; this poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday, mostly before his controversial criticism Saturday of Sen. John McCain’s status as a war hero. And Trump’s support was conspicuously lower Sunday than in the three previous days.

In a hypothetical three-way matchup between Clinton, Bush, and Trump, Trump’s support was 21 percent from Thursday to Saturday, vs. 13 percent in Sunday interviews.

There’s no telling how this plays out. If Trump implodes—and he will eventually, even if his McCain comments don’t do the trick—it’s likely that his supporters will shift to tea-party conservatives: Huckabee, Cruz, Perry, maybe Rubio, and probably Walker. But not Bush.

Or….well, who knows? ABC News tells us that Trump’s support dropped in Sunday interviews, but they don’t tell us who that support shifted to. We’ll have to wait and see. Maybe Bush will come out of this better than I think.

View article:  

Trump Takes Big GOP Lead, But Plummets After McCain Remarks

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Takes Big GOP Lead, But Plummets After McCain Remarks

Big Banks Get Their New Marching Orders From the Fed

Mother Jones

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

Seven years after the great banking meltdown of 2008, and five years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, the Fed has finally announced new capital requirements for large, systemically important banks that could devastate the financial system if they failed. These new requirements can be met only with common equity, the safest form of capital, and are in addition to the 7 percent common equity level already required of all banks:

J.P. Morgan would face a capital “surcharge” of 4.5% of its risk-weighted assets under the final rule. The other seven firms must maintain an additional capital buffer of between 1% and 3.5%….The size of each bank’s additional capital requirement is tailored to the firm’s relative riskiness, as measured by a formula created by international regulators and the Fed. A bank’s surcharge can grow or shrink depending on changes such as size, complexity and entanglements with other big firms.

….“A key purpose of the capital surcharge is to require the firms themselves to bear the costs that their failure would impose on others,” Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said in a written statement prepared for this afternoon’s open meeting. “They must either hold substantially more capital, reducing the likelihood that they will fail, or else they must shrink their systemic footprint, reducing the harm that their failure would do to our financial system.”

Leverage, leverage, leverage. That’s the big lesson we should have learned from the Great Meltdown. And the cleanest and easiest way to reduce leverage is to increase capital requirements. This is a good move in the right direction, though it probably doesn’t go far enough.

It also applies only to ordinary banks, not to the shadow banking sector—which, in retrospect, appears to have been at least as big a contributor to the financial collapse as conventional banks. But that’s a tougher nut to crack. It will probably be a while before we see how the Fed plans to handle that.

See the original post:  

Big Banks Get Their New Marching Orders From the Fed

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Banks Get Their New Marching Orders From the Fed

Uber vs. Taxis: Who Does Better in Low-Income Neighborhoods?

Mother Jones

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

Does Uber routinely pick up riders in good neighborhoods but avoid those who call in from poor neighborhoods? A new study suggests it doesn’t. Mark Kleiman, who played a small role in the study, explains what it found:

The design could hardly have been simpler; we sent pairs of riders to call for taxi service or use an app to summon UberX for travel along pre-planned routes. The riders recorded how long it took….After each ride, the riders switched off; whoever took a taxi last time took an Uber next time. Our riders didn’t know that Uber had paid for the study.

The answer was clear-cut, and consistent across neighborhoods and days: summoning an UberX took less than half as long as calling for a taxi, and the trip cost less than half as much. UberX was also more reliable, with no very long wait times.

Even though Uber had no control over our data analysis or interpretation, the fact that Uber paid for the study makes some skepticism about our results natural and proper. We will happily share our data and methods with other research teams for re-analysis and replication.

It was not possible for a single study in a single city to answer all the relevant questions about ridesharing. Would the same relationship hold in other cities? Would it hold in the small number of very-high-crime neighborhoods we excluded in order to protect our riders? Would it hold after dark?….So this study ought to be the beginning of the scientific effort rather than the end.

This is tentatively good news for Uber. As Mark says, it’s a beginning, not the final word in how Uber compares to taxis. They didn’t test in high-crime neighborhoods, and obviously Uber’s requirement for a smartphone and a credit card automatically precludes the very poor from using their service at all.

Still, an interesting first cut, and it’s basically fairly cheap research to carry out. The full report is here.

See original article here: 

Uber vs. Taxis: Who Does Better in Low-Income Neighborhoods?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uber vs. Taxis: Who Does Better in Low-Income Neighborhoods?

Friday Cat Blogging – 17 July 2015

Mother Jones

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

A few days ago the Hallmark Channel decided to present us with a showing of kitten baseball. We recorded it, since you never know when a few minutes of zoning out in front of adorable kittens might be just what you need. But it turned out that Hopper was fascinated. She stared at the kittens on the screen, then moved closer, then jumped up on the cabinet to get an even closer look. Unfortunately, the light was bad and I couldn’t get any good pictures.

The next day I tried again in the morning light. But this time Hopper was busy with other feline priorities, while Hilbert, who had sat around like a furry, bored medicine ball the night before, suddenly took over. He couldn’t take his eyes off the screen. And that’s how you see him today, staring avidly at an orange-and-white kitten on the television. Now that’s cat TV.

Original source:

Friday Cat Blogging – 17 July 2015

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 17 July 2015

“Streamlining” Government Is a Dubious Campaign Message, Especially For Democrats

Mother Jones

A few days ago I criticized a policy analysis from Stan Greenberg that, among other things, recommended that Democrats run on a commitment to streamlining government. But exactly what concrete proposals would that entail? Today, Mark Schmitt takes a crack at answering:

“Streamlining” government does not have to involve only cutting costs, though that might be a part of it. The tax code, for example, is now as complex for low- and middle-income taxpayers as for the wealthy, littered with credits and deductions, some refundable and some not. Streamlining government could include a strong commitment to making the tax code simpler at the low end and shifting resources to fight fraud at the top end. It could include, for example, efforts to create a single, simple portal to government services ranging from health insurance under the Affordable Care Act to small business assistance—similar to the “no wrong door” initiatives in several states.

Above all, it should include a positive vision of reform of the political process, and the role of money, that does more than reimpose limits on the political influence of the very wealthy, but empowers citizens as donors and participants. And, the most difficult challenge of all, there has to be an effort to restore to the public face of government, the legislative process, a sense of compromise and shared commitment to the public good, despite deep disagreements.

Simplifying the tax code for the middle class is fine, I suppose, though nearly half the population already files either 1040 EZ or short forms. But that single portal sounds to me like something that’s way, way, way harder than it sounds. Maybe I’m wrong about that. But in order to make a difference, not only does this portal have to be a work of genius, so do all the things it leads to. It doesn’t do any good to make it easy to find Obamacare if it’s still a pain in the ass to sign up for it. Honestly—and I say this from at least a little experience—this is the kind of thing that sounds good until you have to put together the interagency committee to actually create it.

I don’t mean to just pooh pooh other people’s ideas. But I think it’s telling that Schmitt had only two or three proposals, and most of them are either really hard or probably not that effective.

Look: the US government is really big. There’s no way around that. And as every large corporation in the world knows, there’s just a limit to how easy you can make things when a bureaucracy gets really big. There’s no magic wand. That said, here’s what I’d like to see: some detailed polling work that digs below the surface of “streamlining” and asks people just what it is about the government that really burns them up. I suspect (but don’t know!) that you’d discover a few things:

A lot of complaints—probably the majority—would be about state and local issues. (Business licenses, building inspections, traffic tickets, etc. etc.)
A lot of the complaints would be unrelated to government complexity: taxes are too high, guns should be unregulated, abortions should be outlawed, and so forth.
When we finally got to the complaints that are (a) about the federal government and (b) truly about the difficulty of getting something done, the griping would be all over the map. The truth is that it’s mostly businesses—especially large ones—that engage frequently with federal regulations. Aside from taxes and Medicare/Social Security, most individuals don’t very often. But when they do, they’re naturally going to believe that their particular circumstance should have been way easier to handle. In some cases they’re right. In most cases, they simply don’t know how many different circumstances the agency in question has to handle.

I’m not saying nothing can be done. I just have a suspicion that complaints about the “incompetence” or “red tape” of the federal government are mostly smokescreens for other things. Those other things are laws that people just don’t like, or fees they just don’t want to pay, or stuff they’ve merely heard from friends or the media.

This isn’t to say that streamlining government is a bad idea. It’s not. It’s a good idea! But I want details backed up by actual research, and even then, I suspect there’s less we can do than we think. As a platform for a campaign, I’m even more skeptical. Maybe a proposal to streamline some specific program that lots of people use and lots of people hate would work. But “streamlining government” as a generic pitch? I doubt it—especially for Democrats. It would be like Republicans wanting to “streamline” taxes for the rich. Would you believe them?

Originally from:

“Streamlining” Government Is a Dubious Campaign Message, Especially For Democrats

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Streamlining” Government Is a Dubious Campaign Message, Especially For Democrats

Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

Mother Jones

It’s hardly surprising when Democrats criticize Grover Norquist, the godfather of the anti-tax movement. But following like sheep behind Norquist’s demands to lower taxes always and everywhere has gotten states in so much trouble that even some Republicans are now begging him to be a little less obstinate. Sadly for Louisiana, Norquist is having none of it:

A group of self-described “conservative” Republican state representatives took their complaints to Norquist himself, asking him to give them some wiggle room on raising taxes and to shoot down some Jindal-backed legislation that they say would set a “dangerous precedent” in how government could mask revenue hikes.

….Sunday’s letter — signed by Louisiana House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Joel Robideaux (R) and 10 other state Republican representatives — asked Norquist to take into account the previous tax cuts Louisiana has passed in recent years and the effect they will have in the future when assessing whether the state is in compliance with the no tax pledge….Furthermore it asked Norquist to weigh in on the so-called SAVE proposal, which they said would allow governments in the future to raise billions of dollars in revenue in the guise of a revenue-neutral budget.

….However, Norquist refused to take the bait. While declining to come out for or against the tax credit proposal, he said it qualified as an offset and asked the lawmakers, “If you don’t like the SAVE Act, why not find other offsetting tax cuts that are more to your liking? “Norquist also scoffed at the Republicans’ plea that their past tax cuts be taken into account, writing “under that logic, President Obama could argue he didn’t raise taxes.”

In other words, go pound sand. But then, what did they expect? Norquist has one and only one thing going for him—thou shalt never raise taxes, no how, no way—and Bobby Jindal is still delusional enough to think he’s running for president. So no taxes are going to be raised in the Pelican State. And if that causes massive pain and dislocation? Well, that’s just tough, isn’t it?

Source – 

Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

Here’s Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men

Mother Jones

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

Jeet Heer investigates a burning question today: why are most libertarians men? He offers several plausible explanations, but I think he misses the real one, perhaps because it’s pretty unflattering to libertarians.

So here’s the quick answer: hard core libertarianism is a fantasy. It’s a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they’ve been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they’d naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

Most of them are wrong, of course. In a truly libertarian culture, nearly all of them would be squashed like ants—mostly by the same people who are squashing them now. But the fantasy lives on regardless.

Few women share this fantasy. I don’t know why, and I don’t really want to play amateur sociologist and guess. Perhaps it’s something as simple as the plain observation that in the more libertarian past, women were subjugated to men almost completely. Why would that seem like an appealing fantasy?

Anyway, this is obviously simplistic and unflattering, and libertarians are going to be offended by it. Sorry. But feel free to take some guesses in comments about why women don’t take to libertarianism as strongly as men.

Continued here:

Here’s Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men

Edward Snowden Didn’t Expose the NSA’s Bulk Phone Collection Program. Leslie Cauley Did.

Mother Jones

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

The LA Times complains today that President Obama left someone out when he praised Congress for reforming the Patriot Act to end the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone records:

Unacknowledged by the president was the man who can fairly be called the ultimate author of this legislation: former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who has been charged with violating the Espionage Act and is now living in exile in Russia. Without Snowden’s unauthorized disclosures two years ago, neither the public nor many members of Congress would have known that the government, acting under a strained interpretation of the Patriot Act, was vacuuming up and storing millions of Americans’ telephone records. That program will end after a six-month transition period under the bill signed by Obama.

I don’t want to minimize Snowden’s contribution here. He exposed a vast amount of official secrecy and lying, and did it in a way that produced a lot of public attention. Whether you love him or hate him, he deserves a ton of credit for doing what he did.

But it’s been a long-running pet peeve of mine that hardly anyone ever credits the person who was really the first to expose the NSA’s bulk data collection program: Leslie Cauley of USA Today. Here she is in May 2006, seven years before Snowden’s disclosures:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime….The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders.

….For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others….With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans.

…..Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

The big difference between Cauley and Snowden isn’t so much in what they revealed about the bulk collection program, but simply that the world yawned at Cauley and did nothing. It wasn’t until Snowden revealed far more about the NSA’s activities that the bulk collection program finally got the attention it deserved.

Snowden deserves credit for that—and, obviously, for providing lots of concrete evidence about the nature of the program. But when it comes to exposing the bulk collection program itself? Cauley told us all about it nearly a decade ago. She’s the one who deserves credit for making it public in the first place.

Source:  

Edward Snowden Didn’t Expose the NSA’s Bulk Phone Collection Program. Leslie Cauley Did.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Edward Snowden Didn’t Expose the NSA’s Bulk Phone Collection Program. Leslie Cauley Did.