Showing posts with label Ground. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ground. Show all posts

Monday, March 24, 2014

9/11 Museum Set to Open at Ground Zero Will ‘Educate Future Generations’

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


9/11 Museum Set to Open at Ground Zero Will ‘Educate Future Generations’

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Florida Sheriff: Stand Your Ground Law a "Recipe for Disaster"

A Florida sheriff says he bucked his fellow officers in not supporting the state’s controversial Stand Your Ground law because it’s a “recipe for disaster.”

“An individual certainly has the right to defend his life or anyone else’s life in his or her house and . . . in public as well,” Boward County Sheriff Scott Israel told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.


“I don’t believe that an individual should participate in the conflict or escalate the conflict if he or she can safely escape or safely get out of that controversial situation and not have a violent encounter,” he said Wednesday.


Last week, the Sunshine State’s law, which gives persons the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without needing to retreat, received unanimous support from the Florida Sheriffs Association.


While Israel was unable to attend the meeting where the vote was taken, he says he would have voted it down.


“If a prudent person would come to the conclusion that you can safely escape … then I believe it is incumbent upon you not to engage.


“We have accidental shootings, deputies and police officers throughout our nation get killed each year by their own handgun . . . It’s just a recipe for disaster,” he said.


“This is not the days of Tombstone, Arizona, the OK Corral. If you can’t safely escape and you’ve got to fight the fight, then I support that, but when we can safely escape . . . we need to do that.”


Israel says the case of George Zimmerman, in which the Neighborhood Watch volunteer was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, does not fall under Stand Your Ground.


“I don’t think Stand Your Ground was an issue there,” Israel said. “I believe it was more about race and was more about poor judgment.”


See “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV each weekday live by clicking here now.


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Florida Sheriff: Stand Your Ground Law a "Recipe for Disaster"

Friday, March 7, 2014

Atheists demand display of Nothing next to Ground Zero cross

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Atheists demand display of Nothing next to Ground Zero cross

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Oil, Natural-gas Futures Lose Ground


New York-traded oil and natural-gas futures lost ground in electronic trade Monday, with a slightly firmer U.S. dollar among the factors weighing on the contracts. Benchmark U.S. crude oil for March delivery fell 21 cents, or 0.2%, to $ 97.28 a barrel, extending a 0.8% retreat Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude for March , however, was little changed, adding 2 cents to trade at $ 106.42 a barrel. March natural gas extended its sharp downward trend, losing 11 cents, or 2.3%, to $ 4.83 per million British thermal units, with the loss coming on top of a 1.4% drop Friday.


Copyright © 2014 MarketWatch, Inc.




FOX Business



Oil, Natural-gas Futures Lose Ground

Sunday, December 15, 2013

[256] Robots Replacing Worlds" Teachers, FEMA Should Learn From India Cyclone, Gitmo on the Ground

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


[256] Robots Replacing Worlds" Teachers, FEMA Should Learn From India Cyclone, Gitmo on the Ground

Saturday, November 30, 2013

‘Stand your ground’ may apply in shooting death of Georgia man with Alzheimer’s

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



‘Stand your ground’ may apply in shooting death of Georgia man with Alzheimer’s

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

"Special Report" Panel: Boots On The Ground Instead Of Drone Strikes?


“Special Report” Panel: Boots On The Ground Instead Of Drone Strikes?





The “Special Report” panel discusses the two recent military raids in Somalia and Libya.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



"Special Report" Panel: Boots On The Ground Instead Of Drone Strikes?

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Friday, September 6, 2013

McCain: "There Would Be An Impeachment" If Obama Put Boots On Ground


“The fact is [Syrian President] Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading … The Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it’s an unfair fight,” McCain told KFYI-AM’s Mike Broomhead. “And no one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”




RealClearPolitics Video Log



McCain: "There Would Be An Impeachment" If Obama Put Boots On Ground

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Proposed bill will prohibit ‘Stand Your Ground’, require Neighborhood Watch to register with local and Fed. authorities


cscchceilaGuns.com


Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee reintroduced a bill on the House floor Wednesday that will prohibit states from having “Stand Your Ground” laws, and require neighborhood watch programs to register with local law enforcement and the Department of Justice. States that fail to follow these guidelines will be penalized by a 20 percent cut in federal funding.


According to Jackson Lee, “We will … decrease the incidence of gun violence resulting from vigilantes by reducing by 20 percent the funds that would otherwise be allocated … to any state that does not require local neighborhood watch programs to be registered with a local [law] enforcement agency.”  


The Justice Exists for All of Us Act would require that states change Stand Your Ground Laws to Duty to Retreat. In other words, if a person is found in a situation in where they feel threatened, they will not be allowed to use force unless they have first “retreated” or tried to avoid an escalating situation by removing themselves from the location.


In other words, the person must avoid conflict with their aggressor by “retreating” in order to be justified in using force, even if the person has every right to be in that place to begin with. The aggressor then must follow and continue to initiate threatening behavior for the person to use force. Even then, the person still has the burden of proving that they were justified in that use of force.


Currently, Stand Your Ground laws allow for the use of force when one’s life is threatened provided that person has a lawful right to be in the location.


However, laws vary tremendously from state to state and while some laws are more specific, some leave gray areas that are ultimately interpreted by either a judge or jury.


The proposed act would also require that the establishment, organization or operation of a neighborhood watch program be registered with local law enforcement and the DOJ. Additionally, anyone who participates in such watch programs must also be registered within the same system.


While some neighborhood watch programs already work closely with local law enforcement, others do not. There are no strict and rigid rules and regulations for establishment or participation in neighborhood watch programs, as they were originally introduced as a way of neighbors simply looking out for neighbors. Additionally, in many areas, especially those riddled with high crime or rural locations, law enforcement is already stretched thin. Many of these areas simply do not have the extra resources to work with neighborhood watch programs to ensure that they are up to Jackson Lee’s standards.


The bill was originally introduced by Jackson Lee in June of last year in a previous session of Congress, but it has yet to be enacted. The proposed legislation was drafted as a result of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman.


Although Zimmerman was recently found not guilty on both murder and manslaughter charges, the case has thrown Stand Your Ground laws into the media and political spotlight, regardless of the fact that such laws had no effect on the case, as it was essentially a matter of self-defense, not Stand Your Ground.


While this fact was pointed out to Jackson Lee, her press secretary Mike McQuerry stated, “She just thinks it’s the right time to pursue it now.”


“Let’s speak to the pain of the American people,” Jackson Lee reiterated. “Let’s look at ways of fixing the law.”


But is the Stand Your Ground law broken and something that’s in need of fixing? That depends on who you ask.


Attorney General Eric Holder, who believes Martin was unlawfully murdered by Zimmerman as a result of racial profiling, agrees with Jackson Lee’s thinking, and feels that Stand Your Ground laws need to be repealed.


“We must confront the underlying attitudes, the mistaken beliefs and the unfortunate stereotypes that serve too often as the basis for police action and private judgments. Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhood,” Holder said earlier this month.


But what Jackson Lee and Holder have yet to publicly address is that the black community has actually benefited from the Stand Your Ground laws at a disproportionate rate, at least in the state of Florida anyway.


http://www.guns.com/2013/07/27/tx-rep-seeks-to-prohibit-stand-your-ground-laws-place-restrictions-on-neighborhood-watch-programs/






Proposed bill will prohibit ‘Stand Your Ground’, require Neighborhood Watch to register with local and Fed. authorities

Saturday, July 20, 2013

The Evil New "Stand Your Ground" Law That Made the Killing of Trayvon Martin Permissible



Nobody ever seriously suggested, in the trial or in the media, that Trayvon Martin had a right to stand *his* ground.








Why were Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman judged by different standards?


Ever since a Seminole County, Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty on Saturday night of murdering Trayvon Martin, many commentators in the mainstream media have made a special effort to point out that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground and Shoot First” law played no role whatsoever in Zimmerman’s acquittal.


Here, for example, is a clip – cut courtesy of Media Matters – of CNN’s Chris Cuomo dismissing Stand Your Ground’s impact on the case during a Sunday broadcast, less than a day after the jury announced its verdict.


Chris is just wrong. “Stand Your Ground” isn’t some stand-alone law, it’s a complete modification of Florida’s rules governing the use of deadly force for self-defense. As a result, it played an essential role in the Zimmerman trial. In fact, it created two different standards by which the six jurors judged both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.


As former Florida Secretary of State Dan Gelber has pointed out, pre-Jeb Bush, pre- Koch Brothers, and pre-ALEC Florida law would have required the following instructions to be read to a jury in a self-defense murder trial:


“The defendant [George Zimmerman] cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant [George Zimmerman] was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.”


Note that according to these jury instructions, the defendant must do everything possible, including retreating, before attempting to use deadly force.


When confronted with a threat in 2005 and before, whether it was a deadly threat or simply the threat of violence, or even when confronted with actual violence, like being punched in the face or knocked to the pavement, the legal obligation was to work yourself free and run.


All that changed in Florida in 2006, when Florida’s brand-spanking new and ALEC-promoted Stand Your Ground and Shoot First law came into effect.


Since 2006, post-Jeb Bush, post-Koch Brothers, and post-NRA and ALEC, the Stand Your Ground and Shoot First concept has become fully integrated into Florida’s law regarding self-defense and the use of deadly force.


This is why the jury instructions for the Zimmerman jury included Stand Your Ground language, because that language is now part of Florida’s laws about self-defense.


Listen carefully to the difference between the “You Must Retreat” language in the pre-2006 jury instructions and the instructions used in the Zimmerman trial. Remember, before 2006 Florida law said that even if the other guy started the fight, you still had an obligation to run. The old law read as follows:


“The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.”


By comparison, here are the Stand Your Ground instructions that actually were read to the Zimmerman jury:


“The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.


“George Zimmerman… had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself …”


George Zimmerman didn’t even have to have a threat of deadly force used against him. All he had to do was imagine that there was such a threat. And instead of running, he could stand his ground and shoot first to kill.


Even more interesting than this is that both in the actual Zimmerman trial and in the trial conducted in the American media, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were essentially on trial.


In the courtroom proceedings, Trayvon Martin was being judged as part of Zimmerman’s self-defense argument. “Why he didn’t run away from Zimmerman?” the defense asked. Because Martin didn’t run away, Zimmerman’s lawyers suggested that Zimmerman was justified in killing him. This was so explicit in the trial that defense attorney Mark O’Mara even asked for four minutes of silence during his closing arguments as if to demonstrate that Trayvon Martin had plenty of time to turn and run.


Here’s a clip of O’Mara’s remarks.


And in the media trial of Trayvon Martin, commentators have repeatedly asked, “why didn’t the seventeen year-old just run away from the armed man who was chasing him?”


As one of Florida’s most famous white pastors, Bill Keller, argued in a nationally published op-ed, “The facts were clear that Trayvon Martin had more than enough time to get back to his father"s house, but chose instead to confront Zimmerman, break his nose, and continue the violent attack.” In other words, Trayvon Martin should have run away.


So, the question: Why was Trayvon Martin judged, both in the trial and in the media, on the basis of the pre-2006 Florida self-defense law that requires a person to do everything they can to avoid violence up to and including running away?


And, equally troubling, if that was the standard that Trayvon Martin was held to, why was George Zimmerman, who actually held the gun and fired the shot, held to a different standard and allowed to stand his ground and kill and unarmed teenager without penalty?


Remember, nobody ever seriously suggested, in the trial or in the media, that Trayvon Martin had a right to stand his ground. Instead, everybody wanted to know why he didn’t run.


And remember that over and over again the media, George Zimmerman’s lawyers, and Judge Nelson herself explicitly said that George Zimmerman had the legal right to stand his ground and use deadly force if he even felt threatened. While Trayvon should have run, Zimmerman didn’t have to run.


Remember the actual instructions that Judge Nelson read to the jury about the standard to which George Zimmerman should be judged:


“George Zimmerman… had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another…”


Why were George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin judged by different standards? Why was Trayvon Martin judged according to pre-Koch brothers Florida law, while George Zimmerman was judged according to post-Koch brothers Florida law?  And, perhaps more importantly, why is nobody in the media pointing this out?


If you’re as astounded by this as I am, you may want to contact your local media outlet and ask them that question.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



The Evil New "Stand Your Ground" Law That Made the Killing of Trayvon Martin Permissible

Thursday, July 18, 2013

How a Libertarian Used Ayn Rand"s Crazy Philosophy to Drive Sears Into the Ground



Rand bequeathed business the perfect formula for failure. Just ask Sears.








Eddie Lampert, the legendary hedge fund manager, was once hailed as the “Steve Jobs of the investment world” and the second coming of Warren Buffett. These days, he claims the number 2 spot on Forbes’ list of America’s worst CEOs. He has destroyed Sears, the iconic retail giant founded in 1886, which used to be known as the place “Where America Shops.”


America now avoids Sears at all costs, thanks largely to Mr. Lampert and his love of twisted economic logic.


A bit of background: Lampert cut his teeth on Wall Street at the risk-arbitrage desk of Goldman Sachs under Robert Rubin, who later became U.S. Treasury Secretary and now serves as vice chairman at Citigroup. In 1988, Lampert founded ESL Investments and joined the billionaire"s club at age 41. He rose to fame in the early 2000s for seizing control of Kmart during bankruptcy and then using it to take over Sears. Along the way he was kidnapped and deposited on a motel toilet in handcuffs for nearly 40 hours, and lived to tell the tale. Lampert is known for his touchiness and odd habits, such as conducting meetings from a bare bones room to Sears executives forced to tune in by videoconference. He hates flying.


You might say that Lampert is the distillation of the fervent market worship and wrong-headed economic approaches that came to dominate the U.S. in the 1980s and have yet to run their fatal course. He adores Ayn Rand, and is reported to have given out copies of Atlas Shrugged during an ESL annual dinner. Lampert is also a fan of Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian economist beloved by conservatives and libertarians. As a Robert Rubin protégé, he absorbed the lessons of a man whose discredited economic focus on budget deficits ended up starving the country’s infrastructure, education and alternative energy.


Looking at what Lampert has done to Sears, we can see what happens when the lessons of his mentors are actually applied in the real world. It isn’t pretty.


1. Myth: Bigger is better


William Lazonick, an expert on the American business corporations, has written about the rise of the conglomerate movement of the 1960s. At the time, shareholders were clamoring for rapid growth, so they pushed for big mergers and acquisitions. Once-successful firms were pressured to move away from their core businesses, often to terrible effects.  In an email to me, Lazonick noted that “the ideology was that a good manager could manage anything, and that all the central office needed was performance statistics so that it could ‘manage by the numbers’.” This foolishness “imploded,” as Lazonick put it, in the 1970s.”


Evidently Lampert didn’t get the memo. In the 1980s, as deregulation got the casino games rolling on Wall Street, mergers and acquisition fever once again took hold. This time around, mergers more often involved acquisitions in the same industry, like Bristol Meyers" acquisition of Squibb. Two new terms entered the American vocabulary, the “hostile takeover” and the “corporate raider.” Oliver Stone made a movie about this episode called Wall Street.


Some refer to Lampert as a corporate raider. He prefers the term “active investor.” It must be admitted that Lampert wasn’t only interested in stripping the assets of his retail giant to make a fortune off it right away. He thought he could increase profits, too. After making a nice wad of cash from Kmart by selling off the valuable real estate sitting under dozens of stores, shutting down 600 stores and laying off tens of thousands of workers in the name of cost-cutting and thereby jacking up the stock price, he got bigger ideas. He would use Kmart to take over another ginormous retailer, Sears.


What background did Lampert have in retail? None at all. But never mind that. He was a Wall Street genius, and he would make this thing work by harnessing the power of data and numbers and letting the invisible hand of the market guide his Franken-company to glory. He even hired Paul DePodesta, the statistician of “Moneyball” fame, to advise him. When Kmart acquired Sears, the new company, Sears Holdings, became one of the largest retailers in the U.S., and Lampert became its CEO. He took on the Herculean task of integrating two vastly complex companies. And he brought on a guy that knew all about restaurants and nothing about retail to help him, Aylwin Lewis, former president of YUM! Brands.


Reactions ranged from surprise to predictions of doom. Mark Tatge at Forbescalled him “Crazy Eddie” and decided that he must be planning to liquidate the whole shebang, perhaps slowly, by dumping stores (Sears owns a ton of valuable real estate) and using the money to do stock buybacks (more on that later) that would further enrich him.


It turns out that contrary to Lampert’s notion, you actually do need to know something about a business in order to manage it well. There’s really no substitute for industry-specific experience. And bigger is not always better — a gigantic corporation can be too unwieldy and complex to thrive, especially when your management philosophy is derived from a writer of bad novels.


Sears and Kmart are now on well on their way to becoming vaporized as brands.


2. Myth: Self-interest is the greatest virtue


The neoclassical economic paradigm is built upon the idea a human being is little more than a globule of self-interest. It teaches that the market economy is populated by rational individuals whose selfishness is constrained only by expediency. Ayn Rand was an enthusiastic proponent of this idea in extreme form, and her celebration of it can be found in The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism,published in 1964, which explains, among other things, the destructiveness of altruism and the virtue of acting solely in your own self-interest.


At Sears, Lampert set out to create the Ayn Rand model of a giant firm. The company got a radical restructuring. It was something that had been tried at giant industrial conglomerates like GE, but never with a retailer.


First, Lampert broke the company into over 30 individual units, each with its own management, and each measured separately for profit and loss. Acting in their individual self-interest, they would be forced to compete with each other and thereby generate higher profits.


What actually happened is that units began to behave something like the cutthroat city-states of Italy around the time Machiavelli was penning his guide to rule-by-selfishness. As Mina Kimes has reported in Bloomberg Businessweek, they went to war with each other.


It got crazy. Executives started undermining other units because they knew their bonuses were tied to individual unit performance. They began to focus solely on the economic performance of their unit at the expense of the overall Sears brand.  One unit, Kenmore, started selling the products of other companies and placed them more prominently that Sears’ own products. Units competed for ad space in Sears’ circulars, and since the unit with the most money got the most ad space, one Mother’s Day circular ended up being released featuring a mini bike for boys on its cover. Units were no longer incentivized to make sacrifices, like offering discounts, to get shoppers into the store.


Sears became a miserable place to work, rife with infighting and screaming matches. Employees focused solely on making money in their own unit ceased to have any loyalty the company or stake in its survival. Eddie Lampert taunted employees by posting under a fake name on the company’s internal social network.


What Lampert failed to see is that humans actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization. They like to cooperate and collaborate, and they often work more productively when they have shared goals.  Take all of that away and you create a company that will destroy itself.


In 2012, Lampert bought a $ 40 million home on Indian Creek Island, near Miami, just around the time he decided to sell 1,200 Sears stores and close an additional 173. That same year, Sears Holding was named the sixth worst place in America to work by AOL Jobs. 


3. Myth: Greed always wins.


In the 1980s, a noxious business philosophy developed that said that shareholders were the only true stakeholders in a company, because they made the investments and bore the risk. Forget about the investments and risks born by taxpayer and the people that work for a company. They didn’t matter. A company had no responsibility to anybody but the shareholder.


As a result, executives started using this justification for various kinds of hustles designed to line their pockets. They got very adept at the game of buying back their own stock in a way designed to inflate earnings per share and hide weaknesses.


In 1977, 95 percent of distributions to shareholders came in the form of dividend payments.  Today, more than half of the cash returned to shareholders of S&P 500 companies comes from buybacks instead of dividends.


Fortune magazine, in a story about what happens when Wall Street jumps into the retail business, reports that under Lampert, Sears has gone on a stock buyback spree. Between 2005 and 2011, he took what was once the company’s strong cash flow and spent $ 6.1 billion of it on stock buybacks. During the same time period, only $ 3.6 billion was spent at Sears on capital improvements. Lampert told investors that upgrades and new stores were not an “efficient” use of capital. Neither was paying workers decently. In fact, Sears workers are paid so badly that they have taken to the streets to protest.


So when you walk into a Sears store today, you find a sad, dingy scene with scuffed floors and chipped paint. Tense-looking workers hover over merchandise scattered onto ugly display tables. Hardly makes you want to buy a microwave.


A handy chart on Yahoo Finace show that buybacks reached a high just about the time that Sears" sales went into the toilet. Stock buybacks are really just an effort to manipulate stock prices, and they don’t help a company’s long-term health. They divert money away from the things that a company needs to have to succeed, like decent salaries for workers and investments in new products and services. Wonder why Apple is no longer making anything interesting? Why its retail workers get paid squat? Check out what they’ve been doing with stock buybacks.


Lampert’s buyback scheme has raked in a pile of money for him and his early investors, but it’s also flushing the company down the drain. Hoovering cash out of any firm, especially a retailer that needs appealing stores and strong advertising, will eventually crush sales.


And so it has. Sears has lost half its value in five years.


Conclusion:  The lessons of Crazy Eddie seem so obvious that a bunch kids running a lemonade stand could understand them. You have to know something about the business you’re running Success require cooperations rather than constant competition. Greed is ultimately destructive.


The invisible hand of the market appears to have attempted to slap Lampert upside the head to teach him these things. But he remains committed to his nonsense, and the real losers are all the hard-working people who have lost their jobs, and the potential loss to the American economy of two revered brands.


It"s probably a good thing Ayn Rand never tried to run a business.


 


 


 


 


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



How a Libertarian Used Ayn Rand"s Crazy Philosophy to Drive Sears Into the Ground

Monday, July 15, 2013

Reid, McConnell yield no ground in filibuster showdown


U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media about an immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington June 18, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media about an immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington June 18, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas






WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:45pm EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate’s top Democrat and Republican yielded no ground on Sunday as they neared a showdown over President Barack Obama’s executive-branch nominees that could dramatically change how the Senate operates.


Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid charged that Republican obstructionism has prevented Obama from getting much of his second-term team in place.


Unless Republicans permit a number of Obama’s nominees to be confirmed this week, Reid has threatened to change the rules and strip Republicans of their ability to block the president’s picks with procedural roadblocks known as filibuster.


Nominees set for vote on Tuesday include Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Gina McCarthy to head of the Environmental Protection Agency; Thomas Perez as labor secretary, and three picks for the National Labor Relations Board.


“I want everyone to hear this. The changes we are making a very, very minimal,” Reid said, sounding as if a final decision had already been made.


“What we are doing is saying, ‘Look American people, shouldn’t President Obama have somebody working for whom he wants?’” Reid said.


Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell his party was obstructing the process and urged Democrats to reconsider plans for an unprecedented change in Senate rules.


Filibusters have long been part of the Senate’s basic fabric, providing the chamber’s minority leverage to extend debate and force the majority to compromise.


But in the past decade or so, each side, when in the majority, has accused the minority of misusing the filibuster to produce gridlock, not change.


Reid is moving toward abolishing the filibuster only on executive-branch nominees, not on judicial nominees or legislation.


Democrats charge that Republicans have blocked a number of top nominees, not because they are unqualified, but because Republicans oppose the agencies that they would head.


Senate rules state that 67 votes are needed to change its rules. But Democrats, who hold the Senate, 54-46, could do it with just 51 by essentially rewriting the rule book with a procedural power plan known as “the nuclear option.”


Once Democrats switched the threshold on rule changes, they would then reduce to 51 from 60 the number of votes needed to end filibusters on executive-branch nominees.


“The reason they call this the ‘nuclear option’ because it is breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate,” McConnell said in a separate appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


With Senate Democrats and Republicans set to meet privately on Monday to discuss their difference, McConnell urged calm.


“We need to start talking to each other rather than at each other,” said McConnell, who last week said Reid would go down as “the worst Senate leader ever” if he invoked “the nuclear option.”


In 2005, the then-Senate Republican majority threatened “the nuclear option” in response to Democrats blocking a number of Republican President George W. Bush conservative nominees.


At the time, Reid spoke against “the nuclear option,” saying it would undermine the Senate, while McConnell argued for it, saying change was needed.


The threat was averted when a bipartisan deal was reached only to filibuster judges in “extraordinary circumstances.”


“I’m glad we didn’t do it,” McConnell said of the 2005 showdown. “We went to the brink and we pulled back because cooler heads prevailed …. That is what I hope happens here.”


(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)






Reuters: Politics



Reid, McConnell yield no ground in filibuster showdown

Reid, McConnell yield no ground in filibuster showdown


U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media about an immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington June 18, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media about an immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington June 18, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas






WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:45pm EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate’s top Democrat and Republican yielded no ground on Sunday as they neared a showdown over President Barack Obama’s executive-branch nominees that could dramatically change how the Senate operates.


Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid charged that Republican obstructionism has prevented Obama from getting much of his second-term team in place.


Unless Republicans permit a number of Obama’s nominees to be confirmed this week, Reid has threatened to change the rules and strip Republicans of their ability to block the president’s picks with procedural roadblocks known as filibuster.


Nominees set for vote on Tuesday include Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Gina McCarthy to head of the Environmental Protection Agency; Thomas Perez as labor secretary, and three picks for the National Labor Relations Board.


“I want everyone to hear this. The changes we are making a very, very minimal,” Reid said, sounding as if a final decision had already been made.


“What we are doing is saying, ‘Look American people, shouldn’t President Obama have somebody working for whom he wants?’” Reid said.


Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell his party was obstructing the process and urged Democrats to reconsider plans for an unprecedented change in Senate rules.


Filibusters have long been part of the Senate’s basic fabric, providing the chamber’s minority leverage to extend debate and force the majority to compromise.


But in the past decade or so, each side, when in the majority, has accused the minority of misusing the filibuster to produce gridlock, not change.


Reid is moving toward abolishing the filibuster only on executive-branch nominees, not on judicial nominees or legislation.


Democrats charge that Republicans have blocked a number of top nominees, not because they are unqualified, but because Republicans oppose the agencies that they would head.


Senate rules state that 67 votes are needed to change its rules. But Democrats, who hold the Senate, 54-46, could do it with just 51 by essentially rewriting the rule book with a procedural power plan known as “the nuclear option.”


Once Democrats switched the threshold on rule changes, they would then reduce to 51 from 60 the number of votes needed to end filibusters on executive-branch nominees.


“The reason they call this the ‘nuclear option’ because it is breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate,” McConnell said in a separate appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


With Senate Democrats and Republicans set to meet privately on Monday to discuss their difference, McConnell urged calm.


“We need to start talking to each other rather than at each other,” said McConnell, who last week said Reid would go down as “the worst Senate leader ever” if he invoked “the nuclear option.”


In 2005, the then-Senate Republican majority threatened “the nuclear option” in response to Democrats blocking a number of Republican President George W. Bush conservative nominees.


At the time, Reid spoke against “the nuclear option,” saying it would undermine the Senate, while McConnell argued for it, saying change was needed.


The threat was averted when a bipartisan deal was reached only to filibuster judges in “extraordinary circumstances.”


“I’m glad we didn’t do it,” McConnell said of the 2005 showdown. “We went to the brink and we pulled back because cooler heads prevailed …. That is what I hope happens here.”


(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)






Reuters: Politics



Reid, McConnell yield no ground in filibuster showdown

Thursday, July 11, 2013

"They Throw Kids on the Ground, Put Guns to Their Heads" -- The Horrors Unleashed by Police Militarization



SWAT teams burst through doors armed to the teeth, terrifying (and killing) children. How did we get here?








 



The following is an excerpt from RISE OF THE WARRIOR COP: The Militarization of America"s Police Forces by Radley Balko.  Reprinted with permission from PublicAffairs Books.


Betty Taylor still remembers the night it all hit her.


As a child, Taylor had always been taught that police officers were the good guys. She learned to respect law enforcement, as she puts it, “all the time, all the way.” She went on to become a cop because she wanted to help people, and that’s what cops did. She wanted to fight sexual assault, particularly predators who take advantage of children. To go into law enforcement—to become one of the good guys—seemed like the best way to accomplish that. By the late 1990s, she’d risen to the rank of detective in the sheriff’s department of Lincoln County, Missouri—a sparsely populated farming community about an hour northwest of St. Louis. She eventually started a sex crimes unit within the department. But it was a small department with a tight budget. When she couldn’t get the money she needed, Taylor was forced to give speeches and write her own proposals to keep her program operating.




What troubled her was that while the sex crimes unit had to find funding on its own, the SWAT team was always flush with cash. “The SWAT team, the drug guys, they always had money,” Taylor says. “There were always state and federal grants for drug raids. There was always funding through asset forfeiture.” Taylor never quite understood that disparity. “When you think about the collateral effects of a sex crime, of how it can affect an entire family, an entire community, it just didn’t make sense. The drug users weren’t really harming anyone but themselves. Even the dealers, I found much of the time they were just people with little money, just trying to get by.”


The SWAT team eventually co-opted her as a member. As the only woman in the department, she was asked to go along on drug raids in the event there were any children inside. “The perimeter team would go in first. They’d throw all of the adults on the floor until they had secured the building. Sometimes the kids too. Then they’d put the kids in a room by themselves, and the search team would go in. They’d come to me, point to where the kids were, and say, ‘You deal with them.’” Taylor would then stay with the children until family services arrived, at which point they’d be placed with a relative.


Taylor’s moment of clarity came during a raid on an autumn evening in November 2000. Narcotics investigators had made a controlled drug buy a few hours earlier and were laying plans to raid the suspect’s home. “The drug buy was in town, not at the home,” Taylor says. “But they’d always raid the house anyway. They could never just arrest the guy on the street. They always had to kick down doors.” With just three hours between the drug buy and the raid, the police hadn’t done much surveillance at all. The SWAT team would often avoid raiding a house if they knew there were children inside, but Taylor was troubled by how little effort they put into seeking out that sort of information. “Three hours is nowhere near enough time to investigate your suspect, to find out who might be inside the house. It just isn’t enough time for you to know the range of things that could happen.”




That afternoon the police had bought drugs from the stepfather of two children, ages eight and six. Both were in the house at the time of the raid. The stepfather wasn’t.


“They did their thing,” Taylor says. “Everybody on the floor, guns and yelling. Then they put the two kids in the bedroom, did their search, then sent me in to take care of the kids.”


Taylor made her way inside to see them. When she opened the door, the eight-year-old girl assumed a defense posture, putting her- self between Taylor and her little brother. She looked at Taylor and said, half fearful, half angry, “What are you going to do to us?”


Taylor was shattered. “Here I come in with all my SWAT gear on, dressed in armor from head to toe, and this little girl looks up at me, and her only thought is to defend her little brother. I thought, How can we be the good guys when we come into the house looking like this, screaming and pointing guns at the people they love? How can we be the good guys when a little girl looks up at me and wants to fight me?And for what? What were we accomplishing with all of this? Absolutely nothing.”


Taylor was later appointed police chief of the small town of Winfield, Missouri. Winfield was too small for its own SWAT team, even in the 2000s, but Taylor says she’d have quit before she ever created one. “Good police work has nothing to do with dressing up in black and breaking into houses in the middle of the night. And the mentality changes when they get put on the SWAT team. I remember a guy I was good friends with, it just completely changed him. The us-versus-them mentality takes over. You see that mentality in regular patrol officers too. But it’s much, much worse on the SWAT team. They’re more concerned with the drugs than they are with innocent bystanders. Because when you get into that mentality, there are no innocent people. There’s us and there’s the enemy. Children and dogs are always the easiest casualties.”





Taylor recently ran into the little girl who changed the way she thought about policing. Now in her twenties, the girl told Taylor that she and her brother had nightmares for years after the raid. They slept in the same bed until the boy was eleven. “That was a difficult day at work for me,” she says. “But for her, this was the most traumatic, defining moment of this girl’s life. Do you know what we found? We didn’t find any weapons. No big drug operation. We found three joints and a pipe.”1


***


POLICE MILITARIZATION WOULD ACCELERATE IN THE 2000S. The first half of the decade brought a new and lucrative source of funding and equipment: homeland security. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, the federal government opened a new spigot of funding in the name of fighting terror. Terrorism would also provide new excuses for police agencies across the country to build up their arsenals and for yet smaller towns to start up yet more SWAT teams. The second half of the decade also saw more mission creep for SWAT teams and more pronounced militarization even outside of drug policing. The 1990s trend of government officials using paramilitary tactics and heavy- handed force to make political statements or to make an example of certain classes of nonviolent offenders would continue, especially in response to political protests. The battle gear and aggressive policing would also start to move into more mundane crimes—SWAT teams have recently been used even for regulatory inspections.


But the last few years have also seen some trends that could spur some movement toward reform. Technological advances in personal electronic devices have armed a large percentage of the public with the power to hold police more accountable with video and audio recordings. The rise of social media has enabled citizens to get accounts of police abuses out and quickly disseminated. This has led to more widespread coverage of botched raids and spread awareness of how, how often, and for what purpose this sort of force is being used. Over just the six years I’ve been covering this issue, I’ve noticed that media accounts of drug raids have become less deferential to police. Reporters have become more willing to ask questions about the appropriateness of police tactics and more likely to look at how a given raid fits into broader policing trends, both locally and nationally. Internet commenters on articles about incidents in which police may have used excessive force also seem to have grown more skeptical about police actions, particularly in botched drug raids.






It’s taken nearly a half-century to get from those Supreme Court decisions in the mid-1960s to where we are today—police militarization has happened gradually, over decades. We tend not to take notice of such long-developing trends, even when they directly affect us. The first and perhaps largest barrier to halting police militarization has probably been awareness. And that at least seems to be changing. Whether it leads to any substantive change may be the theme of the current decade.


***


BY THE MID-1990S, THE BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM CONGRESS had started in 1988 had pushed police departments across the country to prioritize drug crimes over other investigations. When applying for grants, departments are rewarded with funding for statistics such as the number of overall arrests, the number of warrants served, or the number of drug seizures. Those priorities, then, are passed down to police officers themselves and are reflected in how they’re evaluated, reviewed, and promoted. Perversely, actual success in reducing crime is generally not rewarded with federal money, on the presumption that the money ought to go where it’s most needed—high-crime areas. So the grants reward police departments for making lots of easy arrests (i.e., low-level drug offenders) and lots of seizures (regardless of size), and for serving lots of warrants. When it comes to tapping into federal funds, whether any of that actually reduces crime or makes the community safer is irrelevant—and in fact, successfully fighting crime could hurt a department’s ability to rake in federal money.






But the most harmful product of the Byrne grant program may be its creation of hundreds of regional and multijurisdictional narcotics task forces. That term—“narcotics task force”—pops up frequently in the case studies and horror stories throughout this book. There’s a reason for that. While the Reagan and Bush administrations had set up a number of drug task forces in border zones, the Byrne grant program established similar task forces all across the country. They seemed particularly likely to pop up in rural areas that didn’t yet have a paramilitary police team (what few were left).


The task forces are staffed with local cops drawn from the police agencies in the jurisdictions where the task force operates. Some squads loosely report to a state law enforcement agency, but oversight tends to be minimal to nonexistent. Because their funding comes from the federal government—and whatever asset forfeiture proceeds they reap from their investigations—local officials can’t even control them by cutting their budget. This organizational structure makes some task forces virtually unaccountable, and certainly not accountable to any public official in the region they cover.


As a result, we have roving squads of drug cops, loaded with SWAT gear, who get more money if they conduct more raids, make more arrests, and seize more property, and they are virtually immune to accountability if they get out of line. In 2009 the Justice Department attempted a cost-benefit analysis of these task forces but couldn’t even get to the point of crunching the numbers. The task forces weren’t producing any numbers to crunch. “Not only were data insufficient to estimate what task forces accomplished,” the report read, “data were inadequate to even tell what the task forces did for routine work.”


Not surprisingly, the proliferation of heavily armed task forces that have little accountability and are rewarded for making lots of busts has resulted in some abuse.


The most notorious scandal involving these task forces came in the form of a massive drug sting in the town of Tulia, Texas. On July 23, 1999, the task force donned black ski-mask caps and full SWAT gear to conduct a series of coordinated predawn raids across






Tulia. By 4:00 AM, forty black people—10 percent of Tulia’s black population—and six whites were in handcuffs. The Tulia Sentineldeclared, “We do not like these scumbags doing business in our town. [They are] a cancer in our community, it’s time to give them a major dose of chemotherapy behind bars.” The paper followed up with the headline “Tulia’s Streets Cleared of Garbage.”


The raids were based on the investigative work of Tom Coleman, a sort of freelance cop who, it would later be revealed, had simply invented drug transactions that had never occurred.


The first trials resulted in convictions—based entirely on the credibility of Tom Coleman. The defendants received long sentences. For those who were arrested but still awaiting trial, plea bargains that let them avoid prison time began to look attractive, even if they were in- nocent. Coleman was even named Texas lawman or the year.


But there were some curious details about the raids. For such a large drug bust, the task force hadn’t recovered any actual drugs. Or any weapons, for that matter. And it wasn’t for a lack of looking. The task force cops had all but destroyed the interiors of the homes they raided. Then some cases started falling apart. One woman Coleman claimed sold him drugs could prove she was in Oklahoma City at the time. Coleman had described another woman as six months pregnant—she wasn’t. Another suspect could prove he was at work during the alleged drug sale. By 2004, nearly all of the forty-six suspects were either cleared or pardoned by Texas governor Rick Perry. The jurisdictions the task force served eventually settled a lawsuit with the defendants for $ 6 million. In 2005, Coleman was convicted of perjury. He received ten years’ probation and was fined $ 7,500.3


The following year, it all happened again. In November 2000, SWAT teams from the Byrne-funded South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force rolled into Hearne, a town of about five thousand people in Robertson County, to wage another series of coordinated raids. The raids netted twenty-eight arrests—twenty-seven of the suspects were black. One of them was Regina Kelly, a single mother. Kelly wasn’t home when her house was raided, she was waiting tables at a local diner.


The police marched her off the job in handcuffs and tossed her in a jail cell. She first thought she had been arrested for unpaid parking tickets. Kelly’s court-appointed attorney encouraged her to take a plea bargain. Plead guilty, and she’d get eighteen years’ probation. She’d get no prison time and wouldn’t lose her kids. She refused. “I wasn’t going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do,” she told me in a 2007 interview. The attorney went back to DA John Paschall, who then offered five years’ probation. Kelly again refused, and told her attorney to ask for the evidence they had used to indict her. Her attorney brought back a tape recording the DA’s office claimed was evidence of her drug sales. The tape recording was a conversation between two men. There were no female voices, and Kelly’s name was never mentioned. Kelly’s bail was then reduced from $ 70,000 to $ 10,000. Her parents were able to post bond, and she never had to go to court again. She was eventually cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.






In part because of Kelly’s courageous refusal to accept a plea bargain for a crime she didn’t commit, we now know that all twenty- eight indictments were based on the word of a single confidential informant. Paschall’s office was forced to admit that the informant had both tampered with evidence and failed a polygraph test. At the civil trial for the lawsuit brought by Kelly and other defendants, the informant testified that Paschall had given him a list of twenty black men. He promised leniency for the informant’s own burglary charge if he helped Paschall convict the men on the list. The informant also testified he was promised $ 100 for every suspect he helped convict beyond that list of twenty. The lawsuit was settled in 2005. Of the twenty-eight people charged, seventeen were later exonerated. The 2008 movie American Violet was based on Kelly’s experience after she was arrested.


But similar mass round-up raids had been going on in Hearne for fifteen years. “They come on helicopters, military-style, SWAT style,” Kelly told me. “In the apartments I was living in, in the projects, there were a lot of children outside playing. They don’t care. They throw kids on the ground, put guns to their heads. They’re kicking in doors. They just don’t care.”






In the following years, there were numerous other corruption scandals, botched raids, sloppy police work, and other allegations of misconduct against the federally funded task forces in Texas. Things got so that by the middle of the 2000s Gov. Rick Perry began diverting state matching funds away from the task forces to other programs. The cut in funding forced many task forces to shut down. The stream of lawsuits shut down or limited the operations of others. In 2001 the state had fifty-one federally funded task forces. By the spring of 2006, it was down to twenty-two.


Funding for the Byrne grant program had held steady at about $ 500 million through most of the Clinton administration. Just as it had done with the cops program, the Bush administration began to pare the program down—to about $ 170 million by 2008. This was more out of an interest in limiting federal influence on law enforcement than concern for police abuse or drug war excesses.


But the reaction from law enforcement was interesting. In March 2008, Byrne-funded task forces across the country staged a series of coordinated drug raids dubbed Operation Byrne Blitz. The intent was to make a series of large drug seizures to demonstrate how important the Byrne grants were to fighting the drug war. In Kentucky alone, for example, task forces uncovered 23 methamphetamine labs, seized more than 2,400 pounds of marijuana, and arrested 565 people for illegal drug use. Of course, if police in a single state could simply go out and find 23 meth labs and 2,400 pounds of marijuana in twenty-four hours just to make a political point about drug war funding, that was probably a good indication that twenty years of Byrne grants and four decades of drug warring hadn’t really accomplished much.


During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized Bush and the Republicans for cutting Byrne, a federal police program beloved by his running mate Joe Biden. Despite Tulia, Hearne, a growing pile of bodies from botched drug raids, and the objections of groups as diverse as the ACLU, the Heritage Foundation, La Raza, and the Cato Institute, Obama promised to restore full funding to the program, which, he said, “has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need.” He kept his promise. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act resuscitated the Byrne grants with a whopping $ 2 billion infusion, by far the largest budget in the program’s twenty-year history.






***


EARLY IN THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2000, AGENTS from the DEA, the FBI, and a Stanislaus County, California, narcotics task force conducted raids on fourteen homes in and around Modesto—the culmination of a nineteen-month investigation. One of the homes was that of Moises Sepulveda and his family. According to the Los Angeles Times, the DEA and FBI asked that the local SWAT teams enter each home unannounced in order to secure the area ahead of the federal agents, who would then come to serve the warrants and search for evidence. Federal agents warned the SWAT teams that the targets of the warrants should be considered armed and dangerous. When local police asked if there were any children in the Sepulveda home, the feds answered, “Not aware of any.”


There were. Moises Sepulveda had three children—a daughter and two sons. After the police forcibly entered the Sepulveda home, Moises, his wife, and his children were ordered to lie face-down on the floor with their arms outstretched. They were then told to remain still as officers pointed guns at their heads. Eleven-year-old Alberto was doing just that—lying still under the gun of Officer David Hawn. But shortly after the raid began, Hawn’s gun went off. The boy died instantly.


There were no drugs or guns in the Sepulveda home. A subsequent internal investigation by the Modesto Police Department found that the DEA’s evidence against Moises Sepulveda—who had no previous criminal record—was “minimal.” The city of Modesto and the federal government settled a lawsuit brought by the Sepulvedas for the death of their son for $ 3 million.


In response to the incident, California attorney general Bill Lockyer assembled a blue ribbon commission to review the procedures, guidelines, and performance of the state’s hundreds of SWAT teams.


The Modesto Bee reported in 2001 that the commission would look at the way SWAT teams were deployed, the use of intimidating clothing and equipment, and, in the words of one commissioner, the “overbearing-type attitudes” of SWAT teams.





Unsurprisingly, the commission found that while SWAT teams were generally justified, defended, and regarded as responders to emergency situations like hostage crises and terror attacks, they were most commonly being used to serve drug warrants. Nevertheless, the panel’s final recommendations did little to address the number of SWAT teams, how they were being used, or police militarism in general. The panel’s chief complaint was that SWAT teams were undertrained and underfunded, suggesting that local, state, and federal government should be throwing more funding and resources at SWAT teams, not less. The other recommendations consisted largely of standardizing procedures, definitions, and guidelines and communicating better with the public. The commission didn’t address any of the more urgent problems that had plagued the state’s SWAT teams over the previous twenty years, such as SWAT teams launching raids based on uncorroborated tips from informants, asset forfeiture incentivizing the use of aggressive policing, or prosecutors and judges neglecting their duty to scrutinize the warrants authorizing these violent raids.


In the end, even if every SWAT team in the state had implemented the panel’s recommendations (and they were by no means obligated to), it’s unlikely that much would have changed. In fact, if the suggestions had been implemented in the 1990s, it seems unlikely that they would have prevented the death of Alberto Sepulveda, the reason for Lockyer’s panel in the first place.


Back in the early 1970s, nationwide outrage over a series of wrong-door drug raids had inspired furious politicians to hastily call congressional hearings; as a consequence, the law that had authorized those raids was repealed. Now, in 2000, an eleven-year-old boy had just been obliterated at close range with a shotgun as his parents and siblings lay on the ground beside him. And even that wasn’t enough to stop his own town from discontinuing the aggressive tactics that caused his death. The mistakes, the terrorizing of innocents, and the unnecessary fatalities would continue.



 


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



"They Throw Kids on the Ground, Put Guns to Their Heads" -- The Horrors Unleashed by Police Militarization

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Egypt braced for protests as Mursi stands ground




Protesters with flags and a banner reading


1 of 3. Protesters with flags and a banner reading ”Leave” gather near a lit flare as they chant anti-Mursi and anti-Muslim Brotherhood slogans in Tahrir square, while listening to President Mohamed Mursi’s public address, in Cairo June 26, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Asmaa Waguih






CAIRO | Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:48am EDT



CAIRO (Reuters) – Egypt faces a showdown in the streets after President Mohamed Mursi failed, in an address to the nation, to satisfy the demands of opponents who want the Islamist to step down after a year in office.


Days of brawling between his supporters and their rivals have already left several dead and scores injured and the camps now plan mass rallies, raising the risk of bigger clashes that the army warns could prompt it to take command again.


On Friday, Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood and their allies will gather in Cairo, as will some opposition groups. On Sunday, the opposition hopes millions will heed their call, a year to the day since Mursi became Egypt’s first freely elected leader.


“I am more determined than ever to go out on June 30 to demand the removal of an absolutely irresponsible president,” Khaled Dawoud, spokesman for a coalition of liberal parties, said on Thursday after Mursi’s marathon late-night address.


The army, which helped protesters topple Hosni Mubarak in 2011, says it will act if politicians cannot reach consensus. The United States, which continues to fund the military as it did under Mubarak, has urged Egypt’s leaders to pull together.


Mursi described his opponents as “enemies” and “saboteurs” loyal to the ousted dictator, whose “corruption” had thwarted him and driven the economy into crisis, though he conceded he had made some mistakes and promised reforms.


He also offered talks on “national reconciliation” and constitutional change to end the polarization and paralysis that he said threatened democracy.


Opponents dismissed that as nothing new. Mursi and his allies complain that their opponents, defeated by the highly mobilized Islamist groups in a series of elections last year, are bad losers who have repeatedly snubbed offers to cooperate.


They in turn say Mursi makes such proposals in bad faith, accusing him of usurping the revolution by entrenching Brotherhood control of the state and “Islamizing” society to the detriment of more secular Egyptians and religious minorities.


“I feel ashamed that this man has become a president of my state,” said Mahmoud Badr, the 28-year-old journalist behind a petition which he says has garnered 15 million signatures calling on Mursi to quit or face mass sit-ins from Sunday.


“Our demand was early presidential elections and since that was not addressed anywhere in the speech then our response will be on the streets on June 30,” said Badr, who told Reuters he had voted for Mursi in last year’s presidential run-off against Mubarak’s last prime minister. “I hope he’ll be watching.”


Islamists say the opposition tactics amount to a “coup” and many who were jailed under Mubarak fear a return of army rule.


INTERNATIONAL CONCERN


Urging peaceful protests – and warning “violence will only lead to violence” – Mursi urged his opponents to focus on parliamentary elections, which may be held this year, rather than on “undemocratic” demands to overturn his election on the streets: “I say to the opposition, the road to change is clear,” he said. “Our hands are extended.”


Instability in the biggest Arab nation could send shocks well beyond its borders. Signatory to a key, U.S.-backed peace treaty with Israel, Egypt also controls the Suez Canal, a vital link in global transport networks between Europe and Asia.


“Egypt is historically a critical country to this region U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is on a tour of the Middle East, said on Wednesday, highlighting economic problems.


“Our hopes are that all parties … whether it is the demonstration that takes place on Friday or the demonstration that takes place on Sunday, will all engage in peaceful, free expression … but not engage in violence but help the democracy of Egypt to be able to make the right choices,” Kerry said.


With the government short of cash and seeking funding from allies and the IMF, Kerry said Egypt should curb unrest in order to attract investment and restore vital tourism income. The U.S. ambassador in Cairo has angered opposition activists by saying explicitly that their protests risked being counter-productive.


The secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Cairo-born Turkish academic Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, raised the alarm about the fragility of the democracy Egyptians secured in the Arab Spring uprising two and half years ago:


“I hope Egyptian politics do not become polarized and that the polarization does not turn into clashes,” he told Egypt’s state news agency MENA. “Because if that happened, then it means that there will not be a democratic solution.”


The Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence on its right to rule as it sees fit because of its electoral mandate has drawn comparison with the way Turkey’s Islamist-rooted government, dismissed street protesters earlier this month. In both cases, critics say large minority voices have been ignored.


THREATS


Mursi threatened legal action against several named senior figures and raised the possibility of using military law codes in some cases. He said some judges and civil servants were obstructing him, and accused liberal media owners of bias.


Those attacks, as well as flashes of humor in the speech, showed a more animated Mursi than most Egyptians have seen since he emerged from obscurity as a last-minute stand-in to carry the Brotherhood’s banner in the presidential election. That may play well with his core supporters, if not with critics.


With protesters planning to gather around the presidential palace in a Cairo suburb, the head of the Republican Guard was quoted by the state news agency saying his men would not deploy outside the walls of the compound and so would not confront them – unless “there is an attempt to storm the gates”.


On Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the cradle of the revolution, people have pitched tents and are preparing to demonstrate. As Mursi spoke on a nearby television overnight, Ayman Anwar, a 55-year old computer engineer, was watching with disdain.


“I didn’t come out tonight to listen,” he said. “I came out because I’m angry. No one could have imagined that this would happen to Egypt. We’ve replaced one dictator with another.”


(Reporting by Shaimaa Fayed, Patrick Werr, Asmaa Alsharif, Tom Perry, Maggie Fick, Yasmine Saleh, Omar Fahmy, Alexander Dziadosz and Shadia Nasralla; writing by Alastair Macdonald; editing by Philippa Fletcher)





Reuters: Top News



Egypt braced for protests as Mursi stands ground